January
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0116 Thursday, 15 January 2004 [1] From: David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 10:55:57 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 15.0101 Important Changes to the World Shakespeare Bibliography [2] From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 09:10:49 -0800 Subj: RE: SHK 15.0101 Important Changes to the World Shakespeare Bibliography [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 10:55:57 -0500 Subject: 15.0101 Important Changes to the World Shakespeare Comment: Re: SHK 15.0101 Important Changes to the World Shakespeare Bibliography Gabriel Egan advises us to save (and hence presumably to generate) our work in HTML rather than in proprietary word-processing programs like Word. My own experience with HTML is limited, and suggests that to generate an HTML file that will do things like footnotes you will need to spend a lot of time learning a basketful of markup codes and more time typing them in--precisely the sort of extra labor, on top of the labor of finding the right words, that the proprietary programs were developed to save. (It is true that programs like Word, primarily developed for business use, are encumbered with a lot of components for which we academics have little use, and that often get in the way of what we are trying to do.) But I'd be interested to hear comments--and suggestions--from those of you with lots of experience in this line. Not least because I have a complicated editorial project in view for which web publication may turn out to be appropriate. David Evett [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 09:10:49 -0800 Subject: 15.0101 Important Changes to the World Shakespeare Comment: RE: SHK 15.0101 Important Changes to the World Shakespeare Bibliography Gabriel Egan writes a post on the merits of open standards for document formats, with which I can only agree. I'd only like to add to the following: There is so much text already in HTML that the world is more likely to lose some of its smaller spoken languages such as Irish and Welsh than it is to lose its collective knowledge of HTML. I'd just add a quibble: Microsoft keeps extending HTML. As a result, many pages are now not written in pure, standards-based, W3C approved HTML and may prove unreadable in the future. You can fight this tendency by using an alternative browser, such as Opera, www.opera.com, if only to check the formatting of your own HTML documents. (I hope that Hardy will forgive my mentioning a commercial product). Secondly, the web seems to be actually contributing to the maintenance of certain small languages. The Inuktitut living dictionary is maintained online, for instance, though it does require the download of special fonts. Yours, Sean. _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0115 Thursday, 15 January 2004 [1] From: Alan Dessen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 09:30:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: Purses [2] From: Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 12:09:49 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 15.0102 Psychology of Gertrude now Purse [3] From: David Cohen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 12:04:41 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 15.0102 Psychology of Gertrude [4] From: Jay Feldman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 15 Jan 2004 13:52:19 EST Subj: Re: SHK 15.0090 Psychology of Gertrude [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Dessen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 09:30:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Purses As to the number of purses carried by an individual, in Acts 2 and 3 of Jonson's *Bartholomew Fair* the foolish Bartholomew Cokes loses in succession not one but two purses. Alan Dessen [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 12:09:49 -0500 Subject: 15.0102 Psychology of Gertrude now Purse Comment: RE: SHK 15.0102 Psychology of Gertrude now Purse The Elizabethan purse didn't have what an American wallet has: a few bills and coins and tons of plastic with various intensities of identification, but...when Antonio gives away his purse, his identity seemingly goes with it, and he can't recover it until he recovers the purse. Kent gives away his purse when he is through with his life and therefore his own identity. It will not turn the beggar into Kent, but... Has anybody else noted a link between identity and purse in Shakespeare? It's specifically denied by the liar Iago, which alone makes me suspicious: Iago. Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, 180 Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name 184 Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed. Goodness! I didn't recall this, but the first words in Othello are about a purse: Rod. Tush! Never tell me; I take it much unkindly That thou, Iago, who hast had my purse As if the strings were thine, shouldst know of this. Iago. 