2005

Roses

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1433  Tuesday, 30 August 2005

[1] 	From: 	Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 29 Aug 2005 13:42:54 +0100
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1419 Roses

[2] 	From: 	Dan Decker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 29 Aug 2005 11:18:36 EDT
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1419 Roses


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 29 Aug 2005 13:42:54 +0100
Subject: 16.1419 Roses
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1419 Roses

 >>Through Sonnet 20, the poet tells how he must approach this
 >>self through a pure love, fitting for a godly higher angel sent
 >>by the Lord to all young men (and to young women too as an
 >>angelic young lady) at the age of twelve or thirteen, which is
 >>part of the allegory that the Sonnets as a whole present." [DB]
 >
 >To this, Larry Weiss quipped:
 >
 >>I see now,  it's a bar mitzvhah sermon.
 >
 >Yes Larry, or a confirmation sermon, which is another way to describe
 >it. Larry correctly sees the nature of Shakespeare's Sonnets allegory
 >but chooses to disparage that which the poet has hallowed.

This is silly.  There's a perfectly obvious logic to the movement of 1-20.

The reader glumly wades through sonnets 1-17 thinking, "Dear god, what's 
all this about?  Not *another* go-get-married sonnet."  When he or she 
reaches 18 -- "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?"-they sigh with 
relief: "At long last, a nice straightforward heterosexual love sonnet." 
  Then half-way through 19, the pronoun changes, and worries emerge.  20 
rams the point home that the addressee of 18 is not a woman but a man, 
and the worried reader rereads 18 and thinks, "Hm ... that changes it a 
bit."

This is known as the Virgin Reader approach-what happens when you read a 
text for the first time (which you can only do once) not knowing what 
will happen next?

It's also interesting when applied to +Hamlet+, and is obviously a 
factor in any rereading of +Pride and Prejudice+ where the initial 
(virgin) reading of "That prat Darcy" is replaced by, "Isn't this ever 
so sweet?"

Robin Hamilton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Dan Decker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 29 Aug 2005 11:18:36 EDT
Subject: 16.1419 Roses
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1419 Roses

If it is safe to return to the "Rose" discussion now,

WS might have seen the word ROSE in wRiOSEtheley, regardless of how it 
was pronounced. The whole debate over Risly or Roisly or Rosely is just 
a sideshow.

WS dedicated two works to Henry Earl Wriostheley, 3rd Earl of 
Southampton, and nothing to anyone else. The dedications spoke of the 
love the poet bears for the dedicatee, just as in the sonnets. No one 
else with Rose in their name had anything dedicated to them by the poet.

WS clearly connected fair friend - rose - his name - male gender.

Roses were the symbol of the town of Southampton and were engraved above 
the doors on one of Henry's houses.

WS also puns several times on the word hue. This might refer to Henry 
Earl Wriostheley's monogram.

Stylistically the sonnets are congruent with the plays reliably dated to 
'90-'95. There is no evidence to the contrary as to when the sonnets 
were written.

This date range overlaps with Southampton's refusal to marry. In doing 
so he placed the house of Southampton at risk. This situation is clear 
in the procreation series.

The procreation series also avoid any exhortation to marriage, instead 
harp exclusively on, well, procreating.

Southampton's beautiful, widowed mother was quite distressed over her 
son's refusal to wed and wrote she would do anything to get him to marry 
the girl in question. The Fair Friend's mother is directly referred to 
in one sonnet.

These congruencies present a preponderance of circumstantial and 
historical evidence, and the simple conjecture made possible by their 
confluence is what I will accept until some greater preponderance to the 
contrary comes to light.

Whether I like it or not, I am forced to conclude that the Fair Friend 
of the budding name, a man of many hues, his mother's glass, opposed to 
marriage, nature's Rose, was indeed H.E. wRiOSEtheley.

Brother Occam demands it so.

