Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: March ::
Re: Endings (and Beginnings) of Titus Andronicus
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0525  Tuesday, 18 March 2003

[1]     From:   Claude Caspar <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 17 Mar 2003 12:12:56 -0500
        Subj:   Re: Endings (and Beginnings) of Titus Andronicus

[2]     From:   Roger Parisious <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 17 Mar 2003 15:45:23 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: Endings (and Beginnings) of Titus Andronicus


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Claude Caspar <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 17 Mar 2003 12:12:56 -0500
Subject: 14.0508 Re: Endings (and Beginnings) of Titus
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0508 Re: Endings (and Beginnings) of Titus
Andronicus

On this whole question, let me share with you where my response and/or
reaction derives. First, let me confess I have not read Peele, nor
intend to.  Kermode's comment that, "Most scholars would agree that TA
is structurally much superior to any extant play of Peele's," gives me
the guidance I need to parse my time wisely. I may read Vicker's & will
be happy to report his arguments are compelling if that is the case- I
am on a mission of understanding and am not attached to my own ideas,
but the Truth as best I can gather it.

Regarding this issue at large though, after 40 years loving
Shakespeare's Work [I am almost 53], I see one of my first teacher's,
Philip Rodman, was right when he said that due to all the ways in which,
even hermeneutically, Shakespeare exceeds anyone's comprehension, each
of us is faced with being humbled or finding a way to get the goods on
him. Thus, was he a royal, a committee, any of the usual suspects. That
a nobody from the boondocks, without a university degree, (for no one
smarts as much as the academy that someone self-made is their true
Teacher & Master), had such a mind, such a grasp, such genius &
imagination- in other words everything, except our individual
preconceptions, that is baffling & troubling, even profoundly
disturbing.  Hence, the innate drive to discover the "Secret" that isn't
there, though secrets there are.  The more intelligent one is, the more
irksome it is to know how little we are in comparison. And, perhaps
worst!-that this guy who could do this had the lack of views he did. Why
WS is used by every camp to support their philosophy as no one in
history.  Some say he was Aristotelian, others Marxist, others supporter
of the establishment, or avatar of Nothingness. I don't have time, but I
bet those here engaged, sincere, learned, often informing, if one traced
their trajectory through these threads would reveal themselves to be in
the camp of the unbelievers.  Trace mine & you will see that this is the
soil in which my thoughts are rooted. Regardless of the particular
skirmishes, and as I said, I for one have no problem that due to his
nature he may very well have made his life easier, compromised for
reasons of politics or reward, and cut a corner, this is the compelling
psychological drive.  I find accepting him, giving him the benefit of
the doubt, makes my life, & Life richer.  This may make you think of
Bardolotry & Bloom, if not Falstaff- so soon, let's begin to sort out
his new wonderful book, Hamlet, Poem Unlimited.  Just seeing his
punctuation of the text is riveting- I am using the three-text Hamlet
for parallel readings.

I know that in particular cases I am doing an injustice- accept my
apologies & understand the larger injustice to the limits of the Human.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Roger Parisious <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 17 Mar 2003 15:45:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 14.0508 Re: Endings (and Beginnings) of Titus
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0508 Re: Endings (and Beginnings) of Titus
Andronicus

John W. Kennedy writes,

>Mr Parris (or Parisious -- he uses both names) is a
>well known
>anti-Stratfordian (though, like Mr Downs, he is coy
>about his specific
>allegiance) who wishes to discredit all "bad" and
>'prentice Shakespeare
>because either one overturns the notion of an
>ivory-tower playwright
>that is so central to anti-Stratfordian theories.

Mr. Kennedy appears equally confused about my practice in both twentieth
and sixteenth century authorship attributions.

For anything relating to my literary or artistic endeavors I use the
family name, which goes back well before the fall of Byzantium. Due to
editorial preference, not mine, a shortened form was used on my first
novel and a magazine, "The Quest" which editorial board I headed,
l966-l967.All other work and appearances relating to my work  over
nearly forty year period have been done as Parisious.

Nor does it appear why it would be discrediting to any authorship theory
to postulate that early Shakespeare included the latest mature work of
the generation that is habitually regarded as having preceded William
Shakespeare.

And, by the way, the possibility was  raised with care, but not argued,
in my last communication that "King John" dates pretty much as we have
it from around l587.If so, Shakespeare was technically well in control
of himself six years before he published "Venus and Adonis".


_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail 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.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.