April
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0647 Thursday, 7 April 2005 From: Ilona Goldmane <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 7 Apr 2005 07:11:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: PhD/Help Dear Colleagues, Till the year of 2005 everything in my academic career seemed to be stable and quite promising. I got a BA degree in English Philology in 1993 and an MA degree in the same field in 1997, then in 1998 I started to work on my doctoral thesis, and, though in October 2002, due to my mother's illness, I formally interrupted my PhD studies, I went on making my research Synergetic Interplay of Communicative Channels in 'Hamlet' Film Versions with a strong determination to submit it to the promotion commission this June. Since 1996 I worked at the Department of English Studies at the Faculty of Modern Languages, University of Latvia, in other words, at the affiliation which I had graduated from, at first as an assistant teacher but since 1999 as a lecturer. Simultaneously for 8 years I have been teaching a three-year course on British Literature designed by me and accredited by the Ministry of Education of the Latvian Republic at one of the secondary level educational institutions. Being encouraged by the Head of the English Studies Department, I was planning to defend my thesis in my home institute and later on to get the position of an Assistant Professor, BUT... Firstly, it turned out that the paper, which is ready at 80-85 per cent in English, shall be presented not in English but in Latvian, the official language of the state (according to the demands of the faculty, I wrote and defended both BA and MA papers in English). Though I know Latvian well enough in order to communicate, my own language level and the lack of relevant terminology in Latvian might become a serious barrier for preparing and defending the dissertation. I am advised to apply for the services of a professional translator, but it is not only an expensive (1000-1500 EUR, depending on the translator's skills and ambitions; the average salary of a university lecturer is 250 EUR a month) but also a risky enterprise as even a professional translation can be no guarantee against a certain degree of prejudice. For instance, some months ago I submitted for publication a 6-page article in Latvian. Knowing that I am Russian in origin, one of the reviewer's recommendations was to use a GOOD Latvian translation of Shakespeare's Hamlet. However, I had already USED one of the authentic translations made by a reputable Latvian translator. Thus, I have an impression that the above-mentioned comment of the reviewer is more political rather than academic. Secondly, though the staff seem to have an immense workload (for instance, I had 8 contact entrances, 90 minutes each, per week, plus 2 BA and 6 course papers to supervise), this year the university administration started to promote the policy of staff reduction. On 31 March I had re-elections for lectureship (4 candidates for 2 vacancies) and was NOT re-elected what results not only in the loss of my job but also in the complications with my PhD studies: I still have the right to finalise and submit the thesis, but since I do not belong to the staff any more, the overall procedure will cost me 800-1000 EUR (for the staff members it is free of charge). Thirdly, though some years ago my theme was accepted by the doctoral commission, I have all reasons to conclude that currently the university administration has no slightest interest in my theme. This week I am going to the unemployment agency to get the status of an unemployed. I lost my job in the middle of an academic year, I have to pay both for the translation and for the defence, I do not feel that my EX-university has any interest in my research, and I NEED your advice: what shall I do in the existing situation if I cannot accept the fact that 4-5 years devoted to the research do not count in somebody's eyes??? Perhaps, one of the higher educational institutions will get interested in my research entitled Synergetic Interplay of Communicative Channels in 'Hamlet' Film Versions, and I will be able to defend it in Europe in the English language. On request I am ready to provide you with my CV and the introductory part of my dissertation. