2002

Re: "Esperance!"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2321  Friday, 22 November 2002

From:           John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Nov 2002 17:09:03 -0000
Subject: 13.2313 Re: "Esperance!"
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2313 Re: "Esperance!"

Larry Weiss wrote:

>It seems likely that "Esperance" was a Percy family motto and battle
>cry. But that does not exclude the possibility that Hotspur also used it
>for the name of his horse (in Hen IV, II.iii.71) and sword (in V.ii.96).

It is difficult to judge the level of irony in Larry Weiss' post
(particularly "it seems likely"), but for the benefit of the confused I
would point out that the motto of the Dukes of Northumberland is
"Esp


Re: The Strumpet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2320  Friday, 22 November 2002

[1]     From:   Franklin J. Hildy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 20 Nov 2002 12:08:02 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2308 Re: The Strumpet

[2]     From:   Michael B. Luskin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 20 Nov 2002 12:15:41 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2308 Re: The Strumpet

[3]     From:   Tom Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 20 Nov 2002 12:19:11 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2308 Re: The Strumpet

[4]     From:   Matthew Cheung <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Nov 2002 22:27:35 +0000
        Subj:   Strumpet


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Franklin J. Hildy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Nov 2002 12:08:02 -0500
Subject: 13.2308 Re: the Strumpet
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2308 Re: the Strumpet

Don:

Please send me a copy of your book right away.  Does anyone know where I
could get a strumpet to play upon?  How long does it take to learn the
proper fingering of a strumpet?  Our production of R&J is next March and
I would like to have a strumpet or two in the show. My thanks to you and
Tom for this enlightening exchange on strumpets and strumpeting.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael B. Luskin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Nov 2002 12:15:41 EST
Subject: 13.2308 Re: the Strumpet
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2308 Re: the Strumpet

>especially
>since the instrument seems to have gone the way of the serpent and the
>hardart

The strumpet is often seen in the company of the horn and hardart.

Michael B. Luskin

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tom Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Nov 2002 12:19:11 -0500
Subject: 13.2308 Re: the Strumpet
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2308 Re: the Strumpet

Alan Somerset:

>The meaning of "strumpet" as a musical instrument, suggested by
>Tom Bishop, is unrecorded in OED, so I'm suspicious, unless some
>literary usages can be adduced.

Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress Pt 2:

"So he passed over, and all the strumpets sounded for him on the other
side."

TB

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Matthew Cheung <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 21 Nov 2002 22:27:35 +0000
Subject:        Strumpet

Hello everyone.  Thanks for the insight into the origin of strumpet, but
doesn't it also mean prostitute?  Hamlet calls Fortune a strumpet in Act
2 when he's with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and again when he's with
Polonius.  So how did we get from a musical instrument to prostitute?
Forgive me if this question seems elementary, but I'm young.

Matt

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Again Arden Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2318  Wednesday, 20 November 2002

From:           Brenno Kenji <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 18 Nov 2002 18:46:52 -0300
Subject:        Again Arden Shakespeare

Does anyone know the difference between the Arden Shakespeare Editions
and the Arden Shakespeare Playgoer's Editions? Since I am in Brazil, I
could never open one to see...and at Amazon.com, all I could notice was
that they had different covers... is that the only difference?

[Editor


Re: Anything Goes

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2319  Wednesday, 20 November 2002

[1]     From:   David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 19 Nov 2002 13:07:25 GMT0BST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2300 Re: Anything Goes

[2]     From:   Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 19 Nov 2002 08:29:52 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2300 Re: Anything Goes

[3]     From:   David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 19 Nov 2002 15:13:07 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2300 Re: Anything Goes

[4]     From:   Arthur Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 20 Nov 2002 10:05:29 +0800 (SGT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2300 Re: Anything Goes

[5]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 19 Nov 2002 08:18:00 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2300 Re: Anything Goes


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 19 Nov 2002 13:07:25 GMT0BST
Subject: 13.2300 Re: Anything Goes
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2300 Re: Anything Goes

>To Mr. Lindley:  Why bother to "re-create" what should never have been
>created?  Most productions are unworthy of intellectual resurrection.
>Or is everything produced at Stratford automatically exempt from that
>judgment?

No, everything at Stratford is not exempt from 'judgement'.  My point
is, precisely, that 'judgement' is not the point.  Different things are
being brought together as if they were the same.  The review of an
individual performance, is an attempt to 'judge' it, in order that the
readers of the review can decide whether or not they wish to see it.  I
might agree with you, indeed, about the quality of some film
performances of Shakespeare, and even echo your disparaging comments on
some (though by no means all) RSC performances.  But in writing the book
- as with other scholars putting together the line-by-line commentaries
in Shakespeare in Performance / Shakespeare Performed series, which you
also aimed a side-swipe at in a previous post - judgement of the
individual performance is not the primary (or even the secondary) aim.
Instead, one is attempting a number of different things, as I suggested
in my post, and won't reiterate again.

A bad performance can be as interesting as a good one, if one is not
simply bringing it to 'judgement', but trying to see why it is as it is,
and what that might tell us of its particular cultural moment. In
exactly the same way, in my work on the literature of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, a not very good text may be enormously revealing
of cultural attitudes etc. etc.  One might want to argue precisely that
it is in the second and third rate artistic productions of any period
that one can most accurately discern what is specific and confined to
that period.

