2003

Re: Hamlet and Belleforest [Grebanier]

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0959  Friday, 16 May 2003

[1]     From:   Annalisa Castaldo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 15 May 2003 10:13:25 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0946 Re: Hamlet and Belleforest

[2]     From:   Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 15 May 2003 08:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0946 Re: Hamlet and Belleforest [Grebanier]


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Annalisa Castaldo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 15 May 2003 10:13:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 14.0946 Re: Hamlet and Belleforest
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0946 Re: Hamlet and Belleforest

I would like to thank Ed Pixley for suggesting an answer to one of my
own niggling concerns about Hamlet, which is the logic of "to be or not
to be." The Q1 version of this speech, as messy as it is, actually makes
more sense, given both the logic of the times and Christianity: one
doesn't want to commit suicide because it is forbidden by God. But for
Hamlet to say that he doesn't want to commit suicide because death is
"the undiscovered country" contradicts both Christianity and the
"sensible and true avouch of [his] own eyes" since he has talked to a
Ghost.

However, when Ed proposes that it is not death in general, but his own
specific death that Hamlet is facing (but, like a scholar, generalizing
always), this speech suddenly pops into focus. True, Christianity
promises a just reward, but what is the just reward for a revenger? Ed
is exactly right that it was an absolute requirement that the revenger
die and therefore close the circuit, but what then?

Kyd, for example, ends The Spanish Tragedy with the Ghost of Andrea
promising to lead Horatio and the others to Elysium, but carefully does
not promise a Christian paradise. And Hamlet gets no reassurance from
his father, who can only describe the afterlife as so terrible he can't
describe it! Hamlet, knowing he will go to death with at least one
murder on his soul, has good reason to be worried.

So in addition to all the other concerns, practical and philosophical,
that cause Hamlet's delay (for those of us who feel there is a delay),
add fear of his afterlife, a concern Horatio attempts to gloss over with
"flights of angels sing thee to thy rest."

Annalisa Castaldo

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 15 May 2003 08:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 14.0946 Re: Hamlet and Belleforest [Grebanier]
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0946 Re: Hamlet and Belleforest [Grebanier]

Edmund Taft writes, "Apparently Grebanier provides an answer of which
Bill approves: '[Hamlet] is neither mad nor feigns insanity at any
time.' Maybe Bill could explain briefly, for those of us who have not
read Grebanier, how he arrives at these conclusions."

Excuse me.  Are we not SHAKSPEReans?  And you would deny Grebanier his
day in court?  My God, Sir, he wrote a whole book on the subject: answer
to the critics, brilliant and definitive interpretation, footnotes,
index--the Whole Enchilada!  If you have even the remotest interest in
the subject of Hamlet, why do you not just read it?

Bill Arnold
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Seasonal Options Reminder (UNSUBing and NOMAIL)

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0958  Thursday, 15 May 2003


From:           Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, May 15, 2003
Subject:        Seasonal Options Reminder (UNSUBing and NOMAIL)

Dear SHAKSPEReans,

It is once again time for me to send the seasonal message regarding your
SHAKSPER account options.

If you will be away from your account for some time, please use either
of these options: UNSUBscribing or SETting NOMAIL.

UNSUBscribing:

If you have joined SHAKSPER as part of a class or on a short-term basis
or if you will be losing your account, please UNSUBscribe.  To do so,
send this --

UNSUB SHAKSPER to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. leaving the subject line blank.

SETting NOMAIL:

If you are going to be away from your account for a time, then SET your
SHAKSPER account to NOMAIL.  To do this, send the following message --

SET SHAKSPER NOMAIL to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. again leaving the subject
line blank.

When you want to resume your SHAKSPER mailings, send -- SET SHAKSPER
MAIL -- to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

To order a list of LISTSERV commands, send -- GET LISTSERV COMMANDS --
to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

If you have other questions or problems, contact me at
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or at 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.

Re: King John, Titus, Peele

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0956  Thursday, 15 May 2003

[1]     From:   Claude Casper <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 14 May 2003 11:19:31 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0936 Re: King John, Titus, Peele

[2]     From:   Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 14 May 2003 12:56:46 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0936 Re: King John, Titus, Peele

[3]     From:   B. Vickers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 15 May 2003 13:20:27 +0200
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0936 Re: King John, Titus, Peele


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Claude Casper <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 14 May 2003 11:19:31 -0400
Subject: 14.0936 Re: King John, Titus, Peele
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0936 Re: King John, Titus, Peele

>And, one might add, especially Jonson, who executed many acts of
>excision and revision in order to make his own folio Workes (1616)
>completely his own.
>
>Furthermore, the point about not blotting lines is not "Romantic
>Shakespeare", as Jonathan Bate calls it, but also Jonsonian. And it was
>not meant as a compliment to a Romantic genius, but as a suggested
>criticism of a rival who did not expend the same amount of studious
>effort on his "poems" as Jonson did. Why should Jonson have chosen to
>criticize/mock Shakespeare in this way, if the easier option of pointing
>to the limitations of Shakespeare's "collaborative composition" was open
>to him? After all, Jonson himself agonized over the necessity that had
>forced him into hack-work collaboration and revision for Henslowe in the
>1590s - he clearly had little respect for this method of producing
>drama. And the course of his later collaboration with Inigo Jones speaks
>for itself.