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you in advance for your reply! Sincerely yours, Ilona Goldmane MA in English Philology Latvia songa17&yahoo.com _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.0646 Wednesday, 6 April 2005 [1] From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 Apr 2005 16:54:17 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0636 Shakespeare's Personal Faith [2] From: Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 Apr 2005 12:29:44 -0400 Subj: SHK 16.0636 Shakespeare's Personal Faith [3] From: Stuart Manger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 Apr 2005 17:32:55 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0636 Shakespeare's Personal Faith [4] From: Norman Hinton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 05 Apr 2005 13:08:49 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0636 Shakespeare's Personal Faith [5] From: Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 Apr 2005 21:15:49 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0636 Shakespeare's Personal Faith [6] From: John-Paul Spiro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 05 Apr 2005 17:17:34 -0400 Subj: RE: SHK 16.0636 Shakespeare's Personal Faith [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 Apr 2005 16:54:17 +0100 Subject: 16.0636 Shakespeare's Personal Faith Comment: Re: SHK 16.0636 Shakespeare's Personal Faith Peter Bridgman wrote: >The 'Non nobis Domine' is Psalm 115 from St Jerome's Vulgate >(completed 405 AD) and is traditionally a song of deliverance. Well, no. Only in the Nova Vulgata of 1979. In all previous versions of the Vulgate, 'Non nobis, Domine' is verses 9-26 of Psalm 113, 'In exitu Israel'. As far as I am aware, there was no Catholic liturgical item with the incipit 'Non nobis, Domine'. The Nova Vulgata (execrated as heretical by extreme traditionalists) adopts the Protestant or Hebrew numbering and division of the Psalms. The Book of Common Prayer (and also the Anglican Psalter, often bound with it) gives the Latin incipits for each Psalm (and the canticles). Shakespeare has either misread his source (Holinshed), or chosen to interpret it in an Anglican sense for his audience. John Briggs [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 Apr 2005 12:29:44 -0400 Subject: Shakespeare's Personal Faith Comment: SHK 16.0636 Shakespeare's Personal Faith Colin Cox has rumbled me: "My guess is you are no actor" Flatterer. T. Hawkes [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Manger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 Apr 2005 17:32:55 +0100 Subject: 16.0636 Shakespeare's Personal Faith Comment: Re: SHK 16.0636 Shakespeare's Personal Faith Love IS blind, whatever the object. 'Unworthy' objects can elicit grand and noble poetry. Love IS rarely consistent. Love IS almost always contradictory. The imagery of the sonnets surely demonstrates at its most sophisticated an alert and sensitive examination and analysis of states of almost mystical adoration, humour, frustration, anger, amazement, depression and self-abasement that is in any great love passion, and reflected in all great love poetry in any language. It matters not what the object is when seeing the poetry as poetry. If it is noble writing, does the object of adoration invalidate the quality of the writing? And, yes, mystical poetry frequently borrows this erotic diction to convey other states of ecstasy and/or frustration. So what if Mr WH or whoever was a vain and worthless boy / young man? The poet's reactions to and relationship with him are sublime and universally applicable. I am not quite sure why David Basch is so frowningly curt and dismissive of the 'object' of the sonnets as now agreed upon by many scholars including Booth and Vendler. He comes very close to dismissing the sonnets on the grounds that unless they are directed to Yahweh, they are unworthy of Shakespeare. Really? I fear it may be that Mr Basch has already made the a priori assumption that it is a series of coded praises to Yahweh, and if you start from that base, then, yes, indeed, there will exist a sub-strate of invincible ignorance about any other way of seeing the sonnets, no matter what evidence of generations of scholars is put before you. I have to say that, for me, David Basch's last posting was the saddest, most dispiriting of this entire thread in terms of its implications. That so much impressive investigative zeal and imagination could have been spent on such a deadening and illiberal exegesis is truly, truly defeating. I cannot think where we go from here. