2005

Palermo Conference - Notice of Change of Date

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1781  Friday, 21 October 2005

From: 		Michele Marrapodi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 21 Oct 2005 08:47:25 +0100
Subject: 	Palermo Conference - Notice of Change of Date

Conference Announcement - Notice of Change of Date
(with apologies for cross-posting)

Fourth International Palermo Conference - _Shakespeare Yearbook_ (2007).

THE CONFERENCE HAS HAD TO BE POSTPONED to 22-24 June 2006

Call for Papers

Papers are solicited on the theme of "Shakespeare and Renaissance 
Literary Theory" for the Fourth International Palermo Conference to be 
held (in association with the General Editor of _Shakespeare Yearbook_) 
at the Faculty of Arts of the University of Palermo from Thursday 22 
June to Saturday 24 June 2006. Topics may deal with early modern Italian 
and English dramatic theories, the question of genre and decorum, the 
English response to tragicomedy and Italian dramatic theories, the 
influence of Italian touring companies and _commedia dell'arte_ types, 
Shakespeare's reliance on and resistance to classical rules, fixed 
genres, and dramatic conventions.  The deadline is 30 April 2006. 
Contributors will include Louise George Clubb, Robert Henke, Robin 
Headlam Wells, Keir Elam, J. H. Halio, and Frances K. Barasch.

Proposed contributions should be presented according to the style sheet 
of _Shakespeare Yearbook_. The length of an article should not exceed 
7000 words, including endnotes. The title of papers together with a 
one-page abstract must be sent to Michele Marrapodi (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) 
and to Douglas Brooks (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) by 31 January 2006.

Michele Marrapodi
University of Palermo

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Clocks and Bells

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1780  Thursday, 20 October 2005

From: 		Holger Schott Syme <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 19 Oct 2005 01:40:54 -0400
Subject: 16.1756 Clocks and Bells
Comment: 	RE: SHK 16.1756 Clocks and Bells

I realize this discussion might be more than a little dull to most 
members of the list, but in the hope that it doesn't seem entirely 
irrelevant, could I ask Michael Egan to respond properly to my 
arguments? He might consider my objections to his theories about the 
staging of _1 R2_/_Woodstock_ "obvious," but he is mistaken, I think, in 
his belief that he has already answered them on his website.

In any case, I'd be interested to hear his response to the broader 
implications of the points I made apropos his specific propositions; in 
particular I'd like to find out if he has reconsidered his understanding 
of _Macbeth_ as a play written for a particular performance venue.

Another protracted discussion of _1 R2_/_Woodstock_ might indeed not be 
welcome here, but I take it that the larger issue under debate in this 
thread is of considerable theatre historical significance and hence 
worthy of further discussion.

Apologies to Hardy if I'm altogether wrong --

Holger

[Editor's Note: I believe that this thread is approaching its end and 
would appreciate it if anyone with anything further to say on the 
subject would do so before I close it down.]

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Sonnet 76

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1778  Thursday, 20 October 2005

[1] 	From: 	Robert Projansky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Wednesday, 19 Oct 2005 06:47:54 -0700
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1758 Sonnet 76

[2] 	From: 	Dan Decker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Wednesday, 19 Oct 2005 12:59:26 EDT
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1766 Sonnet 76


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Robert Projansky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 19 Oct 2005 06:47:54 -0700
Subject: 16.1758 Sonnet 76
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1758 Sonnet 76

 >Ben Alexander asks what does Sonnet 76 mean at line 7:
 >
 >"That euery word doth almost fel my name,"

Why does everybody seem to believe that's "tell"? In the online 1609 
facsimile at

http://www.shu.ac.uk/emls/Sonnets/e4v.jpg

it looks pretty clearly to me to be "sel my name". "Sell" doesn't make 
much sense to me there, but from the four-line sentence in which it is 
embedded, I would guess that's a typo that was meant to read:

Why write I still all one, ever the same
And keep invention in a noted weed
That every word doth almost spel my name,
Shewing their birth, and where they did proceed?

I think that's a better fit than "tell".

Of course, I have no way to support my supposition except to say that 
"spell" there just seems more Shakespearean to me than "tell", I guess 
because "spell" is a verb more intimately involved with the act of 
writing, the purported subject of the poem so far, than "tell". In 
literal terms, I think "every word" has to be busier and cleverer to 
somehow "spell" the poet's name than simply to "tell" it.