I agree with Brother Kennedy on one point: There is no indication of a 
physical relationship between WS and the Fair Friend in the sonnets. 
(Indeed, a strong argument can be mounted to the contrary.) Contrast the 
Fair Friend sonnets to the Dark Lady sonnets. WS was not shy when it 
came to writing about sex.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Tom Cruise-Shakespeare Hoax

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1432  Tuesday, 30 August 2005

[1] 	From: 	Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 29 Aug 2005 17:26:02 -0700
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1412 Tom Cruise-Shakespeare Hoax

[2] 	From: 	Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 07:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1412 Tom Cruise-Shakespeare Hoax


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 29 Aug 2005 17:26:02 -0700
Subject: 16.1412 Tom Cruise-Shakespeare Hoax
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1412 Tom Cruise-Shakespeare Hoax

Virginia M. Byrne wrote:

 >I personally think it is absolutely amazing that Tom Cruise
 >knows of Shakespeare.

Beneath the egotistical displays Cruise is an intelligent actor, as he 
showed in, eg, Rain Man (1988), Born on the Fourth of July (1989), and 
Collateral (2004).  But even with the celebrity he can't shake, Cruise 
could play Benedick or Petruchio--in a movie, not on stage..

Cheers,
Al Magary

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 07:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 16.1412 Tom Cruise-Shakespeare Hoax
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1412 Tom Cruise-Shakespeare Hoax

JD Markel writes,  'A similar strange but true report..."Jessica Simpson 
Sets Sight on Shakespeare.'"

Then Jessica Simpson writes, or says, ""I have always loved Shakespeare. 
That's the job I want - anything at the Globe."

Well, if I were still stringing for The National Enquirer, or Saturday 
Night Live were reading our SHAKSPER, [ testing: one, two, three! ] I 
would write a lead that we get our photo editor to doctor a photo of her 
in Daisy Duke's short shorts, carrying a tray of cigarette packs, and 
walking stage front, and turning back to the audience, in the "To be or 
not to be" monologue by Hamlet, with Hamlet played by Brad Pitt.  She 
would not have to have any dialogue balloon, saving her the utter 
embarrassment of a blundered line.  Let the eye candy speak for itself!

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.

Wager

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1429  Tuesday, 30 August 2005

[1] 	From: 	Robert Projansky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 29 Aug 2005 10:35:45 -0700
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1416 Wager

[2] 	From: 	Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 02:58:20 -0700
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1416 Wager

[3] 	From: 	Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 06:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1416 Wager


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Robert Projansky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 29 Aug 2005 10:35:45 -0700
Subject: 16.1416 Wager
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1416 Wager

I find the 1Richard II/Thomas of Woodstock attribution question hugely 
interesting, but I think the whole wager thing unfortunate, and I for 
one am glad it's off. Judges and juries do not necessarily determine the 
truth; they merely decide who wins. This question is not the kind that 
can be decided like a fight (even though it has some of the appearance 
thereof), and a wager is merely a distraction from the question, not a 
help to finding the answer. I think Michael Egan just has to take his 
chances and his lumps before his efforts will find the recognition he 
seeks, which might be never, even if his claim is bang on and good as gold.

To the substance of the issue: I am no scholar and didn't even know the 
play existed before I read about it here, but pretty much any actor who 
has ever performed in Richard II will tell you that Richard's stopping 
the trial by combat and banishing Mowbray and Bolingbroke puzzles not 
only the audience but the cast as well. Much of this wonderful play is 
unintelligible without off-stage exposition. The king's fear of the 
outcome of the combat needs to be exposed and explained and WS doesn't 
do it at all. Only after the long first scene, when Woodstock's widow is 
complaining to Gaunt do we hear that the king caused Woodstock's death. 
We don't know if it's true or not, Gaunt won't even say it was wrongful, 
and I don't think anybody ever says the murder is the root of the 
banishments. In short, I find it unlikely that Shakespeare's audience 
could be expected to come to the theater knowing that Richard had had 
Gloucester murdered and why unless they had been told that in a previous 
play -- and not by some other playwright, either. The play in question 
very thoroughly supplies the exposition, just as it would if it were the 
first part of WS's R II.

