2003

Critical Judgment of Lucrece

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1744  Friday, 5 September 2003

From:           Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 04 Sep 2003 08:47:47 -0700
Subject: 14.1737 Critical Judgment of Lucrece
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1737 Critical Judgment of Lucrece

Bob Grumman writes:

>So my question for this group is: do any
>of you know what any critics have said about Lucrece?  Have they, as I
>believe, considered it one of his lesser works?

Shakespeare was criticized by his contemporaries that Venus & Adonis was
too erotic!? Lucrece was an attempt to give his poetry more of a moral
standing.  It's all puff and no stuff as you might say.

Though Thomas Middleton seems to have liked it as he imitated it in his
own The Ghost of Lucrece (1600). He was not alone amongst the
Elizabethans and Jacobeans. Lucrece, by 1616, had been published six
times (Q1-Q6, though they are actually octavos) and was the anthology
king.

The Oxford Poet Thomas Freeman wrote "Who loves chaste life, there's
Lucrece for a teacher." (1614)

However, Douglas Bush exclaimed "Declamation roars while Passion
sleeps."

The Restoration folks had no time for the poem; they were too busy
adapting the plays! Coleridge thought it, at best, 'eloquent.' Of course
the Victorians were more interested in the gossip behind the poem. Was
Will sleeping with Henry (of the Wriothesely variety)?

Joseph Quincy Adams felt that Lucrece insinuated "how honest maids and
women should be on their guard considering the glory and praise that
commends a spotless life."

It was poet laureate Ted Hughes' favourite poem. But then, he was
married to Sylvia Plath!

But I'm sure Graham Hall will clear all of this up and provide some
dazzling acrostic riddle that reveals, to the mere mortals amongst us,
how the ultimate Lucrece commentary lies deep in the Utne Reader!

Colin Cox
Artistic Director
Will & Company

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Ping-Pong

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1743  Friday, 5 September 2003

From:           Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 04 Sep 2003 15:03:18 +0000
Subject:        Ping-Pong

When Jasper Britton gave his rabble-rousing Caliban at The Globe he got
into a spiral of locked exchanges with the Pit during a performance. "Oh
yes I did !" he would yell. "Oh no you didn't!" they would bawl back.
This went on until it became tedious. Trinculo, I think it was,
eventually pointed out in a sotto voice that he was wasting his time. A
worry of all actors is undoubtedly that of presenting the same sparse
and battered material in fresh ways. Perhaps correspondents suffer
similar agonies. Are there any examples of tired old exchanges that
could be refreshed by genius? Do any names come to mind? Muse 'pon it.

Best,
Graham Hall

_______________________________________________________________
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 & Co. in Lenox

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1741  Friday, 5 September 2003

From:           Geralyn Horton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 4 Sep 2003 12:31:15 -0400
Subject: 14.1735 Shakespeare & Co. in Lenox
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1735 Shakespeare & Co. in Lenox

This shocking item appeared in this morning's Boston Globe at the top of
a gossip column  ( had it been further down, I would surely have missed
it).

QUOTE:
EXIT STAGE RIGHT Shakespeare & Company laying off Jonathan Epstein isn't
quite like the New England Patriots cutting Lawyer Milloy. Still,
Epstein, one of seven people laid off by the Lenox company recently
because of a $246,000 budget shortfall, won rave reviews for his
portrayals of King Lear and Shylock, among other roles. Dan McCleary,
another of the company's actors and also its marketing director, said
that Epstein, Michael Hammond, and others who were laid off will still
be back next season as actors and directors -- at least, if they want to
be -- but the company needed to save the money from their management
salaries, particularly between now and April when the fiscal year ends.
END QUOTE

I will do some more research into the matter, but it has always seemed
to me that the glory of S&C was based on the ensemble principle.   Core
actors could NOT be laid off because they were part of the management
responsible for both artistic and business decisions:  consequently,
they were both free to stretch and constrained by mutual loyalty.  This
sounds to me like the King's Men laying off Burbage.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Wood Controversy

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1742  Friday, 5 September 2003

[1]     From:   Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 4 Sep 2003 14:44:03 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1736 Wood Controversy

[2]     From:   Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 04 Sep 2003 14:04:36 +0000
        Subj:   Blind ? Phew!

