2006

Ideas on the Internet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0180  Wednesday, 15 March 2006

From: 		Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 14 Mar 2006 13:48:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 17.0171 Ideas on the Internet
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0171 Ideas on the Internet

Norman Hinton quotes me, "There seems to be little doubt that history 
records the honor goes to the first discoverer . . ."

Then Norman Hinton writes, "It would be nice if things worked that way, 
but they don't.  A famous example in historical linguistics:  the set of 
sound changes describing the regularity with which certain consonants in 
Primitive Germanic departed from the Indo-European norm is known as 
Grimm's Law.  The 'law' is credited to Jacob Grimm, of the famous 
Brothers G.  However, the changes which make up Grimm's law were first 
announced and published by a Dane, Rasmus Rask, well before Grimm wrote 
his version.  ...Grimm's Law is one of the foundations of historical 
linguistics-it would have been nice if Rask got his due."

Well, what you write proves my point: truth wins out in the end.  If 
you, a scholar, know better, and you tell the truth, then *the truth be 
known!*

There are cases all over the board, including the woman behind the math 
of Monsieur Einstein!  Every Englishman knows that if Airy had looked, 
then the English would have *seen* Neptune and the credit would not have 
gone to Galle of Germany.  However, Englishman Adams had done the 
mathematics and sent it to the English observatory before LeVerrier got 
Galle to look.  We are only interested in historical truth in the 
framework of this discussion.

Emily Dickinson wrote, "Opinion is a flitting thing, / But Truth, 
outlasts the Sun--"

Because *history* does not give out any rewards, other than recognition, 
you have noted that *history knows it IS Rask's Law,* or perhaps, adding 
the popularizer, it IS the Grimm/Rask Law.  If I might add, the reason 
that scholarship thrives IS precisely for this reason: to rewrite 
history until it is written right!

Bill Arnold

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Julius Caesar and Religious Art

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0179  Wednesday, 15 March 2006

[1] 	From: 	Tom Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 14 Mar 2006 13:14:16 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0172 Julius Caesar and Religious Art

[2] 	From: 	Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Wednesday, 15 Mar 2006 13:54:21 +0000
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 17.0140 Julius Caesar and Religious Art

[3] 	From: 	David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 14 Mar 2006 15:51:15 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0159 Julius Caesar and Religious Art


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Tom Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 14 Mar 2006 13:14:16 -0500
Subject: 17.0172 Julius Caesar and Religious Art
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0172 Julius Caesar and Religious Art

For the record, there was one place in England Shakespeare might 
conceivably have seen a crucifix: in the Chapel Royal, assuming he ever 
got in, where the Queen commanded one be kept up, much to the dismay of 
her clergy. See Patrick Collinson's article on Elizabeth's religious 
preferences.

Tom

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 15 Mar 2006 13:54:21 +0000
Subject: 17.0140 Julius Caesar and Religious Art
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0140 Julius Caesar and Religious Art

To Jack Heller, Calpurnia's dream

 >"seems to parody the sacraments of both
 >baptism and the Eucharist, and it alludes as well to the
 >controversies over relics."

  Jack Heller, once again, is right on target.

Clearly the scene is designed to recall the sacramental sacrifice, as 
noted in earlier posts (SHK16.1693 and SHK16.1707). Caesar's spouting 
wounds may be seen as new gaping bleeding wombs (following Paster et 
al), offering an antibaptism of blood. Shakespeare uses Lavinia 
similarly in his earlier TITUS as a mutilated bleeding Tree of Life, so 
often associated with the crucified Christ. Other echoes include 
Mithras' sacrifice of the Bull (ritualized in the Taurabolium), spraying 
vivifying blood throughout the Cosmos, and the cannibal feast of 
hunter-assassins, incorporating within themselves the potent spirit of 
their prey.

Equally provocative is Decius' suckling prophecy: "from you great Rome 
shall suck/ Reviving blood..." Jesus was often pictured in medieval and 
Renaissance art as a nourishing maternal figure, his saving blood 
issuing forth from his wounds--his chest wound drawn at or near his 
nipple. Nearby are angels, maidens, or allegory figures (like Queen 
Charity) typically holding one or more chalices to collect the sacred 
blood. One 15th C. painting (THE SAVIOR) by Quirizio has Jesus 
withdrawing a wafer(!) from his wound for a praying supplicant. Also 
available are "double intercession" paintings where Jesus, offering his 
wound blood, is paired with his mother Mary, offering her bare breast to 
the viewer--again linking breast milk with Jesus' saving blood. Milk in 
fact was held to be a refined form of blood. Related is the pelican 
mother pecking her own breast to nourish her brood with her blood. 
(Queen Liz, wearing a pelican-pocked dress or pendant, often posed 
bare-breasted as self-sacrificing maiden Mother of the Nation.) Surely 
Shakespeare was familiar with such iconotypes from the pulpit and from 
his reading, if not from surviving original 2D or 3D images. Jack might 
check out Bynum's 1986 "The Body of Christ in the Later Middle Ages" in 
RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY, vol. 39, for details and pictures.

