2003

Shakespeare Search Engine with Unusual Features

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1952  Tuesday, 7 October 2003

From:           Mel Leventhal <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 6 Oct 2003 13:04:48 EDT
Subject: 14.1942 Shakespeare Search Engine with Unusual
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1942 Shakespeare Search Engine with Unusual
Features

What a great find for Shakespeare researchers!  Thank you, Al.  I will
turn to it often.

Mel Leventhal

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed by

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1951  Tuesday, 7 October 2003

From:           Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 6 Oct 2003 12:43:52 -0400
Subject:        Re: Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed by Stanley
Wells in TLS

It's one thing to find something stuck between the pages of a book, but
I can't suppress a twinge of resentment that any private person should
pointlessly hold onto a document of such potential value to academic
research. But I don't want to discourage someone else who might be
hoarding Cardenio. In any case, I have a couple of observations:

1) Scott's criticism of the verse of RII seems to assume it was written
for "readers," as well as playgoers. He himself discusses it as poetry
with Sidney, Spenser, Daniel, Wyatt, Surrey, and even Chaucer, rather
than as drama (for which he "harbors a degree of contempt" according to
Wells) and quotes the text accurately like someone who has studied it
(which he did, apparently, Gorboduc, the only other play he seems to
have mentioned). This settles the question whether Shakespeare's work
was read (perhaps exceptionally, it being "well conceited" and "very
well-penned") in his own time as literature. Wells puts Scott's interest
in RII down to his being a "literary theorist." Scott, however, seems to
assume that treating it as poetry requires no justification.

2) Scott may anticipate Hanmer's emendation of the lines:

"That when the searchinge eye of heaven is hid
Behinde the globe that lightes the lower worlde "

but he does not consider it an erratum. He recognizes the ambiguity as a
matter of word order, the sense being:

"That when the searchinge eye of heaven [that lightes the lower worlde]
is hid Behinde the globe"

Perhaps the confusion between earth and sun is intentional in a comment
on Aumerle's (and Bolingbroke's) confusion between divine and earthly
power and of hiding sedition from the searching eye of the state?
Assuming the play is written for readers, "let"s and "rub"s can be used
to force closer readings.  Richard seems confused too, as he turns from
his discourse on divine election to question Salisbury about the state
of the troops coming to defend him. The scene is fraught with
ambiguities. Carlisle's claim that "...that power that made you king/
Hath power to keep you king in spite of all" necessarily implies "hath
power to depose you."

3) As Wells observes: "belief that the play about the reign performed by
the Lord Chamberlain's Men on the eve of the 1601 rebellion was
Shakespeare's has been questioned, reasonably enough, in a recent
article by Blair Worden. But Scott's references show at least that it
was familiar to one of the men involved..."

I would add, moreover, that Scott refers to it as the "tragedy of
Richard II" (and never mentions Shakespeare by name) which seems
unlikely if there were more than one tragedy of Richard II on the stage.

Clifford Stetner
CUNY
http://phoenixandturtle.net

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1949  Tuesday, 7 October 2003

[1]     From:   Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 6 Oct 2003 13:38:39 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

[2]     From:   John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 6 Oct 2003 14:23:50 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

[3]     From:   Hugh Grady <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 6 Oct 2003 09:54:37 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

[4]     From:   Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 6 Oct 2003 18:50:36 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 6 Oct 2003 13:38:39 +0100
Subject: 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

Re: Gettier cases.

_Hamlet_, maybe, if we accept that Claudius +did+ kill Old Hamlet.

For a time, Hamlet has true belief but not knowledge that Claudius has
committed murder.

The Mousetrap gives him knowledge -- "More lights!"

But perhaps he was walking past the wrong bar, and Claudius simply
wanted more light to read his notes as to what to say at the next
meeting with the Norwegian ambassadors.

Doesn't this go back to Plato on the distinction between knowledge and
opinion?  I've not come on the idea of "Gettier cases" before - sounds
interesting.

Robin Hamilton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 6 Oct 2003 14:23:50 +0100
Subject: 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

Try the debates about virginity,

esp. Iago's comments in Othello:  "They oft have it that have it not.."
etc.

Cheers,
John Drakakis

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hugh Grady <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 6 Oct 2003 09:54:37 -0400
Subject: 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

"Othello" is your encyclopedia for this effect, and several variations
on it. And be sure to take a look at Stanley Cavell's "Disowning
Knowledge."

--Hugh Grady

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 6 Oct 2003 18:50:36 -0400
Subject: 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

>These involve scenarios in which it does not seem that the
>subject has knowledge even though he or she does have a justified true
>belief.  The following is the kind of example that Gettier forwarded.
>
>I walk past a pub when there's an England football match on the TV
>inside.  I hear a cheer and come to believe that England have scored.
>And, they have.  So, I have a true belief and good reasons to think that
>it is true (England fans in pubs cheer when England score).  However,
>unbeknownst to me I was walking past a different bar of the pub, one
>which was hosting a karaoke competition and the cheers I heard were for
>a good rendition of a song.  The intuition here, then, is that we would
>not want to say that I know a goal has been scored.  I have a true
>belief for which I have (seemingly) good reasons yet this does not
>amount to knowledge.  I've just, in effect, been lucky.

I don't follow this.  As I see it, what happened was that you
incorrectly thought your belief was justified.

--Bob G.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Theaters using Elizabethan Staging Conventions

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1950  Tuesday, 7 October 2003

From:           Ivan Fuller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 06 Oct 2003 09:24:03 -0500
Subject:        Theaters using Elizabethan Staging Conventions

I am working on a project that involves Elizabethan staging conventions
and the theatre companies that use them.  I am very familiar with
Shenandoah Shakespeare and the New Globe (as well as my own Bare Bodkins
Theatre Co.), but I'm sure there are others.  If you know of any that
are pretty exclusive in their use of Elizabethan staging conventions,
I'd appreciate hearing about them.  I'm not interested in theaters that
have only occasionally used such conventions, however.

Thanks,
Ivan Fuller
Augustana College

_______________________________________________________________
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.

King John and The Troublesome Play

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1948  Monday, 6 October 2003

From:           Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 3 Oct 2003 15:45:42 -0400
Subject: 14.1937 King John and The Troublesome Play
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1937 King John and The Troublesome Play

>Thanks to all for useful responses and especially Gabriel Egan (no
>relation) for calling my attention to the John Klause piece. Brian
>Vickers with his usual grace kindly sent me a prepublication copy of his
>forthcoming essay, 'The Troublesome Raigne, George Peele, and the date
>of King John', an extension of his Titus chapter in Shakespeare,
>Co-Author, proving that Peele had a hand in The Troublesome Raigne.

He PROVED it?!  Wow.

No, I'm not attacking Brian Vickers again, only the use of the word
"proving."  I myself reserve the use of that word for hard science, mth
or logic.  I would never use it to mean, "establishing to the
satisfaction of some, or even the majority, of persons in one's field."
Particularly if no hard evidence (like testimony from a contemporary
that Peele wrote the Troublesome Raigne, or his name on its title-page)
is involved, as I suspect is the case here.

Am I out of it in this opinion of mine?

I find it hard to believe Shakespeare could have participated in a
revision in 1597 enough to get credit for the work revised that resulted
in a play as bad as King John, myself.  But at least Michael Egan only
says he's TRYING to SHOW that that was the case.

Interesting topic, though, that seems to be inspiring a good deal of
good work regardless of what is eventually "proven."

--Bob G.

_______________________________________________________________
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.