2002

Re: "Speaking Shakespeare"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2280  Wednesday, 13 November 2002

From:           Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Nov 2002 11:33:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 13.2259 Re: "Speaking Shakespeare"
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2259 Re: "Speaking Shakespeare"

Seeing as how Sam Mendes is now accomplished on both stage and screen, I
wonder if he has been tempted or will be tempted to film Shakespeare. A
thought. I suppose that one day, he will attempt it.

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.

Re: Much Ado About . . . Mountainmen

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2278  Wednesday, 13 November 2002

[1]     From:   Joachim Martillo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Nov 2002 14:30:47 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2263 Re: Much Ado About . . . Mountainme

[2]     From:   David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Nov 2002 14:43:26 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2263 Re: Much Ado About . . . Mountainmen

[3]     From:   D. Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 13 Nov 2002 07:40:39 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2263 Re: Much Ado About . . . Mountainmen


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Joachim Martillo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Nov 2002 14:30:47 EST
Subject: 13.2263 Re: Much Ado About . . . Mountainmen
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2263 Re: Much Ado About . . . Mountainmen

>#3 Over the past 40 years I have heard of studies being conducted by
>various groups from both the UK and the US.  Opinions varied but the
>overall view was that in Tenn., GA, KY and North Carolina there were/are
>pockets that have retained some vestige of pre-colonial English. You
>might start with Duke Univ.  Appalachia starts in Pennsylvania and ends
>in Arkansas(?).  This is a large piece of territory and so there would
>be many variations in dialect.

I thought the dialects preserved in the South were regionally incorrect
if one were trying to approximate Elizabethan London pronunciation.
Until very recently there was an alleged pre-colonial dialect spoken in
rural areas of New England particularly in Western MA and parts of NH
and Vermont.  It was supposed to originate in Southwest England.

I have read similar claims for the pineys in NJ.  And I vaguely remember
that certain NY dialects were particularly conservative in the
preservation of a wide array of vowel sounds.

I know that some common words where I grew up in NJ had yet to shift
long u to au although these pronunciations no longer exist.  Because a
lot of people still used voiced h in wh in parts of NJ, it was a long
time before I perceived which and witch as homonyms.  I do not know if
these pronunciations are colonial, pre-colonial or otherwise, but they
seem conservative.

I vaguely remember one claim that an educated Elizabethan Londoner would
sound like Franklin Roosevelt if he were speaking with a strong Irish
brogue.

If the proposal were true, such an accent would not sound particularly
Appalachian.

Joachim Martillo

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Nov 2002 14:43:26 -0500
Subject: 13.2263 Re: Much Ado About . . . Mountainmen
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2263 Re: Much Ado About . . . Mountainmen

>Southern drawl is not the language for witty
>byplay.

Egregious cultural chauvinism, John Velz. I'm only a Southerner by
experience--4 years at a Southern college, and a lifetime of exposure to
some very close friends of Southern origin.  In both connections I've
heard as much witty byplay as I ever heard while living in London or
dining with British friends.

I sense here an echo of the made-for-TV Much Ado (1973) with Sam
Waterston as Benedick and Kathleen Widdoes as Beatrice.  It is set in
the American South in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, but the
southern elements are mostly visual and ethical--ideals of honor and
gender, in particular--not matters of accent.

David Evett

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D. Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 13 Nov 2002 07:40:39 -0600
Subject: 13.2263 Re: Much Ado About . . . Mountainmen
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2263 Re: Much Ado About . . . Mountainmen

Haddon Judson writes:

>. . . I realize
>that the term "Hillbilly" is a product of Hollywood.

and

> . . .overall view was that in Tenn., GA, KY and North Carolina there
>were/are pockets that have retained some vestige of pre-colonial English.

I hate to be nit-picky, but I believe the term "hillbilly" antedates the
movie industry. The first listing in the old OED Supplement is 1904.

Likewise, I'm not sure how pre-colonial English could exist anywhere in
America, unless pre-colonial is a technical term has passed me by.

