2002

Re: Accents

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1260  Wednesday, 8 May 2002

[1]     From:   Peter Groves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 04 May 2002 08:13:51 +1000 (EST)
        Subj:   RE: SHK 13.1231 Re: Accents

[2]     From:   R.A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 07 May 2002 09:46:15 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1251 Re: Accents

[3]     From:   David Wallace <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 07 May 2002 20:36:45 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1251 Re: Accents


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Groves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 04 May 2002 08:13:51 +1000 (EST)
Subject: 13.1231 Re: Accents
Comment:        RE: SHK 13.1231 Re: Accents

[Editor


Non-Shakespearian Drama Database

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1259  Tuesday, 7 May 2002

From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 7 May 2002 13:45:02 +0100
Subject:        Non-Shakespearian Drama Database

NON-SHAKESPEARIAN DRAMA DATABASE

About a month ago began a new round of improvement to the
Non-Shakespearian Drama Database. This free, web-mounted, database holds
information on the 589 plays not by Shakespeare performed on the
professional London stage between 1567 and 1642. Using raw data supplied
(with permission) by Chadwyck-Healey's Literature Online database, an
international team of volunteers has been adding data fields from Alfred
Harbage's _Annals of English Drama_. This process is now complete and
version 2.0 of the database is available at:

www.totus.org/nsdd

In its present form the database provides an electronic, searchable,
form of Harbage's _Annals_ for the extant plays. (LION, being a provider
of full-texts, is concerned only with extant works.)

The next phase of development will be the filling of a few holes in the
database (fields for which the volunteers could not find answers in
Harbage).  After that, I propose to put back in the 121 plays which I
originally excluded because they were obviously not professional drama
(such things as entertainments for aristocrats, closet drama, etc). LION
lists 711 works of 'drama' for the period and on reflection there is no
reason to formally exclude the non-professional works since a) some
slipped through anyway, and b) they can be easily identified and ignored
by users of the database.

Gabriel Egan

PS Volunteers who worked on the database are requested to check that
they have been properly acknowledged on the above website.

_______________________________________________________________
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: Truths

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1257  Tuesday, 7 May 2002

[1]     From:   Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 6 May 2002 19:01:27 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1241 Re: Truths

[2]     From:   Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 6 May 2002 21:36:06 +0100
        Subj:   SHK 13.1229 Truths

[3]     From:   Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 6 May 2002 15:57:57 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1241 Re: Truths

[4]     From:   Annalisa Castaldo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 6 May 2002 20:14:19 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 13.1241 Re: Truths


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 6 May 2002 19:01:27 +0100
Subject: 13.1241 Re: Truths
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1241 Re: Truths

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

>An earlier version of a similar paradox (from Plato, I believe) went
>something like this:  "I am Cretan.  All Cretans are liars".

Probably originating with Eubulides of Miletus (4thC BC).  It sometimes
gets attributed to Zeno (and linked to the Achilles and the tortoise
paradox).

But really, very unPlatonic.  Its earliest formulations post-date Plato,
who I imagine would have considered it typical Sophistry.

Robin Hamilton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 6 May 2002 21:36:06 +0100
Subject: Truths
Comment:        SHK 13.1229 Truths

Gabriel Egan responds, "my assertion invoked place unnecessarily.  There
is still a paradox, though. "There are no universal truths" includes
itself so it's not universally true. If it's not universally true that
there are no universal truths, there must be universal truths".

I am unclear as to how one can dismiss the idea of "Place" (even as
merely an Idea) when thinking about things that might or might not be
"universal", a term which comprehends the concept of space and time.

Sean Lawrence offers: "One can have an idea of a horse with no horses
existing physically in our world.  A universal truth is itself an idea,
however, so it can't be checked against something extant 'out there'.
To have [this?] idea is to have it".

That was indeed the point I was trying to make, I think, although Sean
will notice that he has made me modify my position on horses. Because
"universal truth" can never be anything more than an Idea, it can never
be universal like the Idea of "horse", which is universal insofar as it
exists in all places where horses exist (still not quite universal, as
we can see: pre-Columbian America presumably had no Idea of "horse"). I
believe that this goes some way to answering Gabriel's problem, too. But
it only reiterates the point that "universal truth" is merely an Idea
that calls itself universal, creating a universal space for itself
within the true universe, so we will just have to disagree. Cf. the
universal truth that "the number of prime numbers is infinite"; which
looks like a nonsense when placed beside the equally universal truth
that "the number of integers is infinite". This is not a paradox, as it
appears, because the two Ideas exist within quite separate spaces within
the universe that contains all forms of mathematical expression. I guess
it's set theory, or something (my memory of school maths is sketchy, to
say the least).

Pilatically yours (jesting, but still prepared to stay for an answer, as
long as judicious Hardy forbears telling us to shove off to
EpistemologyOnline*),

m

* as far as I am aware, I made this up.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 6 May 2002 15:57:57 -0500
Subject: 13.1241 Re: Truths
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1241 Re: Truths

Far be it from me to cause trouble (actually I love it) but when Sean
Lawrence  writes --

"An earlier version of a similar paradox (from Plato, I believe) went
something like this:  "I am Cretan.  All Cretans are liars".  The word
'all' is what makes the claim into a paradox.  If the speaker simply
said "Many Cretans are liars" or "My neighbours are all liars", then he
wouldn't be including himself in the statement, which is what produces
the paradox."