The suckling metaphor as antitype can, I believe, be extended even 
further. European witch hunters of the period were desperate to 
demonstrate corporeal interaction of humans with demons, thus validating 
the Christian creed by their inverse rule of contrariety: if the 
antiChristian Devil exists, so must the Christian God. On the Continent 
and in Scotland, the hunters sought such interaction using leading 
interrogation and, on occasion, torture to extract from the suspect 
witch a confession of carnal copulation with the demon. In England, 
however, where torture was banned, witch hunters usually looked for 
interaction in the form of the witch nursing her demonic familiars with 
blood from her teats. The hunters probed and fondled the suspect's body 
for cold insensitive spots reflecting supernumerary teats, the fount of 
unHoly blood. Caesar, with his newly incised supernumerary teats, may be 
similarly seen in this context--his "reviving blood" nourishing his own 
demonic Roman familiars (or pelican sons), en route to World Empire.

Hail Caesar! --- Wicked Witch of the West!

Joe Egert

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 14 Mar 2006 15:51:15 -0500
Subject: 17.0159 Julius Caesar and Religious Art
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0159 Julius Caesar and Religious Art

 >I don't know the English Church well enough to make a
 >pronouncement, but weren't all the Friars and Holy Fathers
 >long gone as well?

The monasteries had been closed for 60 years. How this affects 
Shakespearean representation of friars and nuns (Rom., Jn., MM, etc.) is 
debatable (and debated, of course), to say not of religious iconography.

 >along with the Chandos thread we seem to be dealing with the state
 >of Art History in the time of Elizabeth. Who were the collectors,
 >Artists, Schools?  are there sources in this field? Vasari's descriptions
 >of his contemporaries for example provides descriptions of religious
 >iconography, but was this known and translated?

The icon police were pretty thorough; very few public religious images 
(in places like churches and guildhalls) survived to be seen after the 
mid-1540s, though modern restoration has brought a fair amount of wall 
painting out from under the whitewash. A certain amount of carving and 
glass survived the first iconoclastic spasm under Edward, but none of 
that, I think, would have included the image of Christ's blood pouring 
out of multiple wounds to multiple recipients. The implication is that 
if medieval or early Renaissance religious images were to be seen in 
England they were in private hands. In the absence of surviving 
paintings or hard data about paintings now lost (inventories, etc.) we 
suppose that most of them would have been illuminations in manuscripts 
and illustrations in books rather than easel paintings. Such books and 
manuscripts were not to be bought on the open market; if Shakespeare saw 
them, it was in somebody else's library. That he traveled on the 
Continent and so had a chance to see stuff in Catholic Europe is a 
convenient way to account for some of the references in the plays, but I 
have seen no published argument that persuades me he ever left Albion's 
isle.

A few great families retained their allegiance to the old faith, and 
presumably hung on to some of their stuff; of these the Howards were the 
most important, and one of them, Thomas, 21st  Earl of Arundel 
(1585-1646), is sometimes called the first great English art collector. 
But since he was 14 years old when JC was probably first performed he 
was just forming his own taste--and since he's famous for gathering High 
Renaissance items (the portrait by Daniel Mytens in the NPG shows a rank 
of classical statues in the background) it seems unlikely that he would 
have sent his buyers to look for the more lurid type of late medieval 
painting.

Virtually all the significant visual artists working in England in the 
last two decades of the 16th century were Protestant immigrants from 
France and the Low Countries; some of them doubtless had some 
acquaintance with pre-Reformation images. A few native artists were 
beginning to emerge. Like other crafters, artists were trained as 
apprentices to the point where they could set up on their own; there 
were no "Schools." Almost all late Elizabethan easel paintings were 
portraits.

There is an intriguing allegorical painting (pl. 31 in my book) which 
testifies that pre-Reformation iconographic practices survived into the 
second half of the century-- last time I checked (1988 or thereabouts) 
it was provisionally dated c. 1580. It shows a middle-aged Everyman in 
Roman attire assailed on all four sides by the world, the flesh, the 
devil, and death; he casts his eyes aloft through a region of clouds 
where a guardian angel offers encouragement and protection toward 
heaven, where Christ, holding his cross with his left hand like a staff, 
seems also to cheer him up and on. The picture's English labels and 
mottoes, and a long contemptus mundi statement at the bottom, also in 
English, clearly indicate that it was painted for an English patron. It 
lacks the blood, wounds, and overall Gothic extravagance of a lot of 
late medieval pictures of martyrs and sacrifice, however--no saints, and 
though Christ is semi-nude (only a rather full loin-cloth), and the 
devil is mooning the spectator (and showing off a fine serpentine tail), 
Lady Flesh is fully clothed in an elaborate Elizabethan court gown with 
fine puffy sleeves and a lot of gold and pearls.