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norman Hinton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 05 Apr 2005 13:08:49 -0500 Subject: 16.0636 Shakespeare's Personal Faith Comment: Re: SHK 16.0636 Shakespeare's Personal Faith My point is that, while telling us (perhaps) what he believes, Hawkes says that we cannot believe things that are written. If you are given a list of what to buy at the grocer's, should you then assume that the list cannot possibly be a true statement so what is wanted? This 'writing writes itself and no one can know what is really meant' is a disease, not a critical standpoint. [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 Apr 2005 21:15:49 +0100 Subject: 16.0636 Shakespeare's Personal Faith Comment: Re: SHK 16.0636 Shakespeare's Personal Faith Abigail Quart writes ... >The real cue is in the next speech. The word in caps is >REFORMATION, a damned odd word in a Catholic bishop's mouth: I've finally finished reading Eamon Duffy's 'Stripping of the Altars'. It quotes hundreds of source documents from the time of the Reformation, but I cannot recollect a single document actually containing the word "Reformation". I expect WS and his contemporaries would have no more understood they were living at the time of the Reformation than their grandparents would have understood they were living at the end of the Middle Ages. These are terms coined by historians. The following quote, from a Protestant site called 'What was the Reformation? A Brief History', seems to agree with me ... "It wasn't until the late seventeenth century that Reformation was used as a term to describe an era in church history. Veit Ludwig von Seckendorf's Historical and Apologetic Commentary on Lutheranism or the Reformation was the first work to use reformation in this sense. Seckendorf, who had definite pietistic leanings, used reformation as the key word to describe the events in Germany in the early sixteenth century, especially the years 1517-1524. This work, as did dictionaries and encyclopedias of the eighteenth century, typically linked the era of the Reformation to the life and career of Martin Luther". In the light of this, shouldn't we read Canterbury's word 'reformation' as meaning moral reformation, rather than any conversion to Protestantism on the part of the young king? Besides, there are moments in the play when Henry's Catholicism is very evident. For example, he orders Bardolph's hanging for stealing a pax. A pax or 'paxbread' was, as Duffy explains, "a disk or tablet on which was carved or painted a sacred emblem, such as the Lamb of God or the Crucifix. This pax was ... taken [after being blessed by the priest at Mass] to the congregation outside the screen, where it was kissed by each in turn ... [It was] clearly a substitute for the reception of communion". Since the mere possession of a pax would have meant a spell in prison for anyone watching Henry V, this is hardly the actions of a Protestant king. Nor is the building of two chantries to atone for his father's sins ... Five hundred poor I have in yearly pay, Who twice a-day their wither'd hands hold up Toward heaven, to pardon blood; and I have built Two chantries, where the sad and solemn priests Sing still for Richard's soul. More will I do; Though all that I can do is nothing worth, Since that my penitence comes after all, Imploring pardon. Under the Chantries Act of 1547, these two chapels would have been stripped of all their plate, vestments and artworks, and the land confiscated by the Crown. Peter Bridgman [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John-Paul Spiro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 05 Apr 2005 17:17:34 -0400 Subject: 16.0636 Shakespeare's Personal Faith Comment: RE: SHK 16.0636 Shakespeare's Personal Faith Dear Mr. Basch, Please put your whip away. The horse is dead. John-Paul Spiro _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.0645 Wednesday, 6 April 2005 [1] From: Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 05 Apr 2005 11:22:39 -0400 Subj: A Claudius Question [2] From: Julia Griffin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 05 Apr 2005 11:38:48 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0634 A Claudius Question [3] From: Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 Apr 2005 17:34:39 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0634 A Claudius Question [4] From: D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 Apr 2005 13:51:08 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 16.0634 A Claudius Question [5] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 05 Apr 2005 17:05:27 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0634 A Claudius Question [6] From: Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 Apr 2005 17:31:54 -0400 Subj: RE: SHK 16.0634 A Claudius Question [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 05 Apr 2005 11:22:39 -0400 Subject: A Claudius Question Robin Hamilton writes of 5.1.254FF. : "Hamlet isn't mad, it's more that he's thoroughly irritated (to say the least) over Laertes' behaviour in Ophelia's grave, and parodies Laertes' overblown rhetoric." Yes, but. . . . Why should Hamlet be so irritated? After all, we often use "overblown