-- I have to protest

The statement is not self-contradictory and thus not paradoxical unless
you say, "Cretans always lie." The term "liar" is an insulting term for
someone who frequently lies (or even, in other cases, for someone who
tells a lie once). It doesn't mean someone who never tells the truth.

Isn't this (as revised: "I am a Cretan and Cretans always lie") just
version of the legendary, "This statement is false"?

(While we're on the subject: my favorite is Blake's "To generalize is to
be an idiot.")

Cheers,
don

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Annalisa Castaldo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 6 May 2002 20:14:19 -0400
Subject: 13.1241 Re: Truths
Comment:        RE: SHK 13.1241 Re: Truths

"Well, the sun does come up, and goes down, every single day of the
year, doesn't it?"

I wasn't actually referring to physical reality, but no, the sun doesn't
actually come up or go down. That is our perception, based on our
specific location on the planet Earth. It came as quite a shock when it
was proved (I use the passive because I'm not sure if it was Coperinicus
or not) that the earth went around the sun, rather than vice versa. My
point remains. What we perceive or believe or absolutely know to be true
is based, at least in part, on subjective aspects that are subject to
change. Sometimes the possible changes are quite obvious and sometimes
they are very, very difficult to even imagine.

I want to add, as well, that I understand and even support that some
subjectivities are worth continuing to believe, even if they are not
really 'true.' Just because I believe in the theories of modern physics
doesn't mean I play in traffic!

"And didn't Shakespeare speak of the "Soul"?"

Absolutely! And if you and I could not only agree on what Shakespeare
meant by a soul, but also whether or not that idea was "true reality"
I'd be quite willing to stop being a relativist!

Annalisa Castaldo

_______________________________________________________________
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: Questions on Much Ado About Nothing

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1258  Tuesday, 7 May 2002

From:           David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 6 May 2002 23:06:49 -0400
Subject: 13.1197 Re: Questions on Much Ado About Nothing
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1197 Re: Questions on Much Ado About Nothing

> Conrade says "I am a Gentlemen" and Borachio clearly is not...he is
> "entertained for a perfumer"

Christopher Moore needs to understand that the early modern categories
"servant" and "gentleman" were not mutually exclusive.  Gentility was a
function sometimes of birth (originally, son of somebody who owned land
at some point given by the monarch to the someone or one of his
ancestors for services rendered; later, son of somebody who bought that
land from the someone or one of his descendants-Shakespeare applied for
a coat of arms and the right to be called Mr. on that basis), sometimes
of education (if you earned an Oxford or Cambridge M.A. you also earned
gentility), sometimes of achievement on the battlefield or in some other
socially valuable activity.

Service, by contrast, was a more or less freely chosen social role, in
which a person put her or himself under the more or less absolute
control of somebody of higher social or economic status for primarily
economic (but sometimes political, to the extent that these categories
are distinct) reasons.  Thus William Cecil, later Sir William, later
Lord Burghley, became the servant of Elizabeth Tudor, and remained in
that role until his death.  Thanks especially to the law of
primogeniture, the younger sons (and daughters) of gentlemen routinely
took service under gentlemen and women in order to sustain themselves.
By 1600, one quarter to one third of all London apprentices were
gentlemen's sons.  The personal servants-gentlemen and ladies in
waiting-of gentlemen and women were likely to be gentlemen and women
themselves; the higher the rank of the master the more likely that this
was the case.  A prince, like Don John, was almost certain to have
gentlemen as his servants.  Borachio is perhaps less high-born than
Conrade-he speaks in a somewhat freer and more demotic vein, and he
seems to take a more largely entrepreneurial approach to his life.  When
assignments are given out for Leonato's party, Borachi apparently  gets
one nominally more onerous than Conrade's, but still pretty
agreeable-he's not seeing to it that there is wood in the fireplaces,
nor emptying the chamberpots.  And is still able to retail the new he
has gathered on a pretty free and easy basis to his demi-royal master,
and to his fellow-servant.  Note, by the way, that it is Conrade, not
Borachio, who repeatedly addresses the bourgeois gentlemen of the
Messina town watch as "Masters" (Arden 3.3.165-68).

Serviceably,
Dave Evett

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Henry VI

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1256  Tuesday, 7 May 2002

From:           Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 6 May 2002 10:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:        Henry VI

I would love to discuss the Henry VI plays. I think that the plays are
highly underrated and highly underperformed, so much so that when they
are performed, one wonders why they are not performed more often.

I suppose one reason for this is that they are 3 plays. Hard to perform
all three if you are not the RSC or a very dedicated Shakespeare
company. It takes a lot of time to condense them into one or two plays
as well. Also to consider is the extreme condensation of time and the
intricate nature of the relations between characters.

Henry VI has some remarkable characters. First of these, and usually
forgotten amongst the great Shakespearean characters, is Queen Margaret.
Usually, she's "that crazy old woman" from Richard III or just cut. When
you do the entire sequence, it's hard to ignore this monumental
character. She ranges from quiet exploited innocent Frenchwoman to
adulterer and schemer to warrior-woman to butcher to poignant and
battered to defeated and heart broken. Absolutely stunning.

Henry VI is underrated because his role takes all of an actor's subtlety
and range to play. Richard Duke of York is powerful and heroic, yet also
scheming (wonderfully played by Clive Wood at the RSC last year). The
plays can be a bit uneven at times, but there are moments of profound
feeling and dramatic power which are difficult for me to forget. To this
date, one of my ultimate theatrical experiences has been seeing these
plays performed in sequence.

Brian Willis

_______________________________________________________________
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.