[3]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 04 Sep 2003 16:16:06 GMT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1736 Wood Controversy


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 4 Sep 2003 14:44:03 +0100
Subject: 14.1736 Wood Controversy
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1736 Wood Controversy

I hesitate to intrude into the titanic clash of fell and opposed
scholars conducted on the choppy seas of rhetorical debate, but there
seems to be a degree of froth around:

<< the question of "pirating and plagiarism" >>

Surely (as Graham Hall initially suggested) these are distinct terms?
"Plagiarism" (loosely) involves the ap or ex propriation of material
which is then passed-off as one's own?  "Piracy", in distinct contrast,
retains the original author's identity as the creator of the work, but
denies the due rewards of this labour.

Appositely enough (as he wrote a history of those gentleman who once
swashed their buckles on the high contested seas) Daniel Defoe is the
first writer recorded as using the term:

1706 De Foe Jure Div. Pref. 42 Gentlemen-Booksellers, that threatned to
Pyrate it, as they call it, viz. Reprint it, and Sell it for half a
Crown.

[OED2(3) PIRATE v. 3 fig. trans. To appropriate or reproduce (the work
or invention of another) without authority, for one's own profit.]

I shall now go meditate the analogical possibilities of "privateering"
applied the WWW -- the distribution of copyright material in electronic
form without the author's consent or any remuneration provided, perhaps?

Pirate Jenny

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Graham Hall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 04 Sep 2003 14:04:36 +0000
Subject:        Blind ? Phew!

Mr Larque wrote (14.1714) "[...] blatant pirating of sources [...]" with
regard to Wood's buccaneering enterprises. Hence my caution to him as
Wood has not been engaged in pirating in this instance. (What he does on
his Caribbean holidays is a matter between him and one of his wooden
legs, of course.) I am less certain about the stance of Bob Arnold and
Don Bloom - although I am rather taken by the possibility that all three
respondents are wearing two eye-patches each in respect of the term
"pirating". Their stationery views on the topic seem to be a waste of
license and fail to register.

Perhaps someone else can explain that to them as I am rather busy
researching cases of spontaneous combustion for "The Twitcher" magazine.

I hope this note too might also be categorised as "an almost sensible
response". I get such a Trill when I'm appreciated.

Yours polymorphously,
"Pretty Boy" Hall

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 04 Sep 2003 16:16:06 GMT
Subject: 14.1736 Wood Controversy
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1736 Wood Controversy

>Graham Hall writes, "Mr Larque will get even lower marks
>in his essays if he doesn't learn the difference between
>pirating and plagiarism."

Neither I nor any other copyright lawyer I know is aware that there is a
difference.  Pray, what is 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.

Strange Place for a Shakespeare Reference

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1740  Friday, 5 September 2003

From:           Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 4 Sep 2003 10:34:54 -0400
Subject: 14.1733 Strange Place for a Shakespeare Reference
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.1733 Strange Place for a Shakespeare Reference

Seconding Nancy's endorsement of Panda to protect your SHAKSPER personal
archives (there's the link!)...

They have an online scan available.  It was the *only* one (including
Norton's updated on my computer, McAfee's online scan, and another
online scan) to find the particular infection that Norton's didn't
stop-- a virus that was over a year old no less.  After using their
online cure, I immediately ordered their product.

I've had *no* infections since and it has caught any number of potential
offenders.

No more will I have to say of a virus assault, "No, 'tis not so deep as
a well, nor so wide as a church door, but 'tis enough, will serve. Ask
for my computer tomorrow and you will find it a dead duck"

<smiles>
Mari Bonomi

_______________________________________________________________
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.