rhetoric" when we say good-bye forever to a loved one, right? Hamlet is actually picking a fight with Laertes, and he obliges by trying to strangle Hamlet, as lines 260ff. indicate. The two young men have to be separated or apparently they would have come to blows. What is Hamlet up to? - especially since Laertes is thought to be the better fencer/fighter. Hamlet may well be mad here, but it's madness with a method, as I've argued before. He is testing Providence. If he acts outrageously enough, he may get himself killed. If so, he has proved that it is NOT God's Will that he kill Claudius. Of course, he must pay with his life. This is ingenious. But it may also be mad! Ed Taft [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julia Griffin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 05 Apr 2005 11:38:48 -0400 Subject: 16.0634 A Claudius Question Comment: Re: SHK 16.0634 A Claudius Question "Hamlet isn't mad, it's more that he's thoroughly irritated (to say the least) over Laertes' behaviour in Ophelia's grave, and parodies Laertes' overblown rhetoric" (Robin Hamilton). Isn't Hamlet's "thorough irritation" itself an indication of some sort of mental instability? Not to see the outrageousness of parodying the hysterical grief of Laertes at his sister's funeral? "What is the reason that you use me thus?" suggests it too - well, could it just possibly be that you have killed my father and driven my sister to insanity and pseudo-suicide, or perhaps that you now demand star-billing while she is being buried? "I loved Ophelia": at least, I'm not going to be out-grieved by anyone else, even though I will never mention her again and apparently feel no responsibility for her death. (It's true I did forget myself to good Laertes; but then his rhetoric was so annoying. Was't Hamlet wrong'd Laertes? Never Hamlet.) On the legitimacy issue: given that this is apparently an elective monarchy, are we sure what Fortinbras's "rights of memory" are? Just the right to be a candidate? Horatio seems to think that Hamlet's "dying voice" will encourage others to vote for him, but is Fortinbras hinting at a different sort of procedure? Julia [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 Apr 2005 17:34:39 +0100 Subject: 16.0634 A Claudius Question Comment: Re: SHK 16.0634 A Claudius Question I'm not saying this is right, all I'm saying is that it's possible to stage a version of +Hamlet+ where the Prince isn't totally bats-in-the-belfry barking mad. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. It WORKS, and unless you want to dismiss the audience and elect another ... <sigh> The Wee M'Greegor [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 Apr 2005 13:51:08 -0500 Subject: 16.0634 A Claudius Question Comment: RE: SHK 16.0634 A Claudius Question Robin Hamilton responding (If, in fact, Hamlet was asserting that he was king, it was he, not Claudius, who was usurping.) says "This only applies if Claudius was a *legitimate* king in the first place -- or did Malcolm "usurp" Macbeth?" Exactly. We're getting into that "none dare call it treason" thing. Or, the habit of kings during the Wars of the Roses to backdate their reigns so that the old king's supporters could be accused of treason. Or the situation in England, whereby to many Catholics Mary of Scotland was the actual queen of England and Elizabeth, a bastard and a usurper. Or, all that "king over the water business" with the dispossessed Stuarts. (Or more recently, there are any number of people who feel that George W. Bush did not win the election of 2000, but rather that it was stolen for him by his brother, the governor of Florida, whose electoral votes determined the matter.) In the case of Claudius, one may begin with the premise that a man who placed himself in the position of gaining a kingship through the cold-blooded murder of the incumbent is not a legitimate king no matter how many elections he won or how you admire his foreign policy. Or you may hold a set of values in which murder does not disqualify a person from that (or any) office. But let's not argue about values as if they were facts. don [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 05 Apr 2005 17:05:27 -0400 Subject: 16.0634 A Claudius Question Comment: Re: SHK 16.0634 A Claudius Question >>If, in fact, Hamlet was asserting that he was king, it was he, not >>Claudius, who was usurping. > >This only applies if Claudius was a *legitimate* king in the first place >-- or did Malcolm "usurp" Macbeth? An interesting question. Malcolm was the rightful king of Scotland only if Duncan's constitutional innovation of making him Prince of Cumberland and heir apparent had been effective. Otherwise, the more-or-less elective