Yours,
Bob Projansky

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 02:58:20 -0700
Subject: 16.1416 Wager
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1416 Wager

Marcus Dahl wrote:

 >Consider the title page:
 >THE FIRST PART OF THE REIGN OF KING RICHARD \
 >THE SECOND OR THOMAS OF WOODSTOCK
 >The play's second title is 'Thomas of Woodstock'. I feel that
 >the abbreviation 1 Richard II is justified from this as 1HVI is an
 >appropriate abbreviation for The First Part of Henry VI.

May I suggest that the printed title of an anonymous work has no 
absolute authority over other evidence and furthermore that in serious 
discussion, "1 Richard II" is prejudicial.

The presumption of Shakespeareness (Shakespeareinity?) in the Woodstock 
play begins with Mr. Anonymous' title and continues with the insistence 
of his would be unmaskers in the 21st century. The idea that 
Shakespeare's long sequence of history plays might be made longer is a 
terrible attraction. The prospect of identifying a new Shakespeare text 
is as much a fatal lure as the possibility of proving another was 
author, or finding a new portrait or document.

But let us begin at the very beginning, with the title. Anyone who has 
studied the history of publishing finds out quickly that the author of 
the text cannot be regarded as the sole author of the title. Editors and 
publishers often enhance the appeal of a book with a new title (I used 
to do this when I was a publisher), and in the 16C printers and 
typesetters had a hand in this too. Here is Tom Stoppard playing with 
the authority of titles: Marlowe: "I have a new one nearly done, and 
better. 'The Massacre at Paris.'" Will: "Good title." Marlowe: "And 
yours?" Will: "'Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's Daughter.'"

The commercial appeal of title wording can be seen in the titles of the 
separate quartos of the eight chronicle plays from R2 to R3 in 
comparison to the simplified titles given to them by Heminge and Condell 
as parts of the First Folio, 1623. Including the names of famous 
characters such as Hotspur, Falstaff, and Ancient Pistol was obviously a 
selling point.

(For the record, the titles below are from the BL's facsimile quartos at 
http://prodigi.bl.uk/treasures/shakespeare/search.asp and from the 
Penn's facsimile First Folio, 
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=firstfolio&PagePosition=1; 
one quarto title is from a UVic transcript. I omit line breaks and close 
up hyphenated words.)

--R2 (Q1, 1600; BL): THE Tragedie of King Richard the second. As it hath 
beene publickely acted by the right Honourable the Lorde Chamberlaine 
his Seruants. [Cf F1: The life and death of King Richard the Second.]

--1H4 (Q1, 1598; BL): THE HISTORY OF HENRIE THE FOVRTH, With the battell 
of Shrewsburie, betweene the King and Lord Henry Percy, surnamed Henrie 
Hotspur of the North, With the humorous conceits of Sir Iohn Falstalffe. 
[Cf F1: The First Part of Henry the Fourth, with the Life and Death of 
HENRY Sirnamed HOT-SPVRRE.]

--2H4 (Q1, 1600; BL copy b): The Second part of Henrie the fourth, 
continuing to his death, and coronation of Henrie the fift. With the 
humours of sir Iohn Falstaffe, and swaggering Pistoll. As it hath been 
sundrie times publikely acted by the right honourable, the Lord 
Chamberlaine his servants. Written by VVilliam Shakespeare [Cf F1: The 
Second Part of Henry the Fourth, Containing his Death: and the 
Coronation of King Henry the Fift.]

--H5 (Q1, 1600; BL): THE CRONICLE History of Henry the fift, With his 
battell fought at Agin Court in France. Togither with Auntient Pistoll. 
As it hath bene sundry times playd by the Right honorable the Lord 
Chamberlaine his Servants. [Cf F1: The Life of Henry the Fift.]

