2003

Re: Edmund

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1090  Thursday, 5 June 2003

From:           Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 04 Jun 2003 11:05:07 -0400
Subject:        Edmund

John-Paul Spiro would do well to note that "killing and death" are proof
that Goneril and Regan loved Edmund, however "dumb" he may be. The
search for acceptance and love is central to Edmund's character, as it
would be for anyone who found him- or herself in his circumstances. That
this lack of love leads to actions that are socially unwarranted should
come as no surprise to anyone.

As for Spiro's seeming disdain for studying the names in this play, he
should look at them again:

        Regan = Anger = Rage(n)

        Lear = L(ear) = Leir = Real

Surely the Regan example needs no explanation. Just look at what she and
Cornwall do to Gloucester. Lear's name announces to us the importance of
sound in this play, the connection to the old Leir play, and hints that
there is more going on in _King Lear_ than a casual reader/spectator
might think.  Other names/letters are also important, as you might
expect in a play dominated by lots of letters going back and forth
between characters.

Michael Shurgot goes all the way back to L. C. Knights and his trashing
of Bradley (a much greater critic than Knights). Shurgot is just plain
wrong to suggest that all inferences about the characters' past are
somehow a sign of feeblemindedness. Such inferences may be called for,
indeed, encouraged by the play. The most obvious example is what to make
of Henry Bolingbroke in 1H4. Hotspur claims that Henry acted like a
Machiavel in Richard's time.  Did he? The play clearly poses this
question and expects us to try to answer it as best we can. After all,
if Henry IV is a bad guy, then we should be on the side of the rebels,
right?

The same interest in the past dominates _King Lear_. Why is Edmund the
way he is? Why are Goneril and Regan the way they are? Who is more
guilty: the younger or the older generation? What, exactly, are they
guilty of?

Closing off critical examination because the reader is uncomfortable
with the nature of the questions asked, especially if the text
encourages such questions, is reactionary.

I'll end with another question that is uncomfortable. Why does France
abandon Cordelia in her moment of greatest need? Why does he send a
substitute general for the impending war? Is it really because he forgot
a great question of state and has to return to France? He says earlier
that only some "monstrous" offense would justify Lear's shabby treatment
of Cordelia. What's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander,
no? France's "explanation" has the strong appearance of a hastily
contrived excuse.

I wonder why? (Oops! Maybe I can't wonder that! -- at least according to
Shurgot's "rules."

--Ed Taft

_______________________________________________________________
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: Pound Sign

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1089  Thursday, 5 June 2003

[1]     From:   Michael E. Cohen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 4 Jun 2003 07:35:36 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1071 Re: Pound Sign

[2]     From:   Thomas M Lahey <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 5 Apr 2003 08:41:48 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1071 Re: Pound Sign


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael E. Cohen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 4 Jun 2003 07:35:36 -0700
Subject: 14.1071 Re: Pound Sign
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1071 Re: Pound Sign

I've seen various comments about whether or not the British pound sign
is an ASCII character. No, it is not. ASCII stands for "American
Standard Code for Information Interchange" and is VERY old (in computing
terms). It only contains 128 characters (including some, like BELL and
LF) which are non-printing and are commonly called control characters.

The methods given for producing the pound symbol are actually creating a
character code with a number greater than 127 (ASCII runs from 0-127).
These codes, often mistakenly called "upper ASCII", can vary from
platform to platform (old Macs define them one way, old DOS machines
define them another, Windows yet another) and from language to language.

Hardy notes that he is now using the Latin 9 ISO character set. This
character set does have the pound sign, as the posting Hardy made
demonstrates. Latin 9 ISO contains the ASCII characters in the first 128
positions, and then defines other commonly used European and
typographical characters in the next sequence of 128 codes. Most modern
e-mail programs will handle Latin 9 ISO just fine as long as the mail
headers specify it properly.