The closest you can come to a compact survey of early modern English art 
is Eric Mercer, *English Art 1553-1625.* The standard guides to Tudor 
and Stuart painting are by David Piper, *Painting in England, 
1500-1880*, and Ellis Waterhouse, *Painting in Britain, 1530 to 1790. 
For connections with literature, there is my own book, *Literature and 
the Visual Arts in Tudor England*. See also John B. Bender, *Spenser and 
Literary Pictorialism*; John Buxton, *Elizabethan Taste*; Roland Mushat 
Frye, "Ways of Seeing in Shakespearean Drama and Elizabethan Painting, 
*SQ* 31.3, 1980, 323-42; Ernest B. Gilman, *Iconoclasm and Poetry in the 
English Reformation*; William Hecksher, "Shakespeare in his Relationship 
to the Visual Arts," *RORD* 13-14, 1970-71, 5-71; A. M. Hind, Margery 
Corbett, and Michael Norton, *Engraving in England in the Sixteenth and 
Seventeenth Centuries; John Dixon Hunt, "The Visual Arts in 
Shakespeare's Work," in John H. Andrews, ed., *William Shakespeare: His 
World, His Work, His Influence*, 2.425-31; James Lees-Milne, *Tudor 
Renaissance*;  James V. Mirollo, *Mannerism and Renaissance Poetry*; 
Nikolaus Pevsner, *The Englishness of English Art*, John Phillips, *The 
Reformation of Images: Destruction of Art in England, 1537-1660*; Sir 
Roy Strong, *The Elizabethan Image: Painting in England, 1540-1641*.

 >"seems to parody the sacraments of both
 >baptism and the Eucharist, and it alludes as well to the
 >controversies over relics."

I see no reason to take this as parody or to suppose that Shakespeare 
had a theological quarrel uppermost in his mind at this point in the 
play. As Joseph Egert indicates, the sustaining power of Christ's blood 
was an absolutely central proposition of Christianity in both Catholic 
and Protestant forms ("See, see, where Christ's blood streams in the 
firmament; One drop would save me!"), and there were in the culture 
various other images of authoritative or nurturing figures feeding their 
dependents with their own blood. It seems to me, however,  impossible at 
this date to demonstrate with any assurance that Shakespeare had direct 
experience of any particular work, or to distinguish between eye-witness 
experience (e.g., of an execution), and things encountered in 
conversation, books, or works of art. In Calpurnia's dream as in many 
other elaborate Shakespearean images, I am persuaded, we get a 
distillation of some number of experiences whose particularities are 
beyond recovery.

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.

ASL Productions of Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0177  Wednesday, 15 March 2006

From: 		V. Kerry Inman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 14 Mar 2006 16:57:03 -0500
Subject: 17.0170 ASL Productions of Shakespeare
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0170 ASL Productions of Shakespeare

 >The Cleveland Sign Stage and the Cleveland Shakespeare Festival did a
 >wonderful combined English and ASL production of A Midsummer Night's
 >Dream a few years ago. Perhaps Dave Evett remembers the details?

Being fluent in ASL I find this difficult to believe.  How did they use 
ASL and English, simultaneously or among different characters?  It is 
impossible to imagine.  Are you sure it wasn't Signed English rather 
than ASL?

V. Kerry Inman

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Chettle, Greene, Shake-scene

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0178  Wednesday, 15 March 2006

From: 		Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 14 Mar 2006 17:56:03 -0500
Subject: 17.0165 Chettle, Greene, Shake-scene
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0165 Chettle, Greene, Shake-scene

 >I would like to see Chettle's famous description of Shakespeare, "his
 >uprightnes of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his facetious
 >grace in writing", etc. kept in the biographical canon (sic).  But Lukas
 >Erne's ""Biography and Mythography: Rereading Chettle's Alleged
 >Apology to Shakespeare," ES (1998), p. 430-40, disputes the
 >applications of Chettle's description to Shakespeare.  Has Erne's
 >attack been "accepted"?
 >
 >I can think of two objections to it, that Peele (Erne's choice for
 >Chettle's object of description) remains a less likely Greene target
 >than Shakespeare ("the onley Shake-scene in a countrey").

My main argument against Erne is that Chettle's apology seems 
specifically to apologize for the insults the Crow sustained, and the 
Crow is certainly Shakespeare.  Peele was much less insulted than the 
Crow.  Greene also mixed some praise in.  I also think the point I make 
in my essay on Chettle that Chettle seems to be praising the second 
playwright for his occupation as an actor (or whatever he professed) AND 
for his writing, not twice praising him for his writing, and Peele 
didn't have two occupations.

