2005

Macbeth Questions

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0870  Wednesday, 4 May 2005

From:           Sarah Cohen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 03 May 2005 16:15:14 -0700
Subject:        Macbeth Questions

I always thought the phrase "swelling act" was a theatrical (or,
possibly, a musical) metaphor, not a priapic one.

What about "swelling scene" in Henry V? Is that another reference to
tumescence? What exactly does the Chorus wish that monarchs should behold?

Sarah Cohen

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Failed Application

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0869  Wednesday, 4 May 2005

[1]     From:   Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 3 May 2005 17:57:40 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 03 May 2005 13:28:01 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

[3]     From:   Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 03 May 2005 18:14:37 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

[4]     From:   D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 3 May 2005 13:47:49 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

[5]     From:   Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 3 May 2005 20:32:03 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

[6]     From:   Jay Feldman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 03 May 2005 13:59:53 -1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 3 May 2005 17:57:40 +0100
Subject: 16.0859 Failed Application
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

John Briggs writes ...

 >It is unwise to cite the television personality Michael Wood as an
 >expert on any of this.  After all, he speaks of 'Henry VIII's
 >Reformation' - which would have surprised a king who wrote against
 >Luther, and in return received from the pope the title "Defender of the
 >Faith".

Perhaps Michael Wood was distinguishing Henry's Reformation (the
pillaging of shrines and monasteries) from Edward's Reformation (the
pillaging of parish churches, the end of the Mass) or from Elizabeth's
Reformation (the persecution of adherents of the old faith).  Since most
contemporaries dated parish reforms from 1547-48, John Briggs is right
in suggesting that the Reformation hadn't quite started by the end of
Henry's reign.

Henry's treatise, 'An Assertion of the Seven Sacraments', sent to Leo X
in 1521, described Luther as a "venemous serpent, a pernicious plague,
an infernal wolf ... an infectious soul, a detestable trumpeter of
pride, calumnies and schism, having an execrable mind, a filthy tongue,
and a detestable tongue".  Although Luther himself believed Henry's
treatise was ghost-written by Edward Lee, he retaliated in kind by
writing that "Squire Henry" was "nothing but a damnable rottenness and
worm".

Leo, for his part, gave Henry the title 'Defender of the Faith' (and
despite what it says on our coins, this was not an inheritable title)
and ordered another 28 copies of the treatise for his cardinals to read.
  These were left to gather dust in the papal library, and a year later
the English ambassador John Clerk noticed them there, still unread.

Peter Bridgman

[Editor's Note: I was citing Michael Wood to counter David Basch's
assertion that "I take Wood's words literally that there is ambiguity as
to where Mary's family came from. It would seem to me that Mary's
Catholicism has therefore not been proved." Wood has no doubts about
Robert Arden's faith or Mary's.]

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 03 May 2005 13:28:01 -0400
Subject: 16.0859 Failed Application
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

 >Larry Weiss makes an interesting suggestion for reviewing my work, in
 >which I and he post a $10,000 stake on the matter. That amount is a
 >little steep for me, but why is it needed?

For the reason I explained:  To demonstrate your sincerity; to put your
inconsiderable money where your considerable mouth is.  We can now add
cowardice to the charges in the bill of indictment.

Since Basch is not inclined to make this even remotely interesting, and
since he has not said anything new in some time, I am unwilling to
devote any more energy to this.  And there seems no point to it anyway,
as everyone else who has responded to Basch's imaginings seem to agree
that they are the product of madness.

This thread is highly reminiscent of the authorship debate in many many
ways, not the least being that it depends on arcane puzzles and
arguments from what is "possible" rather than what is proved.  If Basch
argued that William Shakespeare could not have been the author of the
plays because the true author was obviously Jewish, Hardy would never
have let the posts see the light of day.  It is not much different to
argue that Shakespeare himself was the Jew, as that would so pervert
what we know about him that it would make him an entirely different
person.  I respectfully suggest that the same policy be applied.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 03 May 2005 18:14:37 +0000
Subject: 16.0859 Failed Application
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

Our resident Biblical scholar Bill Arnold concedes "Christians are of a
Judaic-Christian culture."
He was not always so generous. In 2003 (SHK 14.2128), he wrote:

    And what [Jesus] added was the eleventh commandment, the tenet of
Christianity: "Thou
    shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Now, this was the newly
created commandment of Will S's
    "Saviour." And this commandment is the backbone of the New Testament
and replaced the
    eye-for-an-eye doctrine of the Old Testament.