The most commonly used standard, because of the Microsoft Windows OS
dominance in the marketplace, is the Windows character set, which is not
officially an international standard; ISO 8859-1 is the character set
that is the "official" standard set for Western European and US
character sets.

And then there's Unicode, which can handle a huge number of
character-based writing systems....

Unfortunately, the original specification for Internet e-mail only
specified ASCII (yes, the designers of the specification were American
and were not thinking internationally--not surprising, since this was
done at a time when the number of e-mail users in the world could
probably fit into a small lecture hall).

Michael E. Cohen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas M Lahey <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 5 Apr 2003 08:41:48 -0800
Subject: 14.1071 Re: Pound Sign
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1071 Re: Pound Sign

Hi,

In the American/English speaking world we abbreviate pounds, lbs -- a
couple of strokes less than pounds & all ASCII.

Ponder,
Tom

_______________________________________________________________
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.

TOC, RES August 2003; Vol. 54, No. 215

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1087  Wednesday, 4 June 2003

From:           Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 04 Jun 2003 07:50:11 -0500
Subject:        TOC, RES August 2003; Vol. 54, No. 215

TOC, RES August 2003; Vol. 54, No. 215

Articles:

Yelverton, Buckingham, and the Story of Edward II in the 1620s
Curtis Perry, pp. 313-335

Satire and Sycophancy: Richard Corbett and Early Stuart Royalism
Andrew McRae, pp. 336-364

The Motif of the Reluctance to See the King in Lope de Vega's El Villano
en su Rincon and James Shirley's The Royal Master
Luciano Garcia, pp. 365-385

Milton, Gray, and West's 'Monody on the Death of Queen Caroline`
Rodney Stenning Edgecombe, pp. 386-398

Reviews:

Brian Cummings: The Literary Culture of the Reformation: Grammar and
Grace
Reviewed by David Womersley, pp. 407-408

Chris Meads: Banquets Set Forth: Banqueting in English Renaissance Drama
Reviewed by Richard McCabe, pp. 409-410

Peter Corbin and Douglas Sedge, eds. Thomas of Woodstock, or King
Richard the Second, Part One
Reviewed by David Womersley, pp. 410-412

Raphael Lyne: Ovid's Changing Worlds: English Metamorphoses, 1567-1632
Reviewed by Robin Sowerby, pp. 412-414

Barbara Fuchs: Mimesis and Empire: The New World, Islam, and European
Identities
Reviewed by Mike Pincombe, pp. 414-415

Heather Wolfe, ed. Elizabeth Cary, Lady Falkland: Life and Letters
Reviewed by N. W. Bawcutt, pp. 415-417

Harriette Andreadis: Sappho in Early Modern England: Female Same-Sex
Literary Erotics 1550-1714
Reviewed by Emma Smith, pp. 417-418

_______________________________________________________________
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: Shakespeare Festivals

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1088  Wednesday, 4 June 2003

From:           Peter D. Holland <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 4 Jun 2003 08:47:53 -0500
Subject: 14.1070 Re: Shakespeare Festivals
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1070 Re: Shakespeare Festivals

Sean Lawrence mentioned that the Halifax company is playing
*Coriolanus*.  Sean won't be seeing it but I wonder whether any other
SHAKSPEReans will or could help supply reviews of it (or indeed any
other recent Coriolanus productions). I'm editing the play for the Arden
series and all such material would be very helpful. Replies offline,
please, (to save Hardy unnecessary work) unless you think other readers
might find the comments interesting.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Britannia Rules

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1086  Wednesday, 4 June 2003

From:           Michael Colpitts <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 3 Jun 2003 17:27:24 -0400
Subject:        Britannia Rules

I did a search to find "Ruled Britannia" by Turtledove.

It features a William Shakespeare as part of a conspiracy against the
Spanish who have taken over England.

I rather liked it.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?userid=33T3Y922M5&pwb=1&ean=9780451207173

Michael Colpitts

_______________________________________________________________
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 Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.