I frankly feel that a lot of academics are straining too hard to say 
fresh things about Shakespeare.  They should move on to authors who 
haven't have fifty million books and essays written about them.

 >Also
 >Chettle's reference to "schollers" is too grammatically ambiguous
 >to exclude Shakespeare; Chettle says that his defense of scholars is
 >well known, and now he turns to the objects of Greene's attack who
 >may or may not be scholars.
 >
 >Does the listserv have an opinion about this?  The Chettle bit is, after
 >all, a widely accepted piece of Shakespeare lore, as Erne points out.

I certainly accept it, but haven't gotten around to rebutting Erne.  You 
can read what I say about the Groatsworth at

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/1492/crow.html

and about Chettle's preface at

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/1492/chettle.html

 >Incidentally, does anyone know what defense of scholars Chettle
 >is referring to?

Not I.  My impression was that he in general defended writers.

 >PS I quickly checked the SHAKSPER postings, and there seems
 >to be a tendency to assume that Chettle wrote the Greene attack;
 >but I believe Erne deals with this.

I go with Greene, but admit that a good case can be made for Chettle. 
And I certainly would not wholly dismiss Erne's opinion of whom Chettle 
was writing about in his preface.

--Bob G.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Rents in Kind

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0176  Wednesday, 15 March 2006

[1] 	From: 	Ros King <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 14 Mar 2006 18:14:56 +0000
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0166 Rents in Kind

[2] 	From: 	Sara Trevisan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 14 Mar 2006 21:28:02 +0100
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0166 Rents in Kind

[3] 	From: 	John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Wednesday, 15 Mar 2006 10:18:44 -0000
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 17.0166 Rents in Kind


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Ros King <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 14 Mar 2006 18:14:56 +0000
Subject: 17.0166 Rents in Kind
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0166 Rents in Kind

Payments in kind were made for all sorts of things. Children of the 
Chapel Royal would be given breakfast and a pair of gloves in recompense 
for a play performance at court or Inns of Court (e.g. BL Stowe MS 571, 
fol 36b); actors were regularly paid in costumes (e.g.  for the Prince 
of Wales investiture show on the Thames 1610), people  could be rewarded 
for their services with leasehold tenure of land,  or sinecure 
keeperships with associated benefits in kind. Patent  Rolls 8 March 1554 
record 'a grant for life in consideration of his  service to Richard 
Edwards [the poet and playwright] one of the  yeomen of the chamber, of 
the office of keeper of the Castle of  Kirkby in Kendal, Co. 
Westmoreland and of the park there, '. This post did carry wages of 4d 
per day but also rights to 'lopings and brusyngs and windfalls' from the 
park. Thomas Cawarden, Master of the Revels enjoyed benefits accruing 
from his keepership of Donnington Castle and of two areas of the park at 
Hampton Court - as well as more conventional rents as steward of 
Nonsuch, Banstead and Walton manors (Stowe Ms 71, fols 25v, 49). Then 
there are 'main-ports' offerings of loaves of bread made to their rector 
by parishioners in some parts of England in recompense of certain tythes 
(see Alice Walker's emendation of Cymbeline 5.5.110) and a citation in 
Blount, Law Dictionary, 1670, cited OED. I'm sure manorial rolls would 
yield  lots more rent-like payments - and this, of course, isn't even to 
  start to mention unofficial, back-hander type gifts in kind.

Best wishes,
Ros

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Sara Trevisan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 14 Mar 2006 21:28:02 +0100
Subject: 17.0166 Rents in Kind
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0166 Rents in Kind

Dear Prof. Evans,

In the following site of the Harvard Law School hundreds of English 
deeds are mentioned (a great deal of which dating from the seventeenth 
century):
http://www.law.harvard.edu/library/collections/special/manuscripts/deeds/

As far as I could see, rents paid in the early 1600s seem to have been 
paid in the form of money: e.g. (from the site), (1614) rent: a 
peppercorn (nominal rent); (1609) rent: 26 s. 8 d; (1616) rent: 240, etc.

This is all I was able to find at the moment, without having access to 
the university library.

Hope it will help.

P.S. By the way, just this afternoon I read your 1994 note on N&Q on 
Fane's poems on Jonson for my M.A. dissertation on Mildmay Fane... A 
very nice coincidence.

Kindest regards,
Sara Trevisan

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 15 Mar 2006 10:18:44 -0000
Subject: 17.0166 Rents in Kind
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0166 Rents in Kind

I'm not sure if the following refutes Fowler's claim, but Robert Evans 
might like to look at Jeaffreson's Records for the County of Middlesex. 
  I seem to remember that the Marmion family from Aynho was committed to 
giving one musket to the king' army in the 1620s.

The Muster Rolls would be the place to look I think.

Cheers,
John Drakakis

_______________________________________________________________
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.