Also, I don't think WS wants the connotation of counting here, which 
"tell" brings with it. And I suppose (without being able to say why) a 
compositor's dropped-letter typo would be more likely than a 
substituted-letter typo. Now, if the error originated with WS or a 
scrivener rather than in the printshop, I think a dropped "p" hugely 
more likely than the erroneous substitution of an "s" for a "t".

On the other hand, Benjamin Franklin, in his autobiography, says that 
when he was a printer's apprentice it was his job to fetch drink for the 
printers, that they said because it was heavy work for strong men they 
needed strong drink. I suppose it's miraculous that anything they 
printed ever made sense. And, of course, the t's and s's would have been 
right next to each other in the tray, so any sweaty compositor with his 
thirst well-quenched could easily have set an s for a t.

Best wishes,
Bob Projansky

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Dan Decker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 19 Oct 2005 12:59:26 EDT
Subject: 16.1766 Sonnet 76
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1766 Sonnet 76

I believe it was Helen Vendler who suggested that 76 reads as though it 
is in response to something said to the poet (presumably by the person 
who has received the most sonnets (presumably the Fair Youth (presumably 
Henry Rosely <wink>))), along the lines of, "Why is it everything you 
write me is always the same? Sonnets, sonnets, sonnets! That's all I 
ever get from you." To which the poet wrote 76, basically dismissing the 
rag for his inability to understand just what the sonnets were.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1779  Thursday, 20 October 2005

[1] 	From: 	Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 18 Oct 2005 23:40:43 +0000
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1767 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?

[2] 	From: 	Kenneth Chan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Wednesday, 19 Oct 2005 08:42:56 +0800
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1767 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 18 Oct 2005 23:40:43 +0000
Subject: 16.1767 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1767 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?

David Bishop believes "Shakespeare has not approved of taking revenge on 
the word of a ghost."

Exactly.

I feel the discussion is too narrowly focused on the crime of Claudius 
while overlooking the wider historical context within the play that 
Shakespeare emphasizes. To paraphrase Billy Joel, the fire didn't start 
with Claudius. Let me mount my hobby-horse one more time. Old Fortinbras 
is the Pompey of this drama, whose vengeful yet immortal spirit leaves 
his slaughtered body at the moment of death to infuse the newborn body 
of Prince Hamlet. Competing with this spirit is the Holy Christian 
Spirit of forgiveness and Providential acceptance entering that same 
body at baptism. This Holy Spirit is later buttressed by Hamlet's 
Wittenberg conscience. These two contending spirits comprise the young 
Prince's agonizing psychomachia, ending in the eradication of the Danish 
royal family and in the restoration of the Fortinbras line. All that's 
missing is the Old Ghost in his true identity of Old Fortinbras gloating 
over the dead at Elsinore.

Regards,
Joe Egert

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Kenneth Chan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 19 Oct 2005 08:42:56 +0800
Subject: 16.1767 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1767 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?

David Bishop writes: "The ghost calls Hamlet to revenge with the story 
of his murder. As far as there's any doubt about the truth of this 
story, it is dispelled, for Hamlet, Horatio and the audience, by the 
play scene. However, since no one else suspects a murder, since the 
Mousetrap is only a play, and since Hamlet's behavior plausibly explains 
the king's choler, no one else suspects Claudius of anything. The truth 
is now objective, but not public. For revenge, Hamlet only needs to kill 
Claudius. For justice, he needs public proof."

The problem with this is that Hamlet actually does set out to kill 
Claudius after the play scene. He does not wait for public proof. When 
he encounters the King praying, Hamlet refrains from killing him because 
he is afraid the act of praying may save him from hell, as Hamlet 
clearly says in the text. It is not because of the problem of public proof.

Later, Hamlet actually does carry out the act of killing, only he kills 
the wrong man. When he thrusts his rapier through the arras, Hamlet's 
intention is clearly to kill the King. He does not wait for public proof.

Kenneth Chan

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Octogenarian Lear

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1777  Thursday, 20 October 2005

From: 		David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 18 Oct 2005 19:24:34 -0400
Subject: 16.1763 Octogenarian Lear
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1763 Octogenarian Lear

I can't pretend that the Actors' Shakespeare Company is "mine," as 
Geralyn Horton suggests; as the name suggests, it belongs to the 
wonderful actors who make it work. I am happy to say to those in reach 
of Boston that the show has been extended for one further weekend, Nov. 
4, 5, and 6, and that if you go to TheaterMania.com right away you might 
get a ticket.

David Evett

_______________________________________________________________
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 Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.