2004

Question on Measure for Measure

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1796  Thursday, 30 September 2004

[1]     From:   Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 29 Sep 2004 12:58:29 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.1780 Question on Measure for Measure

[2]     From:   Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 29 Sep 2004 13:45:14 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1780 Question on Measure for Measure

[3]     From:   Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 29 Sep 2004 13:39:59 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.1780 Question on Measure for Measure


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Sep 2004 12:58:29 +0100
Subject: 15.1780 Question on Measure for Measure
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.1780 Question on Measure for Measure

Dear All,

I suspect, to the contrary, that of course the 'rich jewel' here is a
sneaking reference to the play's authorship by Nashe via his allusion to
the 'richly jeweled coffer of darius', which both Shakespeare and Nashe
are known to have stolen from North or Puttenham.  These pesky
collaborative authors always have to leave their little clues for us
sleuths to discover eh?

Yours,
Marcus 'Nashe ain't dead he's just living in Swindon' Dahl

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Sep 2004 13:45:14 +0100
Subject: 15.1780 Question on Measure for Measure
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1780 Question on Measure for Measure

Colin Cox writes ...

 > I think this refers to Juliet's candela rating.  For the
scientifically minded ...

All very good, but what is Juliet's rating in millihelens?

Peter Bridgman

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Sep 2004 13:39:59 -0400
Subject: 15.1780 Question on Measure for Measure
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.1780 Question on Measure for Measure

Uh huh. She's glowing. Kind of a nice transition point between heavenly
body and that other angel of value.

_______________________________________________________________
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 Meaning of Hamlet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1795  Thursday, 30 September 2004

From:           Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Sep 2004 08:05:40 -0700
Subject: 15.1781 The Meaning of Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1781 The Meaning of Hamlet

 >And he even questions whether he is delaying because he is a
 >coward, and so on.

I don't know that he questions the delay is because of cowardice as much
as he asks am I not a coward for having delayed.

Colin Cox

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Comments on Polonius

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1793  Thursday, 30 September 2004

From:           L. Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Sep 2004 08:02:10 -0500
Subject:        Comments on Polonius

HR Greenberg wrote,

 >Polonius is a dodderer of shifting identities...

Of shifting identities, yes; a dodderer, no - that is, if by "dodderer"
you characterize the man as he is so ineptly presented in Olivier's
production. Polonius is the First Minister of State and, had he been a
dodderer, most unlikely to be where he is politically; certainly he
would not be kept on and listened to by the deep, devious, politically
savvy Claudius. When, while instructing Reynaldo,  Polonius says "Where
did I leave?" (i.e., "What was I just saying?"), this is an order (and
with a snap of the fingers), not a request. People in such high places
need not depend on their own memory; others remember for them. Who
interprets Polonius as a dodderer must be prepared to show why a man
like Claudius would listen to such a person, be advised by him.

L. Swilley

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Modified Procedures

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1794  Thursday, 30 September 2004

[1]     From:   L. Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 29 Sep 2004 07:36:25 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1776 Modified Procedures

[2]     From:   Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 29 Sep 2004 07:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1776 Modified Procedures

[3]     From:   Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 29 Sep 2004 12:35:32 -0400
        Subj:   SHK 15.1750 Apologies and Hiatus

[4]     From:   John V. Knapp <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 29 Sep 2004 13:38:00 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   Response to Re: SHK 15.1769 Apologies and Hiatus


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           L. Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Sep 2004 07:36:25 -0500
Subject: 15.1776 Modified Procedures
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1776 Modified Procedures

Charles Weinstein wrote,

 >While rules of interpersonal courtesy make sense for a discussion group,
 >rules preventing the discussants form speaking sharply or satirically of
 >public figures do not...

I somewhat agree; certainly people who place themselves in the public
realm should expect the worst. Nevertheless critics given to sharp and
satirical remarks should be chided, not so much for their discourtesy as
for their failure to distinguish performance from the physical person
who performs. More ad hominems, which serve no purpose in any
discussion. It is ideal to have a Rudolpho and a Mimi who are
19-year-old models right out of Vanity Fair Magazine, but would we not
rather have Pavoritti and another celebrated behemoth singing for us,
especially since we quickly put aside thoughts about their size and age
and are swept away by those grand voices, that beautiful music and that
touching story?  The ripped and bulked Brad Pitt may be better
physically suited for the role of Achilles, but would we not more
eagerly accept a Jeremy Irons, a Ralph Fiennes or - God help us - a John
Gielgud in the role?

L. Swilley

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Sep 2004 07:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 15.1776 Modified Procedures
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1776 Modified Procedures

Charles Weinstein writes, "While rules of interpersonal courtesy make
sense for a discussion group, rules preventing the discussants [from]
speaking sharply or satirically of public figures do not.  Some
listmembers assume that there is no distinction.  I believe that the
distinction is obvious and important. Failure to recognize it could lead
to dilution and enfeeblement of the discussion."

With Hardy's permission, I wish to respond once, and only once, to this
matter. As my computer was down because of two hurricanes here in south
Florida, I have not had to opportunity to be heard.