--2H6 (Q, 1594): THE First part of the Contention betwixt the two famous 
Houses of Yorke and Lancaster, with the death of the good Duke Humphrey: 
And the banishment and death of the Duke of Suffolke, and the Tragicall 
end of the proud Cardinall of VVinchester, vvith the notable Rebellion 
of Iacke Cade: And the Duke of Yorkes first claime unto the Crowne. [Cf 
F1: The second Part of Henry the Sixt, with the death of the Good Duke 
HVMFREY.]

--3H6 (Q1, 1595; UVic): The true Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, and 
the death of good King Henrie the Sixt, with the whole contention 
betweene the two Houses Lancaster and Yorke, as it was sundrie times 
acted by the Right Honourable the Earle of Pembrooke his seruants. [Cf 
F1: The third Part of Henry the Sixt, with the death of the Duke of YORKE.]

--2&3H6 (Q3, 1619; BL) The Whole Contention betweene the two Famous 
Houses, Lancaster and Yorke. With the Tragicall ends of the good Duke 
Humfrey, Richard Duke of Yorke, and King Henrie the sixt. Diuided into 
two Parts: And newly corrected and enlarged. Written by William 
Shakespeare, Gent.

--R3 (Q1 1597; BL): THE TRAGEDY OF King Richard the third. Containing, 
His treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence: the pittiefull 
murther of his iunocent nephewes: his tyrannicall vsurpation: with the 
whole course of his detested life, and most deserved death. As it hath 
beene lately Acted by the Right honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his 
seruants. [Cf F1: The Tragedy of Richard the Third: with the Landing of 
Earle Richmond, and the Battell at Bosworth Field.]

In short, titles are not just fungible but slippery. Ask any library 
cataloguer.

Michael Egan wrote:

 >The play's first and second editors (Halliwell and Keller) called it 
Richard II,
 >Part One and so did E.K. Chambers in The Elizabethan Stage. In the 1920s
 >a cabal of critics led by F.S. Boas began insisting that it should be 
retitled
 >Woodstock so as 'to avoid confusion with Shake


Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1431  Tuesday, 30 August 2005

[1] 	From: 	Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 29 Aug 2005 13:54:02 +0100
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1418 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

[2] 	From: 	Stuart Manger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 29 Aug 2005 17:06:55 +0100
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1418 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

[3] 	From: 	Kenneth Chan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 01:15:08 +0800
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1418 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 29 Aug 2005 13:54:02 +0100
Subject: 16.1418 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1418 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

 >However I like to
 >remember the latest and strongest transfiguration of the character -
 >Luther. In that context the father of Luther is referred to by Hamlet's
 >comment of "old mole". Luther's father was a miner.
 >
 >Florence Amit

I often think of Hamlet and Luther and Faust (Johann Sobellicus) sitting 
together supping ale in a tavern in Wittenberg, when up comes a drawer 
with a letter.  Hamlet opens it and mutters, "Oh bother, Dad's just 
snuffed it and I have to go back to Elsinore for the funeral.  See you 
later, folks."

"Go with God, my son," intones Luther piously.

"I seriously doubt that," avers Faust, prophetically.

Robin Hamilton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Stuart Manger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 29 Aug 2005 17:06:55 +0100
Subject: 16.1418 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1418 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

 From Florence Amit:

 >Joseph Egert asks 'who is Hamlet's father?'. The most obvious answer to
 >that one in consideration of his religiosity and the inclusion of his
 >"prophetic soul" is that Hamlet's father is God. However I like to
 >remember the latest and strongest transfiguration of the character -
 >Luther. In that context the father of Luther is referred to by Hamlet's
 >comment of "old mole". Luther's father was a miner.

Please, please tell me someone - this is a joke, right?  Joe..... this 
is all your fault!

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Kenneth Chan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 01:15:08 +0800
Subject: 16.1418 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1418 Shylock, Hamlet, et al.

Bill Arnold writes:

 >"if I read you correctly you are arguing that Will
 >Shakespeare was a preacher and his plays are
 >sermons, right?"