I have always felt that this evidence, Jonson's testimony against his
grain!, is more than circumstantial, based on his sober character- and,
we must not forget that this was a serious business, he being branded,
Thomas Kyd tortured and maybe  Marlowe murdered by the State.  One knew
who one's friends were.

But, I am now also convinced that Shakespeare collaborated in the
beginning of his career and at the end, which would be true to his
character.  At first to get into the game and at the end for
convenience, but always with a keen eye to ready cash.  This so accords
with everything we know about his personality, and we do know some
telling tidbits.  I am a great admirer of George Steiner.  He is
regarded as one of the greatest literary & cultural critics of our time,
apparently an authority on everything worth knowing.  In his latest work
"Grammars of Creation," which I am about to read, there are as usual
many Shakespeare references in the index, where we find the following:

"Shakespeare begins as a collaborator in the Henry VI trilogy, most
probably in Titus Andronicus & Edward III.  He will end as an inspired
understudy to Beaumont & Fletcher in Henry VIII."

Those of us who are not experts or scholars must rely on guides for
guidance.  Who one picks reveals their judgment as well as forms it.
Nothing is sadder than intelligent people expending themselves in an
"expense of spirit in a waste of shame."

Th' expense of spirit in a waste of shame
Is lust in action; and till action, lust
Is perjured, murderous, bloody, full of blame,
Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust;
Enjoyed no sooner but despis?d straight:
Past reason hunted; and no sooner had,
Past reason hated, as a swallowed bait,
On purpose laid to make the taker mad:
Mad in pursuit, and in possession so;
Had, having, and in quest to have, extreme;
A bliss in proof, and proved, a very woe;
Before, a joy proposed; behind, a dream.
All this the world well knows; yet none knows well
To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 14 May 2003 12:56:46 EDT
Subject: 14.0936 Re: King John, Titus, Peele
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0936 Re: King John, Titus, Peele

I am puzzled by Jim Carroll's and Martin Steward's seeming resistance to
the very idea that Shakespeare might have collaborated during his
dramatic career or that Heminge & Condell would have stooped to include
collaborations among the Folio Shakespeare plays. It's almost as if they
fear a wholesale disintegration of the Shakespeare canon along
Robertsonian or anti-Stratfordian composition-by-committee lines. But
this is not the intent [nor are these the findings] of Brian Vickers'
book, nor of other responsible attribution scholars such as Cyrus Hoy,
MacDonald P. Jackson, David J. Lake, Gary Taylor, et al.   Among the 36
Folio plays significant collaboration is argued for only four plays
[1Henry VI, Titus, Timon, and Henry VIII], with minor non-Shakespeare
interventions in some few others [probably Macbeth, possibly Measure for
Measure, conceivably 3 Henry VI or Shrew]. This leaves more than two
dozen "pure' Shakespeare plays [the depredations of players, scribes and
compositors aside] for Bardolators to worship.

Jonson is not really a comparable case-- he was a pioneer in promoting
[his] plays as literary texts, and there is no particular reason to
believe and much reason to doubt that Shakespeare felt the same way. As
to Heminge and Condell, Titus and 1 Henry VI may have been written
before they knew Shakespeare; Timon was evidently a stop-gap brought out
when Troilus was temporarily unavailable; and Henry VIII rounded out the
series of English History plays for which Shakespeare was famous.
Besides, even with scenes written by collaborators, these plays are
plenty Shakespearean. We [most of us] now accept the non-Folio plays
Pericles, Two Noble Kinsmen, Sir Thomas More and Edward III as
sufficiently 'Shakespearean' to study them as such-- why is it so hard
to accept that Heminge and Condell could have considered Titus, 1H6,
Timon and H8 as sufficiently Shakespearean to include in the Folio? Many
plays were published or recorded with correct but incomplete authorship
attributions [list provided on request]. As an extreme example of
inclusiveness, look at the so-called "Beaumont and Fletcher" Folio, also
published with the cooperation of the King's Men, which contained the
unacknowledged work of [at least] Massinger, Middleton, Wm Rowley, Field
and Ford.

As to the scientificness of the collaboration arguments-- well, few
things [no things?] in life are immune to questioning-- even science--
but most of the good attribution studies HAVE included the negative
check [showing that the cited similarities are absent or very rare in
the works of other writers] and to compare these studies and their
results to the ravings of the anti-Stratfordians is irresponsible. The
anti-Strats can't even agree on which candidate to back, let alone what
constitutes valid evidence. By contrast, for example, the studies of the
linguistic patterns and preferences of Thomas Middleton and his
collaborators which were carried out by Jackson and by Lake completely
independently of each other in the 1970s, using different batteries of
tests, came to almost identical conclusions. This is an example of the
'scientific' reproduction of results that good attributionism aspires
to.

