2005

Shakespeare's Biblical References

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1011  Thursday, 26 May 2005

From:           R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 25 May 2005 08:51:48 -0500
Subject: 16.1000 Shakespeare's Biblical References
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1000 Shakespeare's Biblical References

 >>>>>Why not Tyndale's translations,
 >>
 >>>
 >>>These might have been hard to find in Shakespeare's day.
 >
 >I don't know why -- Tyndale's translation was the basis of the King
 >James: scholars estimate that as much as 80% of KJV is actually Tyndale.

They were burnt. Also: there is no "The" Geneva Bible. See Charles
Eason's The Genevan Bible: Notes on its Production and Distribution.
Dublin 1937.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

About Hamlet [Was Dating Hamlet]

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1010  Thursday, 26 May 2005

[1]     From:   D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 25 May 2005 08:45:16 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0995 About Hamlet [Was Dating Hamlet]

[2]     From:   Jim Carroll <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 25 May 2005 14:16:36 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0995 About Hamlet [Was Dating Hamlet]

[3]     From:   D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 25 May 2005 15:26:43 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0995 About Hamlet [Was Dating Hamlet]


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 25 May 2005 08:45:16 -0500
Subject: 16.0995 About Hamlet [Was Dating Hamlet]
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0995 About Hamlet [Was Dating Hamlet]

Edmund Taft and I seem to be talking about different things altogether,
so that he thinks I misunderstand him, just as much as I think he
misunderstands me.

For example, he considers petulance what I wrote as sarcasm, and assumes
that I felt backed into a corner when what bothered me was the feeling
of fighting thin air.

However, I will make this effort to clarify what I said. (My God, I am
getting into one those tedious
You-Said-No-I-Didn't-What-I-Said-Was-No-You-Didn't arguments? I suppose so.)

I didn't say that Erasmus had no effect on English humanism. What I
said, or attempted to say, was that Erasmus's theory of benevolent
kingship (as I took Ed's point to be) had no effect on Renaissance
kings. I could, of course, be wrong, and would be interested in a
well-supported study showing that, in the Renaissance, kings were a
kinder, gentler, more self-sacrificing breed. But my reading of 15-17th
century monarchs is that they were just as cruel, brutal, violent, and
unjust as their predecessors.

I may have misread Ed on the matter of friendship in the Middle Ages,
but it certainly seemed to me that he was saying that a radical shift in
favor of it had taken place in the Renaissance. In England this shift
was observable in the influence of Spenser on later writers. Doubting
this (since it went against my accumulated knowledge of the Middle Ages)
I asked for evidence (1) that friendship was significantly less
important in the Middle Ages (collectively) than in the Renaissance
(collectively), and (2) that this change was signaled in England by a
widespread difference in literature after FQ 4.

I still want to see it. Honestly, and with a sincere desire to learn
something new, not simply as a way of harassing Ed.

That Hamlet's friendship with Horatio is one of the play's supreme
excellences I don't dispute. I just don't think it offers evidence about
the role of friendship in the Middle Ages.
All I cared about here was a generalization about the MA that didn't
square with my current impression of that period. If that impression is
wrong then I very much wish to correct it. That's all.

Cheers,
don

PS: Of course any kind of generalizing about epochs is open to
nit-picking attack. I quite realize that and am trying to avoid it.
After all, what's a generalist to do?

PPS: Was it Blake who said, "To generalize is to be an idiot"? It
remains one of my all-time favorite self-referential statements.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jim Carroll <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 25 May 2005 14:16:36 -0400
Subject: 16.0995 About Hamlet [Was Dating Hamlet]
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0995 About Hamlet [Was Dating Hamlet]

Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>wrote

 >But Don conveniently ignores the heart of the matter: the way Hamlet
 >in the
 >first part of the play exhibits an expanded notion of friendship that
 >crosses traditional boundaries of rank and class. That would hold true
 >even if there was not a new, humanistic emphasis on the virtues of
 >cultivating friendship.

It's not clear to me in what specific way there is anything new in
Hamlet's relationships with his friends. My reading of history gave me
the impression that kings have always had friendships with others far
below their class, for example Henry II and Thomas Becket, who was the
son of a merchant.

Jim Carroll

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 25 May 2005 15:26:43 -0500
Subject: 16.0995 About Hamlet [Was Dating Hamlet]
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0995 About Hamlet [Was Dating Hamlet]

With your collective indulgence let me try this a different way.

Although the comparative judgments about the Renaissance and Middle Ages
that have been offered do not square with what I have learned in the
past about those periods, I don't know that they are wrong. I simply
don't know on what grounds they're made.

In order to compare the ideals of the two periods we have to *state* the
ideals. Ed Taft made an important contribution by citing Erasmus for the
Renaissance ideal. If we had similar statement concerning the Medieval
ideal we could then evaluate them-provided, of course, we had a clearly
stated set of values in place that would make the judgment valid. Ideal
R, Ideal M, and our own ideal taken as absolute.

(Thus also with friendship.)

There are, of course, several collateral matters. One is whether the
ideals stated are actually representative. Another (already mentioned)
is whether the superior ideal actually produced superior kings (or
friendships).

Third, anticipating Terence Hawkes, there is the question of whether the
Middle Ages and Renaissance are themselves sufficiently precise concepts
to warrant the discussion the first place, or whether it is simply so
much tossing of barnyard Frisbees.

