2005

Living Characters

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1976  Wednesday, 30 November 2005

[1] 	From: 	Philip Tomposki <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 16:48:26 -0500
	Subj: 	RE: Living Characters

[2] 	From: 	Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 20:24:46 -0800 (PST)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1966 Living Characters

[3] 	From: 	Duncan Salkeld <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Wednesday, 30 Nov 2005 12:03:43 +0000 (GMT)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1966 Living Characters


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Philip Tomposki <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 16:48:26 -0500
Subject: 	RE: Living Characters

 From Joseph Egert:

"Fine word "legitimate"! Let the Forum partake of Edmund's vigor and 
ingenuity. We need more upstart crows, not fewer. No more caged Ariels.

Let the eagle soar!"

More like turkeys, and there not soaring, their fluttering about making 
a great deal of fuss without achieving anything useful!

I'm not a scholar, but I joint this list to read and engage in serious, 
thoughtful and informed discussions on Shakespeare.  It's been 
distressing to find that of late, the lunatics have been taking over the 
asylum.

There are plenty of lists where anyone can float all the kooky, nutty 
theories they want.  If you think someone else wrote the canon, or that 
Shakespeare was a Jew, Italian, Ethiopian or alien life form, or have 
interpretations that has absolutely NO textural evidence, that's where 
you belong.  Please leave this list to we old farts who actually believe 
in employing facts and reason in our discussions.

Philip Tomposki

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 20:24:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 16.1966 Living Characters
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1966 Living Characters

David Bishop writes, "The fact that Claudius is King Hamlet's brother 
intensifies the foulness of the murder, but what's sibling rivalry got 
to do with it?... As for how one brother 'persuaded his immature son 
into continuing the family battles', this begs a great many questions. 
Laertes, in some ways a mirror of Hamlet, needs no such persuasion 
because he believes it's a son's duty to revenge his father's death. As 
I've said elsewhere, I think the play's focus shifts, by the end, away 
from revenge toward justice."

Ah, the *art* of Shakespeare!  Leave it to a man of his genius to 
include foils and a comparative plot and comparative character to show 
the difference: Laertes is *only* interested in revenge, and Prince 
Hamlet is *truly* interested in justice.  The text rules!

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

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Duncan Salkeld <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 30 Nov 2005 12:03:43 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: 16.1966 Living Characters
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1966 Living Characters

Biblical names from the Old Testament become common during Elizabeth's 
reign - thanks to people reading those Protestant Bibles, of course. 
Other names such as Susanna and Judith had become popular earlier in the 
century - they are names familiar from the Mystery Plays, funnily enough.

I think it is worth pointing out that the names Judith and Susanna were 
relatively rare in Elizabeth's reign (and Susan was a far more popular 
form than Susanna).

Duncan Salkeld

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Gertrude-Ophelia

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1975  Wednesday, 30 November 2005

[1] 	From: 	S. L Kasten <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 23:21:45 +0200
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1956 Gertrude-Ophelia

[2] 	From: 	Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Wednesday, 30 Nov 2005 10:57:05 -0500
	Subj: 	Gertrude/Opheli


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		S. L Kasten <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 23:21:45 +0200
Subject: 16.1956 Gertrude-Ophelia
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1956 Gertrude-Ophelia

  M Yawney  generalizes:

 >The difference is in Shakespeare's dramaturgical practice. Shakespeare
 >does not conceal major plot points or leave the action ambiguous. There
 >are issues of motive and character that he does leave ambiguous, but the
 >only unclear plot points are found in corrupt texts of his play.

Act IV scene 5 begins with the Queen uttering six emphatic monosyllables 
the, last of which, the pronoun "her", implying to me the same sort of 
rejection as "that woman" uttered by a former US president.  In our case 
"her" refers to a newly orphaned young woman whose putative fianc


JC and Good Night, and Good Luck

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1973  Wednesday, 30 November 2005

From: 		Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 19:57:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 16.1960 JC and Good Night, and Good Luck
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1960 JC and Good Night, and Good Luck

Richard Burt writes, "I assume that many members of this listserv 
interested in Shakespeare and performance will find my posts of interest 
and use. I assume that members of this listserv who do not share these 
interests will simply delete my posts."

Al Magary writes, "Mr. Burt...seems to me that he renders a useful 
albeit non-comprehensive service to the Shakespeare community with 
periodic posts about Sh. references in popular culture-'Shakespop,' in 
someone else's nice word.  Any individual post may not be terribly 
valuable but in sum, as found in the list archives, they are as valuable 
as the total discussion in threads about, say, interpretation.  It is 
rare for the individual post about everyone's favorite bundle of 
complexities, Hamlet, to be remarkably valuable, but the thread can be 
informative."

