2003

Re: Yale Complete Works

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1231  Friday, 20 June 2003

[1]     From:   Carl Fortunato <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Jun 2003 11:29:29 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1217 Yale Complete Works

[2]     From:   Dana Shilling <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Jun 2003 13:16:06 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1217 Yale Complete Works


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Carl Fortunato <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Jun 2003 11:29:29 -0400
Subject: 14.1217 Yale Complete Works
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1217 Yale Complete Works

>A friend of mine insists that her Yale Complete Works lists The Tempest
>as a tragedy.  What were they thinking?
>
>How standardized is the list of comedies/tragedies/histories?  How
>acceptable is it amongst the academia to designate the
>Romances as such?

The Folio lists Cymbeline as a tragedy.  I can only conclude that those
who made that decision hadn't read it and thought the title sounded like
a tragedy.

And how would you classify Troilus and Cressida?  The Folio places it
between sections.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dana Shilling <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Jun 2003 13:16:06 -0400
Subject: 14.1217 Yale Complete Works
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1217 Yale Complete Works

Susan St. John asked:

>A friend of mine insists that her Yale Complete Works lists The Tempest
>as a tragedy.  What were they thinking?

1. Caliban edited it?

2. Miranda did ("Life is a tragedy to those who feel, a comedy to those
who feel")?

Dana Shilling

_______________________________________________________________
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 European Politics

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1230  Friday, 20 June 2003

From:           Paul Franssen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Jun 2003 17:17:25 +0200
Subject:        Shakespeare and European Politics

Dear colleagues,

Some news about the upcoming conference on Shakespeare and European
Politics, to be held in Utrecht, 4-7 December 2003: a registration page
has now been added to the website at
http://shakespeare.let.uu.nl/Cfp.sheuropol.htm . Another page, featuring
accommodations, will be added soon.

Paul Franssen
Department of English
Utrecht University

_______________________________________________________________
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: Crux Challenge

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1228  Friday, 20 June 2003

From:           Claude Caspar <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Jun 2003 10:33:02 -0400
Subject: 14.1213 Re: Crux Challenge
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1213 Re: Crux Challenge

>>. . . what you are seeing is rapid computing of all the factors, not
>>disregard of rational factors. A pro can calculate so quickly that even
>>he isn't aware he is doing it. When you can see the wheels turning, he
>>is off his game.
>
>This is very like what I tell my students about writing analytical
>papers:

What seems to me confused is that it is one thing to compare a
calculation between man Vs machine on/of knowable factors (things that
all must agree are true), measurable, objective data and another
claiming that one's surmise based on intuition, which subsumes the
analytical, is similar and can be computed.  Shakespeare had
imagination.  Why poker can never be a science, but remains an art,
unfortunately, unlike chess.

Notice, not one person has suggested a computer analysis could supply a
missing word, a word worthy of Shakespeare.  Machines don't coin words
spontaneously, break the [main]frame...

_______________________________________________________________
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: Non Sanz Droict

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1229  Friday, 20 June 2003

[1]     From:   Richard Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Jun 2003 08:03:02 -0700
        Subj:   Non Sanz Droict

[2]     From:   Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Jun 2003 09:42:09 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1218 Non Sanz Droict

[3]     From:   Tom Reedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Jun 2003 23:48:15 -0500
        Subj:   Non Sanz Droict


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Jun 2003 08:03:02 -0700
Subject:        Non Sanz Droict

It should be an easy thing to go to the records office concerned and
find if any other application for arms was declared as "Non Sanz
Droict".  If not, then it would seem NOT to be a rejection, but a motto,
truly intended to be so.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Jun 2003 09:42:09 -0700
Subject: 14.1218 Non Sanz Droict
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1218 Non Sanz Droict

James Conlan wrote:

>"Not without mustard." As this is a direct literary allusion, there is no
>need to imagine a satire of Shakespeare at all."

Philip Tomposki writes:

"Actually, there some question as to whether 'Non Sanz Droict' was ever
used by the Shakespeare or his family as a motto."

The line "let the word be not without mustard," in Jonson's play, is in
reference to the clown Sogliardo's coat-of-arms. Sogliardo is being
mocked because he has purchased his title for 


Re: Wriothesley

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1227  Friday, 20 June 2003

[1]     From:   Patrick M. Murphy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Jun 2003 09:44:06 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1205 Wriothesley

[2]     From:   David Friedberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Jun 2003 11:03:41 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1205 Wriothesley

[3]     From:   John D. Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Jun 2003 12:12:28 -0400
        Subj:   Wriothesley

[4]     From:   Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Jun 2003 10:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1205 Wriothesley


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Patrick M. Murphy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Jun 2003 09:44:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 14.1205 Wriothesley
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1205 Wriothesley

On the pronunciation of Wriothesley, see Akrigg's book on Shakespeare
and Southampton.  He addresses the issue in the first few pages.  And he
thinks it should probably be said: Risely or Rosely, but I don't have
the book in front of me now and might be mis-remembering these details.

Yrs, Patrick M. Murphy

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Friedberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Jun 2003 11:03:41 -0400
Subject: 14.1205 Wriothesley
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1205 Wriothesley

Rose Lee, I believe.

David Friedberg

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John D. Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Jun 2003 12:12:28 -0400
Subject:        Wriothesley

William Ringler maintained that "Wriothesley" was pronounced RIZLY (just
like the bear).  He was so knowledgeable about things Elizabethan that I
never asked him how he knew--I didn't dare.

John Cox
Hope College

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 19 Jun 2003 10:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 14.1205 Wriothesley
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1205 Wriothesley

>Speaking of difficult or doubtful pronunciations,
>what are the best
>notions about how Henry Wriothesley is pronounced?
>Is it begin
>WORTH..., or maybe goes to something like RISELY, or
>maybe ROSELY?

As no doubt everyone has written in: According to Katherine
Duncan-Jones, it is pronounced RISE-LY.

An initiate in that pronunciation myself, (and wondering how in the
world it happened),

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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.