The examples Jim Carroll provides as evidence of Brian Vickers' special
pleading concerning the use of rhetorical figures and patterning in
Titus don't really work the way he wants them to. The 'parallel'
Vickers' points out between Titus 1.1.10-17 and 1.1.428-31 is not about
mere repetition of lines or part lines, but of the recurrence of the
'exo-skeleton' of a verse paragraph. And in any case, these rhetorical
parallels between parts of Titus and the works of Peele are only a small
part of the total evidence for Peele's involvement. The arguments for
Peele are NOT intended to absolve gentle eloquent Shakespeare from bad
or insensitive writing [after all, these arguments also confirm MOST of
Titus as the genuine work of Shakespeare]. They are attempts to explain
apparent anomalies in the text that have been noticed by a number of
serious scholars. Peele was not pre-chosen as a shadow-candidate
Oxford-style, but rather a number of different investigations by a
number of different reputable scholars have suggested that the hand of
Peele may be present. No, it cannot be PROVEN.  Even if we had a
videotape of Peele writing Act I of Titus from a plot written in Hand D,
someone somewhere would argue that the videotape was doctored to protect
the vested interests of the Shakespeare 'establishment'.

Speaking of the 'plot written in Hand D'... one of Vickers' suggestions
is that Shakespeare, perhaps with Peele, first sat down and plotted out
the play of Titus Andronicus, and then portioned out which parts of the
play were to be written by each of them. A speculative scenario, to be
sure, but it accords with what we know of the way plays were often
written then and it would explain how the dramatic structure of the
early scenes of Titus might seem Shakespearean while the actual writing
does not.

Collaborative composition of plays was very common in the early modern
theatre, and [perhaps Jonson aside] was not something to be embarrassed
about, or that needed to be explained away or excluded. It is much more
likely than not that a few of the 'works of Shakespeare' contain
portions originally composed by other writers. Shakespeare does not need
to be protected from this libel, for it is not a libel.

Regards,
Bill Lloyd

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           B. Vickers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 15 May 2003 13:20:27 +0200
Subject: 14.0936 Re: King John, Titus, Peele
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0936 Re: King John, Titus, Peele

I'm glad that Jim Carroll has formulated his resistance to the idea of
'Shakespeare, Co-Author' in religious terms ('It's impossible for me to
believe that' the First Folio contains work not by Shakespeare), for his
belief has neither historical nor rational grounds.

Historically, we know that every professional dramatist in this period
took part in collaborative play-writing. The 1647 Beaumont & Fletcher
Folio contains work by at least 10 different dramatists, as was widely
known. A contemporary complained that Massinger hadn't been acknowledged
for his contributions, and berated the (anonymous) editors: 'why in't /
Did you not justice? give each his due?' -- The same question could be
put to Heminge & Condell for including several thousand lines by
Shakespeare.

Rationally, Mr. Carroll has brusquely rejected all the evidence
assembled so far for Peele's co-authorship of *Titus Andronicus* -- and
there is more to come. Jonathan Bate may have been ill-advised to use
the term 'experiment', but the data summarized and added to in my book,
showing the presence of two distinct writers, is scientific in the sense
that it is replicable, and if Carroll were not too lazy (or resistant)
to do the work he would come up with the same results. He reminds me of
that character in Aristophanes' *Ploutos* who says 'You can try to
convince me; I simply won't be convinced!'

_______________________________________________________________
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: Othello Retold

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0957  Thursday, 15 May 2003

From:           Roger Parisious <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 14 May 2003 11:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 14.0937 Re: Othello Retold
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0937 Re: Othello Retold

>Speaking of Othello, how common were interracial
>marriages in
>Shakespeare's day?  Did he have any historical
>references in mind beyond
>his source, Cinthio?

Someone might be interested in Lillian Winstanley's "Othello as the
Tragedy of Italy". The Spanish State was described as a murderous Moor
who destroys Venice, his chosen bride, in certain political pamphlets of
the day, and Winstanley draws some further parallels with the personal
lives of Philip of Spain and Elizabeth de Valois. The Cinthio material
would have acquired a new pertinency at the time "Othello" was written.

_______________________________________________________________
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: A Problem Like the Sonnets

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0955  Thursday, 15 May 2003

From:           Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 15 May 2003 10:13:47 +0100
Subject: 14.0942 Re: A Problem Like the Sonnets
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0942 Re: A Problem Like the Sonnets

>But I still don't understand what an un-felt emotion is. To
>imagine an emotion requires a rudimentary knowledge of the emotion being
>imagined. To portray it requires that both the author and the
>viewer/reader
>have felt it.

I have not felt the complex web of emotions that might accompany winning
?1,000,000 on the lotto. But I reckon I could have a fair stab at
portraying those emotions.

I suppose it depends on whether one thinks of emotions as "types" - e.g.
sadness, happiness, fear, grief, etc. - or complex and context-specific.

m

_______________________________________________________________
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.