Off-list, I did respond to Hardy, our able and fabulous moderator.  I
could not heap enough positive adjectives on Hardy for his tireless work
to moderate SHAKSPER.  It is his time and dedication to the greatest
bard in English in the world which keeps this list afloat, and anyone
who doubts that needs to rethink their thinking.  So, first up: Hardy
comes first.  Period.

Second: I was a friend of Henry Miller, the famous Henry Miller of many
books and writings, including *Tropic of Cancer* and am well aware of
the results of intellectual censorship, so I say the following wisely.

Third: Hardy has a disclaimer on the bottom of every posted set of
messages to the list which clearly denotes his tolerance to
non-censorship.  The recent PC [politically correct] objections to
Charles Weinstein's message were uncalled for, in my opinion.  In order
for Hardy to have a workable list, we all must abide by the disclaimer.
  If any list member does *NOT* like a message, then delete it. Do *NOT*
attack the messenger, and do *NOT* attack Hardy, the moderator. Read
again the disclaimer, which Hardy created in the best interests of the
list and its list members.  If you have any *real* issues with the
content of the message, by all means respond, but if Hardy *chooses* to
react to *you* then you must absolutely accept he is the moderator of an
intellectual list in which all attempts at non-censorship are trying to
be maintained.

Fourth: if any censorship begins on intellectual content, then it begins
with Hardy and ends with Hardy.  I accept that, I applaud that, and so
should you all, or run the risk of *NO* list.  Thus, I absolutely
*AGREE* with Charles Weinstein that intellectual content must *NOT* be
censored.  We all can name a million works of intellectual property
which some would censor, and others would not, from *Lysistrata* to the
*Bible* to the *Koran* to *Das Kapital* to the *Declaration of
Independence* to *Merchant of Venice.*   No, please do *NOT* ask Hardy
to ever censor intellectual content.  Accept it *IS* the poster and
relate to the poster, either with public response on the list, if and
*ONLY* if Hardy allows, or privately off-list to the poster, or use the
magical *D* delete button.

Fifth: in other words, "like it, or leave it," Hardy rules!  SHAKSPER
lives, or dies with Hardy!!

Bill Arnold
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Sep 2004 12:35:32 -0400
Subject: Apologies and Hiatus
Comment:        SHK 15.1750 Apologies and Hiatus

For heaven's sake, enough of this pious hand-wringing. The wit, bite and
style of Charles Weinstein's contributions make them far more
exhilarating than some of the unctuous oozings that too often clog up
this list. If SHAKSPER is to be anything more than a vicar's tea-party,
we should certainly not discourage them. The real danger is that we'll
all end up sounding like Kenneth Chan.

Terence Hawkes

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John V. Knapp <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Sep 2004 13:38:00 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: SHK 15.1769 Apologies and Hiatus
Comment:        Response to Re: SHK 15.1769 Apologies and Hiatus

Hardy et al. --

If you've seen enough of these, just delete mine. However, here are my 2
cents worth: I must agree with Charles Weinstein on all of this.  While
I do believe that some of his "reviews" are over the top and even at
times mean-spirited, I can think of no worse way of coming to terms with
such reviews than by censoring them.  Fortunately for all of us on this
list, the D (for Delete) button is never far from one's fingers.
Perhaps the best type of response would come from those who have also
seen the play under review but whose opinions are decidedly different
from Mr.  Weinstein's.  That is, argue, debate, board him, assault his
opinions, etc.

John V. Knapp

_______________________________________________________________
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 Leap

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1792  Thursday, 30 September 2004

[1]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 29 Sep 2004 12:09:58 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1777 Shakespeare's Leap

[2]     From:   Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 29 Sep 2004 15:06:33 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.1777 Shakespeare's Leap


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Sep 2004 12:09:58 -0400
Subject: 15.1777 Shakespeare's Leap
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1777 Shakespeare's Leap

I agree with Todd Pettigrew that the connection between the hanged wolf
and Lopez is tenuous, and I did not intend to suggest otherwise.  My
only point was that this line is the closest one can come to finding
that Lopez "inspired" M/V, and it is, I agree, problematical.

By the way, it is also questionable that Lopez can be said to have been
"hanged"; he was disemboweled, beheaded and quartered.  He may have
first been hanged and then cut down alive, since that was part of the
ceremony, but he didn't die from it.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 29 Sep 2004 15:06:33 -0400
Subject: 15.1777 Shakespeare's Leap
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.1777 Shakespeare's Leap

Mr. Pettigrew, what other wolves were hanged? Is that a traditional
method for dealing with wolves? Saying "wolf" and "hanged" in the same
sentence was a complete reference to the Lopez affair for anyone in
England. The connection is sealed when we understand that the English
knew that Lopez did it not for faith or patriotic zeal, but MONEY.

Beware of membership in the Condi Rice school of interpretation. It IS
possible to understand that terrorists are plotting to hijack planes and
fly them into buildings without a signed invitation to the event.

_______________________________________________________________
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.