I am tame, sir. Pronounce.

don

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Branagh Filming As You Like It

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1008  Thursday, 26 May 2005

[1]     From:   John-Paul Spiro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 25 May 2005 18:41:40 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0997 Branagh Filming As You Like It

[2]     From:   Rolland Banker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 25 May 2005 23:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   SHK 16.0981 Branagh Filming As You Like It


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John-Paul Spiro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 25 May 2005 18:41:40 -0400
Subject: 16.0997 Branagh Filming As You Like It
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0997 Branagh Filming As You Like It

I saw Bryce Dallas Howard play Rosalind at the Public Theatre in New
York a few years ago.  The production was

directed by Erica Schmidt and retained much of the cast from an earlier
production of hers.  The cast consisted

of six actors with much doubling and tripling of parts.  It was by far
the best AYL I've seen.

Ms. Howard, however, was a replacement for Angela Goethals, who was
quite superior: she portrayed Rosalind's

intelligence and managed to look young enough that her first viewing of
Orlando was a perceivable awakening.

Howard was fine but Lorenzo Pisoni's charismatic Orlando overpowered
her--which is most certainly NOT supposed

to be the case.

Considering how dreadful "Love's Labor's Lost" was and Branagh's plan to
make Shakespeare "accessible" (does

the crowd pleasing "As You Like It" even need such treatment?), I do not
look forward to this film.  Schmidt is

a far superior director.  I have no idea why anyone continues to fund
Branagh.  Molina should be fun, though,

and I'll see anything with Adrian Lester.

I'm of the opinion that "As You Like It" is essentially unfilmable.
Paul Czinner's 1936 film is laughably bad,

with its middle-aged Rosalind and posturing young Olivier.  As for
Branagh, he will probably think he's being

"cinematic" by creating a dazzling Arden, thus denying the audience the
joy of imagining it and following the

language.  (In Schmidt's production, Arden was suggested by a simple
strewing of leaves on the ground.)

"Bringing Up Baby" captures the play far better than a literal film
adaptation could.

John-Paul

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Rolland Banker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 25 May 2005 23:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Branagh Filming As You Like It
Comment:        SHK 16.0981 Branagh Filming As You Like It

Brilliant Branagh!

Bryce Dallas Howard must do Shakespeare, she has the face, the presence,
the sublime negative capability of one

born into art(we can thank Mayberry for that)--but can she carry the
plum role of Rosalind?

I thought she would make the perfect Perdita when I first saw her in
garland-ecstasy in the film, THE VILLAGE.

She was stunning, innocent, pure, breathtaking. I cherished a naive hope
that some supreme being would hear my

prayer and alter reality for a film version of THE WINTER'S TALE.

But Rosalind? I am still conflicted but I am hoping that yes, it may
work. The supreme being(who I now know is

Branagh) is surely playing with my mind. But it just might work.

Charles Weinstein beware! This isn't about Al Pacino now, it's about my
prayers and it's personal. Also, I

reside in Japan and totally see where my new deity is coming from in his
creative fixations for the film

version of AYLI. Fiat justitia.

sayonara

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Petition in Support of NPR, PBS, NEA: Apology

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1009  Thursday, 26 May 2005

From:           Jane Brody <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 26 May 2005 08:49:38 -0500
Subject: 16.1001 Petition in Support of NPR, PBS, NEA
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1001 Petition in Support of NPR, PBS, NEA

While I listen to nothing but NPR and would storm the capitol if it were
taken off the air, I have to inform the list that this particular
petition has been bouncing around the web for the past five or so years.
  When I first got it in 2000(?) I was incensed and started sending it
off, only to find that it is not true.  I believe that it is a well
meaning hoax, but a hoax nonetheless.

Jane Brody

[Editor's Note: My apologies. -Hardy]

_______________________________________________________________
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 16.1007  Thursday, 26 May 2005

[1]     From:   Peter Groves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 25 May 2005 23:50:20 +1000
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0996 First Folio Function

[2]     From:   D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 25 May 2005 08:53:41 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0996 First Folio Function


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Groves <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 25 May 2005 23:50:20 +1000
Subject: 16.0996 First Folio Function
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0996 First Folio Function

Bill Godshalk writes "I have a friend, a poet, who can and does speak in
blank verse.  If he didn't point out that he was doing so, I certainly
wouldn't know that he was.  I would think that he was speaking prose.
So, if blank verse is set as prose, would the actor whose lines these
are, the director of the play in which these lines are contained, and
the audiences listening to these lines-would they realize that these
lines are blank verse set as prose. Would they hear a difference either
way?"

Many wouldn't; many would (it would partly depend on the delivery: an
actor who thought s/he was speaking prose would fail to make the
appropriate slight adjustments-might well, for example, put the main
emphasis on <straight>in "O'er lawyers' fingers, who straight dream on
fees", which would kill the metre). More generally, in my experience
there are people who can hear pentameter, and people who have never for
some reason acquired the knack, to whom it sounds like prose; among the
latter there are both actors and scholars, and even some recent editors
of Shakespeare (the New Oxford <Macbeth>, for example, -- followed, as
it so often is, by the New Cambridge-prints the taut energetic verse of
Macbeth's persuasion of the murderers (mangled into free verse by
compositor A in F1) as an arbitrary lapse into prose.

As the latter example shows, the reader is perhaps not such a different
beast (beyond the banal fact of being presented with typographical clues
to lineation): s/he still has to hear the metre (aloud or subvocalized)
to recognize it.  The editors of those recent texts of <Macbeth>could
read the blank verse as re-arranged by Rowe (they couldn't miss it,
since it's otherwise universally printed by editors), but clearly they
couldn't hear it.

Peter Groves

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 25 May 2005 08:53:41 -0500
Subject: 16.0996 First Folio Function
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0996 First Folio Function

William Godshalk writes:

"I have a friend, a poet, who can and does speak in blank verse.  If he
didn't point out that he was doing so, I certainly wouldn't know that he
was."

If there is no iambic cadence to the lines why does he think they
constitute blank verse? How can you have blank verse without the verse
(primarily iambic metric lines)?

Just wondering,
don

_______________________________________________________________
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.