Newly created? Can it be that Bill Arnold is unaware of the
commandment's origin in the Old Testament (Leviticus 19), a staple of
the Jewish culture which produced Jesus? Jewish sages from Hillel to
Maimonides have held this commandment along with "Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart..." as the backbone of the Old
Testament, pretty much encompassing the other commandments. The
"replacement" occurred when St. Saul, in a shameless display of
legerdemind, defied both Jesus and his brother Jacob (James) by
nullifying the Law and substituting in its place Lawless Love and Grace
to woo the Gentiles squeamish about circumcision. This struggle between
the Sons of Paul and the Sons of James is clearly allegorized in THE
MERCHANT OF VENICE. Shakespeare may in fact have used a palimpsest of
Jewish sources among others without recognizing many of its Jewish
allusions.

Enter David Basch.

Shalom,
Joe Egert

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 3 May 2005 13:47:49 -0500
Subject: 16.0859 Failed Application
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

John Briggs writes,

"It is unwise to cite the television personality Michael Wood as an
expert on any of this.  After all, he speaks of 'Henry VIII's
Reformation' - which would have surprised a king who wrote against
Luther, and in return received from the pope the title "Defender of the
Faith"."

Is that the Henry who broke with the papacy, declared himself head of
the church, and closed the monasteries?

Cheers,
don

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 3 May 2005 20:32:03 +0100
Subject: 16.0859 Failed Application
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

We seem to be trudging endlessly round one of the circles of Hell.

David Basch (yet again) insists that because John Shakespeare's surname
was ONCE written as Shakere, and because 'shakere' means 'false' in
Hebrew (I'll take his word for it), this is evidence that the mayor of
the Catholic town of Stratford-upon-Avon was secretly a Jew.

There are in fact seventeen different spellings of John's surname in the
Stratford records.

If this is the only piece of evidence David Basch can offer (apart from
odd letters picked from the Sonnets read backwards), then I have to say
I fear for his sanity.

Peter Bridgman

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jay Feldman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 03 May 2005 13:59:53 -1000
Subject: 16.0859 Failed Application
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

David Basch: "...In the meantime, I have found my own answers to these
questions which tell of a Jewish poet who seems likely to have descended
from families of hidden Jews."

David, I'm curious about your thoughts concerning whether Wm.
Shakespeare and his son, if hidden Jews, were circumcised? It would seem
an unlikely choice if one wished to remain undiscovered, nevertheless it
would also seem to be a critical component of his faith as a Jew.

Sincerely - 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.

First Folio Function

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0867  Wednesday, 4 May 2005

[1]     From:   Julia Griffin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 03 May 2005 12:20:39 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0852 First Folio Function

[2]     From:   David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 3 May 2005 17:38:06 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0852 First Folio Function

[3]     From:   Marina Tarlinskaya <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 3 May 2005 10:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0852 First Folio Function

[4]     From:   Louis W. Thompson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 3 May 2005 16:57:51 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0852 First Folio Function

[5]     From:   Thomas Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 03 May 2005 20:42:01 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0852 First Folio Function


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Julia Griffin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 03 May 2005 12:20:39 -0400
Subject: 16.0852 First Folio Function
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0852 First Folio Function

What will you do, Prof Urkowitz, with the famous crux in Antony &
Cleopatra V ii:

                               For his Bounty,
There was no winter in't.  An Anthony it was,
That grew the more by reaping:       ?

Will you follow Theobald and emend to "autumn", or take the text as it is?

(This is a serious question - I'm interested in the idea of using the
Folio, and would like to know how you plan to proceed in a case like this.)