Actually, the words "preacher" and "sermons" contain many connotations 
that are not applicable to Shakespeare; so I would avoid using those terms.

Shakespeare's messages are not derived from a mere intellectual 
interpretation of any particular religion's scriptural doctrine. The 
nature of the messages strongly suggests that they are the direct 
realizations of an advanced mystic who has actually undertaken the 
arduous task of transforming his life and personality towards the 
spiritual ideal. True aspirants of the spiritual path - the saints and 
the bodhisattvas - attain their realizations from direct experience.

Shakespeare's plays are designed to impart profound messages in a truly 
unique manner. The plays are carefully crafted to make us learn via 
direct emotional experience. This is a far more effective way to convey 
a message than merely stating it in words. Shakespeare's plays are thus 
more akin to initiations, where one learns because one has effectively 
lived through it.

For these reasons, Shakespeare's plays are a unique and priceless gift 
to mankind. It would be a tragedy if we continue to deny this fact. 
While I respect everyone's right to their own opinions, it is important 
that we first look closely at the evidence. The evidence in 
Shakespeare's plays are actually overwhelming.

If a blind man wants to walk off a cliff because he insists on his right 
to believe that there is no cliff, are we just going to sit back and do 
nothing more than respect that right? Surely, we would plead with him to 
at least examine the evidence before proceeding.

So, in the same vein, I am pleading that we also examine the evidence 
carefully before denying the priceless legacy that Shakespeare has left 
us. Please, please look at the evidence.

With best wishes,
Kenneth Chan
http://homepage.mac.com/sapphirestudios/qod

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Comment

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1428  Tuesday, 30 August 2005

[1] 	From: 	John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 29 Aug 2005 13:19:39 +0100
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 16.1417 Comment

[2] 	From: 	Julia Griffin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 29 Aug 2005 11:52:46 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1417 Comment

[3] 	From: 	Kathy Dent <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 11:19:47 +0100
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 16.1417 Comment


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 29 Aug 2005 13:19:39 +0100
Subject: 16.1417 Comment
Comment: 	RE: SHK 16.1417 Comment

Right on Terry!

When I read some of the nonsense, I'm inclined to become even more 
abrasive!  Nay, positively revolutionary!!

Cheers,
John Drakakis

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Julia Griffin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 29 Aug 2005 11:52:46 -0400
Subject: 16.1417 Comment
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1417 Comment

 >No wonder the young turn to the appalling Bob Geldof.

I'm baffled.  Turn to him because he's healthily abrasive, or because he 
isn't?  Appalling because it would be better for them to be reading 
aggressive emails about Shakespeare than thinking about world hunger?

Yours in hand-wringing bewilderment,
Julia

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Kathy Dent <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 11:19:47 +0100
Subject: 16.1417 Comment
Comment: 	RE: SHK 16.1417 Comment

 >No wonder the young turn to the appalling Bob Geldof.
 >
 >T. Hawkes

Oh no! Is Professor Hawkes to vent his spleen on Saint Bob now?  And how 
about the even more dreadful Bono?  Doesn't he deserve a mention?

Gentlemen: I happen to be one of the ladies who regards a bit of sniping 
as de rigeur in academia.  I'm sorry Ms Amit has raised this issue, 
especially as I thought she had parted company with us some time back. 
It seems a bit rich to quit us in disgust and then return to bleat about 
our collective behaviour.  Whilst I think that a brief protest at 
specific misdemeanours is sometimes appropriate (some of the 
mud-slinging occasionally gets a bit personal and, let's face it, 
tedious), I have a much stronger objection to those listmembers who 
repeatedly bang on at astonishing length about their own personal 
obsessions (Shakespeare the covert Jew, for example).  Their tone is 
civil, but their assumption that they have the right to bore us all is 
another kind of rudeness.

Let's please give Hardy the respect he deserves for the immense wisdom 
and forebearance with which he moderates the list and exercise our right 
to ignore or argue with any contributions that do not suit our personal 
tastes.

Kathy Dent

_______________________________________________________________
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.