'Sblood, but you will not hear me: If ever I did dream of such a matter, Abhor me. Rod. Thou told'st me thou didst hold him in thy hate. Iago. Despise me if I do not. My previous interest in the passage was in the way Shakespeare introduces Iago by having him say, "Abhor me." "Despise me." Thus, anyone who steals Iago's own purse, his own identity, is indeed stealing trash. But how does this Roderigo, "this young quat," end, who has given his purse so freely to Iago? Iago. O murderous slave! O villain! [Stabs RODERIGO. Rod. O damn'd Iago! O inhuman dog! Iago. Kill men i' the dark! Where be these bloody thieves? Roderigo has utterly lost his identity. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Cohen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 12:04:41 -0600 Subject: 15.0102 Psychology of Gertrude Comment: Re: SHK 15.0102 Psychology of Gertrude >>What was the value of the "purse" so often flung from one person to >>another in the plays, as in "Here, take my purse." > >I'm not sure that I understand the question. What's the value of a >wallet, as in, "Here, take my wallet"? > >Yrs, >Sean. The wallet analogy doesn't work, since wallets contain much more important things than money (perhaps some $10 bills or maybe some $20s), such as the means to pay for something (blank checks, credit cards), indications of personal identity (driver's licence; medicare card, voter registration, etc.), personal items (e.g., family photos), and other stuff. One would never say, "Here, take my wallet," unless one were psychotic or if one were in dire circumstances as was (proverbially) Jack Benny, confronted by a mugger- "Your wallet or your life . . . . well?" . . . . "I'm thinking!" Well, okay, the bad guy "really" said, "Your money or your life," which makes Benny's joke even funnier, but you get my point. One would surely rather toss the money than all the other contents of the wallet. My question was about the money: the content, form, and value of the contents of the purse(s) and whether this was a device invented by WS or a cultural commonplace that that he so charmingly exploited. David Cohen [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jay Feldman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 15 Jan 2004 13:52:19 EST Subject: 15.0090 Psychology of Gertrude Comment: Re: SHK 15.0090 Psychology of Gertrude David Cohen wonders about the value of a purse's content. In 2Henry IV, Sir John is told the exact amount in his purse by his page, who either carries it for him or saves him the effort required to reach it. "Seven groats and two pence." Not a hint of gold. Jay Feldman _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0114 Thursday, 15 January 2004 [1] From: John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 13:38:22 -0000 Subj: RE: SHK 15.0097 Marketing during Elizabethan and Jacobean Periods [2] From: C. David Frankel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 20:16:48 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 15.0089 Marketing during Elizabethan and Jacobean Periods [3] From: W.L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 21:48:15 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 15.0097 Marketing during Elizabethan and Jacobean Period [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 13:38:22 -0000 Subject: 15.0097 Marketing during Elizabethan and Jacobean Periods Comment: RE: SHK 15.0097 Marketing during Elizabethan and Jacobean Periods Steve Roth might like to look at Martin Butler's Theatre and Crisis 1632-1642 (Cambridge, 1984) especially Appendix II for a devastating critique of Anne Jennalie Cook's thesis Cheers, John Drakakis [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 20:16:48 -0500 Subject: 15.0089 Marketing during Elizabethan and Jacobean Periods Comment: RE: SHK 15.0089 Marketing during Elizabethan and Jacobean Periods To all who responded: Much thanks. Between the replies from this list and from ASTR, my student has more than enough sources to keep him busy until he graduates. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 21:48:15 -0500 Subject: 15.0097 Marketing during Elizabethan and Jacobean Periods Comment: Re: SHK 15.0097 Marketing during Elizabethan and Jacobean Periods I don't remember seeing a reference to Jim Forse's Art Imitates Business: Commercial and Political Influences in Elizabethan Theatre in this discussion. It should be there. Bill Godshalk _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0113 Thursday, 15 January 2004 [1] From: Thomas Larque <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 13:02:35 -0000 Subj: Re: SHK 15.0094 Marlowe Inquest [2] From: D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 07:39:38 -0600 Subj: RE: SHK 15.0094 Marlowe Inquest [3] From: Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 08:41:12 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 15.0094 Marlowe Inquest [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Larque <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 13:02:35 -0000 Subject: 15.0094 Marlowe Inquest Comment: Re: SHK 15.0094 Marlowe Inquest >Thomas Larque refers to "Proponents of vast conspiracy theories" in >regard to comments on the death of Marlowe. > >I hope he was not referring to mine No, certainly not. I was a long term resident on HLAS - the Shakespeare Newsgroup - (although I now have better things to do with my spare time) and the sort of conspiracy theories that I was coming across there were what I principally had in mind. The sort of conspiracy theories that involved a major government