system made Macbeth the legitimate king and Malcolm's assumption of the throne as the result of civil war was treasonable and a usurpation. Macbeth's and Claudius's situations are highly analogous. And let us not forget that they were contemporaries. The English king who succored Malcolm and was to execute Hamlet was the same guy -- Edward the Confessor. In both cases the elected king had secretly murdered his predecessor, and knowledge of this was presumably kept from the electors. (Actually, in Macbeth it appears that it was an open secret. The thanes in the play were at least highly suspicious.) Let us consider what effect this might have had on the legitimacy of the election: The English common law principle that a murderer may not profit from his crime is inapplicable to the situation for two reasons: (1) There is no reason to assume that it was the medieval law of Denmark or Scotland. Indeed, there is no authority of which I am aware that the doctrine applied even in England during Saxon times. (2) More importantly, as a practical matter the principle did not apply to succession to the throne. Henry IV and Edward IV were both implicated in the murders of their predecessors. But that did not make them any the less sovereign. They could be removed only by being defeated in a civil war, not by the judgment of a court. So this leaves the question of whether the elections were invalid because of the secret murders. The operative issue is the secrecy, not the murder. We can imagine a candidate acknowledging that he did away with the incumbent king. (Undoubtedly he would offer a good reason for doing so, but this is of no moment.) If he were elected despite the confession, there would be no issue of his legitimacy. So does his concealment of the crime make a difference? Unless there were a constitutional mechanism for undoing the election, the answer would have to be "no." No one else would have the authority to call himself king; so it would take a civil war to reverse the result. To illustrate the practical point, suppose that Lyndon Johnson had arranged for the assassination of John Kennedy. Suppose that this fact were discovered after his own election in 1964. Would that have made Barry Goldwater president? Of course not. Johnson would have remained president until he was impeached and two thirds of the Senate voted to remove him from office. And then his handpicked Vice President (Hubert Humphrey), who was elected with him, would have succeeded. In other words, the results of the election would not have been overturned because the electors had been kept in the dark about the murder. [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Abigail Quart <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 Apr 2005 17:31:54 -0400 Subject: 16.0634 A Claudius Question Comment: RE: SHK 16.0634 A Claudius Question Robin Hamilton wrote: "This only applies if Claudius was a *legitimate* king in the first place -- or did Malcolm "usurp" Macbeth?" Eh. Probably. In both cases. When the play, Hamlet, opens, there is nothing particularly unusual in stepson Hamlet's behavior. I've been a charming stepchild myself, and that sulking churlishness is just par for the course. NOBODY is questioning Claudius' ascension to the throne. Not till that vengeful, selfish, nasty-minded Ghost shows up. And even then it's only Hamlet. Achieving a throne by enterprising murder of a close relative is not uncommon, and was, in fact, noted as a drawback to what I've been calling an aethling system but is really known as the Celtic Law of Tanistry. Whether or not the achieved throne was held legitimately pretty much depended on whether or not one kept holding on to it. And whether or not one really wanted to make a fuss over every little thing. (Not to mention, but I will, that I'm convinced it's how Alexander the Great got to be so great. So this has been going on a looooooooooong time.) As for Malcolm, well, I don't like to be a gossip (such a liar) but I have heard the rumor that his daddy and mommy weren't married and that mommy was...well...low. Which would make even a primogeniture claim for Malcolm a bit...worthless. Shakespeare didn't choose to use this bit of tittle tattle, so we really can't apply it to the play, but historically? Malcolm was no hero to Scotland. http://mccarthy.montana.com/Glossary.html http://www.electricscotland.com/history/home3.htm http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.com/inchbare.htm _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.0644 Wednesday, 6 April 2005 [1] From: David Basch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 05 Apr 2005 12:15:03 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0635 Words Ending