Both Richard Burt and Al Magary make the stated point about SHAKSPER: it 
is for us, Shakespeareans.  And we, as a cosmopolitan group, worldwide, 
are diverse: scholars, students, actors/directors, readers, audience 
members-sophisticats [sic] and groundlings.  Thus, I agree that there 
are two extreme reactions in our membership of *all* posts: review and: 
delete, or read in depth, and save, or also delete.  After all, Hardy 
thinks enough to post *all* posts and save them in his archives, 
otherwise we would not see them.  Are we not hypocrites if we suddenly, 
and of late, *doubt* our Master?

I have stated that, according to script I read oft quoted in all sorts 
of media, that Hamlet the play and Hamlet the character is the most 
quoted and most debated work and speaker in literature, next to, of 
course, scripture [which is of another whole cloth].

What does this say?  What it says to me is that Shakespeare is at the 
heart of SHAKSPER with cause.  And, yes, deserved of our attention: 
scholars, students, actors/directors, readers, audience 
members-sophisticats [sic] and groundlings.  Let us *not* censor or 
prejudge, lest we *not* discover something new about Shakespeare.

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

Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1974  Wednesday, 30 November 2005

[1] 	From: 	Ward Elliott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 19:35:48 -0800
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 16.1964 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...

[2] 	From: 	Michael Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 19:59:29 -1000
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1964 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Ward Elliott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 19:35:48 -0800
Subject: 16.1964 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...
Comment: 	RE: SHK 16.1964 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...

My sense is that our Shakespeare ranges are pretty well validated back 
to 1590, since you can find two early plays, 2H6 and R3, that fit them 
pretty closely and no gold-standard Shakespeare play of any date that 
doesn't.  I can't claim to have validated our tests earlier than 1589, 
since we have no known Shakespeare that early to compare, nor for 
co-authored plays.  But I do know that other authors by the same tests 
look much the same stylometrically at 60 as they did at 18, and I'm 
skeptical that "punctuated development" does much to show that some 
other writer who tests on a different galaxy from Shakespeare at the 
other writer's age 20 or 30 or 43 could have morphed into Shakespeare at 
29, just as I would be of someone who argued that "punctuated 
development" could morph Jerome Kern into Paul McCartney.  We discuss 
this point at considerable length in the Oxford part of "Oxford by the 
Numbers" and have heard it reiterated many times since by Oxfordians, 
but SHAKSPER does not seem to me a proper place to rehash these arguments.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Michael Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 19:59:29 -1000
Subject: 16.1964 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1964 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...

Ward Elliott is obviously looking for a fight. I'm not interested. If he 
wants to discuss the authorship of 1 Richard II/Woodstock, it must be in 
an appropriately scholarly manner.

--Michael Egan

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Shadowplay

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1972  Wednesday, 30 November 2005

[1] 	From: 	Nancy Charlton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 21:34:28 +0000
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1961 Shadowplay

[2] 	From: 	Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 20:09:45 -0800 (PST)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1961 Shadowplay


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Nancy Charlton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 21:34:28 +0000
Subject: 16.1961 Shadowplay
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1961 Shadowplay

Thanks, Debra Murphy, for calling our attention to your interview with 
Claire Asquith on Godspy.com.

I haven't really anything to contribute to the discussion of 
Shakespeare's Catholicism, but I did notice way down the Godspy home 
page and article by another SHAKSPER contributor: Sophie Masson 
discusses Mel Gibson's "Passion" in May 2004.

Debra, did Godspy intend an allusion to Lear's speech to Cordelia in V.3?

Nancy Charlton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 20:09:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 16.1961 Shadowplay
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1961 Shadowplay

Bill Lloyd writes, "I think it's not inconceivable that Shakespeare 
might have been a Catholic or a crypto-Catholic, or sympathized with 
Catholics, but I don't think we'll ever know for sure or to what extent."

Were not the English themselves, shortly before Shakespeare, a Catholic 
nation?  And was not their literature so influenced?  Did not 
Shakespeare's most debatable character, Hamlet, *swear* on St. Patrick? 
  Was it not The Royal, The Crown, Itself, which took on the role of the 
Holy See, and usurped Rome?  And yet, could they erase all the 
*vestiges* from English churches and English literature?  The trappings 
of The Church were still *there* despite the split between the Old Guard 
and The New!

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

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.