cover-up by major nobles and legal officials, complete with imported (famous) hanged corpses to substitute for Marlowe, the jury's failure to notice the marks of hanging justified by some very dubious interpretation of the historical records describing Coroner's inquests (which actually required the body to be viewed naked, but which the conspiracy nuts would prefer to claim allowed the jury to view the body only when it had already been sewn into a shroud, which would have made the presence of a jury completely pointless). There are more sensible conspiracy theories, such as the one put forward by Charles Nichols, but I have to admit to being rather dubious even about these - although I admire Nichols's book and his scholarship, while rather obviously not admiring the proponents of theories that follow the sort of pattern set out above. Thomas Larque. "Shakespeare and His Critics" "British Shakespeare Association" http://shakespearean.org.uk http://britishshakespeare.ws [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 07:39:38 -0600 Subject: 15.0094 Marlowe Inquest Comment: RE: SHK 15.0094 Marlowe Inquest Philip Tomposki responds to my complaint that the explanation of the killing of Marlowe, as derived from coroner's report, doesn't work: "Actually, it works quite well. In 'The Reckoning' Charles Nicholl suggest (and I agree) that Frizer's wounds, long, shallow gashes, suggest he was being pummeled with the hilt of the knife. This means the point is up and would be moving toward Marlowe on the upswing. "Now try this, swing your arm down as if you were striking someone. (Please use an imaginary knife - the Thane of Cawdor has one he can lend you.) At the nadir of your stroke, pull your forearm back as if being pushed away by your victim. You'll find the knifepoint strikes your face near the eye. (At least it does for me.) Hemmed in by Skeres and Poley, Fizer can only turn halfway and raise his arm to ward off the blow. If he happens to push Marlowe's arm away at the beginning of the upswing, Marlowe's own movements contribute to the force of the blow." It may not matter, but it seems to me that he is visualizing someone *standing* behind someone else and attacking them, not lying on a bed. It's the latter that bothers me, not the idea that Frizer might have killed Marlowe more or less accidentally. It's hard to do anything while lying on bed (except the obvious), even while "leaning forward." If Marlowe swung at Frizer while still lying essentially prone, where would Frizer's injuries be? And where would Marlowe's eyes be if Frizer stood and whirled in place, as he would have to do? This is what I can't make work. Was Marlowe actually *sitting* on the bed and then leaned forward in the sense of making a kind of crouching attack? It would still be difficult for him to harm Frizer except on the back, but he could do something injurious. Frizer might then have reached back to swat (the presumably quite drunk) Marlowe, but having his knife in his hand, jabbed it into the other man's eye deeply enough to kill him. I can make all sorts of scenarios work if Marlowe is standing or even crouching behind Frizer, but not if he is lying on his back or side. Cheers, don [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 08:41:12 -0500 Subject: 15.0094 Marlowe Inquest Comment: Re: SHK 15.0094 Marlowe Inquest SNIP to: >my response was strictly technical. That >is, either there's something wrong with the coroner's report or there's >something wrong with my visualizing of it. > >If the former, that does not necessarily mean anything more than that >Frizer et al. testified in a way that exonerated them from any blame, Or that whatever happened was difficult to put into words, but that they did well enough in orally explaining what happened--as well, probably, as acting it out--to convinced the jurors they were giving a reasonably close approximation of what actually happened. >and that the coroner was happy to accept it even if it didn't quite make >sense (as suggested). If the latter, then I was concerned to get a >clarification. I find Philip Tomposki's explanation (from Nicholl) very persuasive. I hadn't heard before that Marlowe was apparently thumping Frizer with the butt of his knife. Didn't Nicholl describe it differently in the first edition of his book. I also thought Marlowe was trying to stab him. But even that didn't contradict the coroner's report for me since who knows what might happen in some kind of fight like that: Frizer somehows awkwardly for the knife, is very strong and twists his arm enough to get the dagger pointing upward, the drunken Marlowe slips in a weird way, Frizer shoves the knife arm away and up, and it catches Marlowe just where it had to to kill him. It's a case by case sort of thing, it seems to me. Another point of disagreement is how long it would have taken Marlowe to die. I believe the coroner's report suggests it happened quickly but that experts say it should have taken longer. Maybe the reverse. Anyway, I think NO coroners' reports are ever perfectly accurate, so there will always be details conspiracy buffs can have their kind of fun with (which is not to say that everyone who questions a coroner's report is a conspiracy buff). --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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0112 