To be interested in the larger issues raised by performances, whatever
their quality, is what distinguishes the academic from the
journalistic.  (I should emphasise that this is not a hierarchy, but a
difference - I rely on good journalism and good reviewing when deciding
whether to go and see something..)

David Lindley
University of Leeds

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 19 Nov 2002 08:29:52 -0600
Subject: 13.2300 Re: Anything Goes
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2300 Re: Anything Goes

Michael Shurgot

>Apparently Mr. Weinstein would have us all believe
>that such productions [regional professional, as those of the Seattle Rep
>(which I remember fondly)] re worthless, not only aesthetically and
>theatrically, but also pedagogically.

I don't believe that is what CW either meant or said. As I recall, he
was complaining about the propensity of SIP experts to treat the vast
number of mediocre productions as important critical topics, to fail to
sort out the wheat from the chaff -- and let the chaff blow away. I am
in no position to evaluate the validity of this complaint, but it
wouldn't surprise me. All of literary / artistic / cultural studies
seems to be collapsing into an apology for snobbery that involves the
denial of any degrees of quality whatsoever.

I feel a little sorry for people who believe so little in the meaning
and value of what they have devoted their lives to.

Cheers,
don

(After all, Scooby-Doo has probably influenced more Americans than WS,
hasn't it?)

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 19 Nov 2002 15:13:07 -0500
Subject: 13.2300 Re: Anything Goes
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2300 Re: Anything Goes

>To Mr. Evett:  What would "relativity" mean in this context?  "X's
>performance was bad in absolute terms, but compared to what an even
>worse actor might have done, it was acceptable?"

I'm a little disappointed that Mr. Weinstein, who seems to take pride in
his abilities as a comic actor, is not, apparently, witty enough in
himself to be comfortable in that aspect of the Falstaffian role that is
"the cause that wit is in other men."   My clerihew doubtless does not
use the term "relativity" with that scientific rigor I ought to have
invested it with.  But I am prepared to surmise that most members of the
list will agree with me that Mr. Weinstein has displayed in his many
postings over the years a critical attitude that can fairly be called
"absolutist," in which actors are either good or bad, productions are
either "landmarks" or "justly forgotten," and not to ignore the mediocre
utterly is to nourish it.

I do wonder how he can dare to let himself be cast, knowing as he must
know that the production is almost certainly doomed to fail.  Or, if
cast, how he can bring himself to think hard and work hard on his part.
Because of course, by his argument, it could not then matter to some
student of the piece a week or a decade later that Mr. Weinstein's own
performance was worth analyzing and remembering, however mediocre its
context.

Indeed, I am generally puzzled by his invocation of the Johnsonian "test
of time," surely a very difficult thing to apply to material as
inherently evanescent as theatrical production, even of "landmark"
calibre.

Relativistically,
David Evett

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Arthur Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Nov 2002 10:05:29 +0800 (SGT)
Subject: 13.2300 Re: Anything Goes
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2300 Re: Anything Goes

>To Mr. Lindley:  Why bother to "re-create" what should never have been
>created?  Most productions are unworthy of intellectual resurrection.
>Or is everything produced at Stratford automatically exempt from that
>judgment?

I am not aware of what Mr. Weinstein is responding to.  Presumably he
has me mixed up with someone else.

Arthur Lindley

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 19 Nov 2002 08:18:00 -0800
Subject: 13.2300 Re: Anything Goes
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2300 Re: Anything Goes

My friends, have we missed the point?  Apparently, Mr. Weinstein's
comments were as clueless as so many of you have described, but hidden
within them is the possibility that he will not post any more of his
snide, cruel reviews where he compares actors unfavorably with animals
and makes those homophobic comments.  This strikes me as something to be
encouraged.

We'll just go about our work spreading knowledge and publishing
discoveries that inform each other.  He doesn't have to know.

All the best,
Mike Jensen

______________________________________________________________
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: "Speaking Shakespeare"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2317  Wednesday, 20 November 2002

From:           Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 19 Nov 2002 14:58:45 -0000
Subject: 13.2297 Re: "Speaking Shakespeare"
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2297 Re: "Speaking Shakespeare"

Until Sam's post, I had found that all the Americans I knew described
Mendes's American Beauty as pessimistic and grim, whereas all the
British thought it optimistic.

Sam wrote: "Mendes was also harping on that threadbare string, so often
plucked by English middle class chatterers, that suburbia is the Devil's
own community of sin." But because I saw it as an optimistic film, I
came away with a much more positive notion of Mendes's attitude towards
both America and suburbia. I thought the film was about "American
Beauty", without irony, whereas my American friends all took it to be
bitter and satirical. (It should be noted at this point that Sam has
recently confessed a hankering after emigrating to the other side of the
pond...)

Sam also described the film as "Full of overstuffed stereotypes",
charging that "Mendes has no real understanding of individuals -
everything is translated and interpreted in terms of mythical groups",
and that for this reason he should "leave Shakespeare alone". But this
seems to be the root of my American friends' misunderstanding (as I see
it) of American Beauty - they were not aware of Mendes's work in
Shakespearean Romance, and so were unable to put the film into the
context of his developing career. As a result, they seemed to miss the
positive aspects of the trials with which the film dealt, the notion of
redemption through everyday values of sympathy, etc.

I can't imagine that anyone who saw Mendes's excellent production of The
Tempest with the RSC in (I think) 1997 can have failed to have
appreciated the "beauty" of American Beauty...

martin s.

_______________________________________________________________
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.