Just to be clear about it.

don

_______________________________________________________________
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: "Introductions, Annotations,

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2275  Wednesday, 13 November 2002

[1]     From:   Thomas Larque <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Nov 2002 19:15:33 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2270 Re: "Introductions, Annotations, and the
Electronic Edition"

[2]     From:   Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Nov 2002 22:58:05 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2270 Re: "Introductions, Annotations, and the
Electronic Edition"


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Larque <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Nov 2002 19:15:33 -0000
Subject: 13.2270 Re: "Introductions, Annotations, and the
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2270 Re: "Introductions, Annotations, and the
Electronic Edition"

>I immediately ran across this quote by Jonson:  "When his
>fancy is on the wing, let him not stoop at correction or explanation."
>(I searched up and down for the source of this line but couldn't find
>it, even at the virtual collected works at
>http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/jonson/benbib.htm.)

You have the wrong Jo(h)nson.  The words quoted are not from Ben Jonson,
but from Samuel Johnson, and can be found in his famous Preface to his
edition of Shakespeare.

The full quotation runs:

"Notes are often necessary, but they are necessary evils. Let him, that
is yet unacquainted with the powers of Shakespeare, and who desires to
feel the highest pleasure that the drama can give, read every play from
the first scene to the last, with utter negligence of all his
commentators. When his fancy is once on the wing, let it not stoop at
correction or explanation.  When his attention is strongly engaged, let
it disdain alike to turn aside to the name of Theobald and of Pope. Let
him read on through brightness and obscurity, through integrity and
corruption; let him preserve his comprehension of the dialogue and his
interest in the fable and when the pleasures of novelty have ceased, let
him attempt exactness, and read the commentators."

See http://www.bartleby.com/39/33.html .

So the application to modern editorial practice (and Hardy's essay) is
rather more direct than it could possibly have been in Ben Jonson's
day.  Samuel Johnson was one of the early editors in the modern sense,
in the process of editing Shakespeare with notes and commentary.  In Ben
Jonson's day, as far as I know, only the Bible was likely to be
annotated in anything like a similar fashion.

Thomas Larque
"Shakespeare and His Critics"
http://shakespearean.org.uk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Nov 2002 22:58:05 -0800
Subject: 13.2270 Re: "Introductions, Annotations, and the
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2270 Re: "Introductions, Annotations, and the
Electronic Edition"

>You have the wrong Jo(h)nson.  The words quoted are not from Ben
>Jonson, but from Samuel Johnson, and can be found in his famous
>Preface to his edition of Shakespeare.
>See http://www.bartleby.com/39/33.html .

Oh dear, misattribution via misspelling!  Seems to happen frequently
these days, for here's a message on H-Albion today regarding a quote
including "poverty of desire":  "I have not heard the line quoted
before, but on first glance it looks much more like the sort of thing
Nye Bevan would say than Ernest Bevin--could the Ealing studios book
have confused their names?"

Apologetically,
Al Magary

_______________________________________________________________
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: Altered Passages

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2277  Wednesday, 13 November 2002

[1]     From:   M. Yawney <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Nov 2002 11:26:53 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2262 Re: Altered Passages

[2]     From:   D. Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 13 Nov 2002 07:25:58 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2262 Re: Altered Passages


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           M. Yawney <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Nov 2002 11:26:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 13.2262 Re: Altered Passages
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2262 Re: Altered Passages

As a child, I read a book called "Doctor Bowlder's Legacy" which was a
history of Bowlderization.

It was pretty fascinating because it gave lots of examples of the
changes in the editions of Bowlder and others. If you can track it down,
it might be a good resource to use in finding interesting samples from
Bowlder's and other 19th century edited Shakespeares.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D. Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 13 Nov 2002 07:25:58 -0600
Subject: 13.2262 Re: Altered Passages
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2262 Re: Altered Passages

Peter Groves :

>I remember reading once that in Bowdler, Postumus' "Thy mistress,
>Pisanio, hath played the strumpet in my bed" (3.4.22) is given as "Thy
>mistress, Pisanio, hath played the trumpet in my bed" . . .

With a flourish, I presume.

d

[Editor


Re: SAA Meeting in Victoria

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2274  Wednesday, 13 November 2002

From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, November 13, 2002
Subject:        Re: SAA Meeting in Victoria

Dear SHAKSPEReans and especially those in Western Canada:

I apologize for my grievous mistake in misidentifying the site of this
year


Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.