Thursday, 15 January 2004 [1] From: Pier Paolo Frassinelli <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 14:50:57 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 15.0093 Shakespeare Blacks and Jews [2] From: Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 08:03:53 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 15.0093 Shakespeare Blacks and Jews [3] From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 15:40:57 -0800 Subj: RE: SHK 15.0093 Shakespeare Blacks and Jews [4] From: W.L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 21:25:04 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 15.0093 Shakespeare Blacks and Jews [5] From: Steven Marx <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 15 Jan 2004 07:16:44 -0800 Subj: SHK 15.0093 Shakespeare Blacks and Jews [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pier Paolo Frassinelli <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 14:50:57 +0200 Subject: 15.0093 Shakespeare Blacks and Jews Comment: Re: SHK 15.0093 Shakespeare Blacks and Jews On Othello's blackness. The OED entry on "Moor" states: "Originally: a native or inhabitant of ancient Mauritania, a region of North Africa corresponding to parts of present-day Morocco and Algeria. Later usually: a member of a Muslim people of mixed Berber and Arab descent inhabiting north-western Africa (now mainly present-day Mauritania), who in the 8th cent. conquered Spain. In the Middle Ages, and as late as the 17th cent., the Moors were widely supposed to be mostly black or very dark-skinned, although the existence of 'white Moors' was recognized." Some of the early modern examples cited are also interesting: "1547 A. BORDE _Introd. Knowl._ (1870) xxxvi. 212 Barbary... the inhabytours be Called the Moores: ther be whyte mores and black moors"; "1555 R. EDEN tr. Peter Martyr of Algeria _Decades of Newe Worlde_ f.355, Ethiopes...which we now caule Moores, Moorens, or Negros"; "1632 W. LITHGOW _Totall Disc. Trav._ v. 232 A Towne inhabited by Christians, Arabs, and Moores: not blacke Moores, as the Affricans be, but ...a kinde of Egyptians". Pier Paolo Frassinelli University of the Witwatersrand South Africa [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 08:03:53 -0800 Subject: 15.0093 Shakespeare Blacks and Jews Comment: Re: SHK 15.0093 Shakespeare Blacks and Jews I also suggest John Gross' book Shylock. As to an anti-black sentiment in England at the time, Elizabeth had recently passed a law (edict) demanding the removal of all Africans from the country. -- Colin Cox Artistic Director Will & Company [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 15:40:57 -0800 Subject: 15.0093 Shakespeare Blacks and Jews Comment: RE: SHK 15.0093 Shakespeare Blacks and Jews Hi All, Since this is vaguely on topic, I thought I'd ask the list's help in finding an article that I remember reading (and I think it was new) within the last three or four years. The article was on how diplomatic relations with the corsairs of North Africa changed between the reigns of Elizabeth and James. Elizabeth maintained diplomatic relations against Spain as a common enemy, but James all but declared war, thereby causing North African corsairs to raid into the Thames. As memory serves, this article tied the distinction in to differences between the Q and F texts of Othello, or perhaps only to the reception of the play under different reigns. Unfortunately, I wasn't planning on doing anything on Othello at the time, and took no note of where I'd found it. Now I think that it would be very interesting for a student of mine, and can't find it. I thought that it was in Renaissance Quarterly, but isn't in any of the issues I have. Yours truly, Sean Lawrence. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004 21:25:04 -0500 Subject: 15.0093 Shakespeare Blacks and Jews Comment: Re: SHK 15.0093 Shakespeare Blacks and Jews Has anyone mentioned Kim Hall's Things of Darkness: Economies of Race and Gender in Early Modern England? Bill Godshalk [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Marx <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 15 Jan 2004 07:16:44 -0800 Subject: Shakespeare Blacks and Jews Comment: SHK 15.0093 Shakespeare Blacks and Jews A chapter in my book, Shakespeare and the Bible (OUP 2000) argues that one element of Shakespeare's portrayal of Jews in The Merchant of Venice stems from his reading of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, wherein a struggle between followers of Jesus and traditional Jews over rival interpretations of the Hebrew Scriptures is construed as a will contest between older and younger brothers for the birthright and blessing of the father. Paul represents new Christians as the younger son, Jacob (or Israel) and traditional Jews as the older, supplanted son, Esau. (4:13-14) An analogous struggle of interpretation can be found in the pro- and anti- Pauline positions of modern critiques of the play, for instance those of Lewalski and Girard. I believe Shakespeare adopts Paul's reconstructed narrative of Biblical history, but exposes and undermines it in a variety of ways. _______________________________________________________________ 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.