in eth/th [2] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 05 Apr 2005 17:09:02 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0635 Words Ending in eth/th [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Basch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 05 Apr 2005 12:15:03 -0400 Subject: 16.0635 Words Ending in eth/th Comment: Re: SHK 16.0635 Words Ending in eth/th I am happy to be corrected on the item concerning Rudyard Kipling's short story as containing the item on Psalm 46. I got that bit of information off the web and one can now see the pitfalls of that. I am happy that now I will get to read the Rudyard Kipling story. While "shake" and "spear" appear in earlier English versions of Pslam 46, it is only in the KJV that they appear at the 46th place, beginning and end, if you discount the last word "Selah." The KJV was completed in 1610 and published in 1611, 1610 being the year of Shakespeare's 46th birthday. If anyone on the list is interested in a mathematical study of the "accidents" of Psalm 46, try reading the article on the subject at www.ziplink.net/~entropy/kjv.pdf Again, I am happy to have factual errors corrected. I have no desire to falsify any conclusion and will readily admit when what I have is simply a surmise or a hypothesis. The upshot of this document is to cite the low order probability of what occurred. This then makes human intervention in this as likely as not. David Basch [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 05 Apr 2005 17:09:02 -0400 Subject: 16.0635 Words Ending in eth/th Comment: Re: SHK 16.0635 Words Ending in eth/th >So, David Basch is in agreement with Bill Arnold. Is there a figure of >speech, more precise than irony, for this state of affairs? It is not a figure of speech, but "folles
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0643 Wednesday, 6 April 2005 [1] From: Kathy Dent <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 06 Apr 2005 00:24:43 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 16.0632 The Use of Rolls? [2] From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 6 Apr 2005 14:43:10 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0632 The Use of Rolls? [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathy Dent <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 06 Apr 2005 00:24:43 +0100 Subject: 16.0632 The Use of Rolls? Comment: RE: SHK 16.0632 The Use of Rolls? Paul Werstine has this note in his article 'Plays in Manuscript' in Cox & Kastan's _New History of Early English Drama_ (p.495): 'Greg actually included texts of only three actors' parts in _Dramatic Documents_, two medieval examples from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries and Edward Alleyn's part of Orlando in _Orlando Furioso_; he did make reference to a fourth, the then newly discovered part from _Processus Satanae_ (c. 1570-1580), which he arranged to have appear in the Malone Society's _Collections_ II, part 3 (237-50). Since Greg's time a small book in which four other players' parts are preserved has been donated to Harvard (MS Thr 10.1). "The parts included ... are Polypragmaticus in Burton's _Philosophaster_, Antonius in an unidentified Latin play, and Poore in an unidentified English play," as well as "the part of Amurath" from Thomas Goffe's _The Courageous Turk_ (O'Malley, 56). A transcription of the part of "Poore" is in the Malone Society's _Collections_ XV (111-69). It is fully described in two articles by Carnegie.' Kathy Dent [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 6 Apr 2005 14:43:10 +0100 Subject: 16.0632 The Use of Rolls? Comment: Re: SHK 16.0632 The Use of Rolls? Bill Godshalk wrote: >John Briggs doubts the existence of rolls. Well, no - especially as one or two actually survive! I was in fact querying their universality: all companies, at all times, for all plays, for all roles? I think I was warning of the dangers of extrapolation from limited data. After all, and for example, a number of players could have shared a 'literary' transcript! As for libraries/archives, there were certainly collections of playbooks held at the playhouses (at least for those plays in the repertory) by the companies (and presumably held by the 'bookkeeper'), but why should that necessarily include any rolls/cue scripts? Or the 'foul papers'/'fair copies'? As for the use of cue scripts for modern performances, that has taught us a number of things - including about the practicality of the prompter sitting on the edge of the stage with the playbook, which we know (or think we know) didn't happen! John Briggs _______________________________________________________________ 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.