Julia

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 3 May 2005 17:38:06 +0100
Subject: 16.0852 First Folio Function
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0852 First Folio Function

As someone who has edited Shakespeare, I have my own, perhaps
predictable, views on the debate about actors using the F1 text, rather
than modern editions - and I would certainly not accept the line that
these represent 'uncooked books', when, for example, it is demonstrable
fact that the scribe, Ralph Crane, who provided the copy for a number of
F1 plays, habitually modified the texts he transcribed.  But I would be
interested to know what the enthusiasts for using F1 do when there is
also a Quarto text of a play. On what basis do actors choose between
them?  I'd also be interested to know whether, even whilst using the
Folio text to work from, actors pay any attention to scholarly work on
the possible/likely origin of a particular play-text (authorial MS,
playhouse book, scribal transcript, etc.). I would have thought that
this might be of some material interest even to the most fervid opponent
of the modernised texts that editors produce.

David Lindley

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marina Tarlinskaya <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 3 May 2005 10:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 16.0852 First Folio Function
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0852 First Folio Function

If the poet bothered to write in iambic pentameter, divided into lines,
with its own metrical, stressing and syntactic rules, these have to be
respected by actors as well as by readers. Also, Shakespeare
differentiated his personages by verse structure, opposing them as
character types, "emplois," (heroes-villains, impulsive-sophisticated,
and more, see my book on Shakespeare's verse), it might help an actor's
interpretation of a part.--

M. Tarlinskaja

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Louis W. Thompson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 3 May 2005 16:57:51 EDT
Subject: 16.0852 First Folio Function
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0852 First Folio Function

Why was the First Folio filled with errors, or usage which had to be
corrected later?

I have read one explanation....that the early printers were mostly
German and did not speak English.

This reasoning seems thin:
1) It is quite possible to copy another language without making errors.
2) Wouldn't a printer be extra careful setting type in a language
foreign to them?

Forgive my ignorance,
Louis W. Thompson

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 03 May 2005 20:42:01 -0400
Subject: 16.0852 First Folio Function
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0852 First Folio Function

Well, I certainly seem, without meaning to, to have gored Kim Carell's
ox. If he finds the Folio text empowering as an actor, more power to
him, and long may his lum reek. Anything that helps, as Steve Urkowitz
says. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Though I still think there are parts
of the Folio text that no-one, actor or editor, can make much sense of
on page or stage. Must all actors therefore become textual scholars as
well? That seems a poor exchange for them. A table of green fields, anyone?

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.

Antony and Cleopatra 4.3

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0868  Wednesday, 4 May 2005

From:           Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 03 May 2005 16:26:39 +0000
Subject: 16.0818 Antony and Cleopatra 4.3
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0818 Antony and Cleopatra 4.3

To Jack Heller, seeking comment on the eerie music in Act 4, Scene 3 of
Antony and Cleopatra:

Check out Marvin Spevak's 1990 edition of ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA (A new
variorum edition of Shakespeare) (ISBN 0-87352-286-9) pp 236-240. Along
with his apposite commentary, Spevak references several articles
addressing this very issue.

Regards,
Joe Egert

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Subterranean Shakespeare - Shakespeare's Greatest

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0866  Wednesday, 4 May 2005

From:           Nancy Charlton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 3 May 2005 09:19:53 -0700
Subject: 16.0849 Subterranean Shakespeare - Shakespeare's
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0849 Subterranean Shakespeare - Shakespeare's
Greatest Hits

Geoff Pond, your program and the Rude Mechanicals sounds delightful.
Wish I could bop on down from here in Portland for it. Let us know when
the CD is out!

Years ago I heard a calypso band do "It was a lover and his lass," with
steel drums and a singer with a fine bass voice. Everyone seems to write
their own "You spotted snakes" any more, but one of the most engaging
I've heard was 15 years ago not only sung by children but composed by them.

The sonnets are well represented on your program. I discovered long ago
that "They that have power to hurt and will do none" very well fits the
tune of "I'll take you home again, Kathleen." That song being rather
treacly, the heaviness of the sonnet makes for an amusing travesty.

A study of changing styles through the years would make a good
dissertation topic. Better you than me!

Nancy Charlton

_______________________________________________________________
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.