2006

Elizabeth I Questions

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0352  Tuesday, 25 April 2006

[1] 	From: 	Jennifer Clement <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 24 Apr 2006 11:56:19 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0344 Elizabeth I Questions

[2] 	From: 	Tom Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 24 Apr 2006 14:58:02 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0344 Elizabeth I Questions

[3] 	From: 	Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 25 Apr 2006 01:10:09 +0100
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0344 Elizabeth I Questions


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Jennifer Clement <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 24 Apr 2006 11:56:19 -0500
Subject: 17.0344 Elizabeth I Questions
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0344 Elizabeth I Questions

Elizabeth was also a published author, and many of her works have been 
collected in the 2000 volume Elizabeth I: Collected Works, edited by 
Leah S. Marcus, Janel Mueller, and Mary Beth Rose. Though it's hard to 
say exactly how well-known her writing was in her own time, George 
Puttenham considered her one of the best poets of the day -- and though 
we can't discount flattery, she does seem to have been an accomplished 
poet, speechwriter, and devotional writer.

Jennifer Clement
Vanderbilt University

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Tom Bishop <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 24 Apr 2006 14:58:02 -0400
Subject: 17.0344 Elizabeth I Questions
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0344 Elizabeth I Questions

Kevin De Ornellas <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

 >>There are no recent biographies of Whitgift that I know of.
 >
 >Doesn't the very substantial piece on Whitgift by William
 >Joseph  Sheils in 2004's 'Oxford Dictionary of National
 >Biography' (www.oxforddnb.com - if your institution subscribes)
 >count as a 'recent biography'?

Fair enough. But still, it's not the full-scale rollout of, say, 
MacCulloch's recent biography of Cranmer.

Tom

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 25 Apr 2006 01:10:09 +0100
Subject: 17.0344 Elizabeth I Questions
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0344 Elizabeth I Questions

Donna Lodge writes ...

 >I'm intrigued by your observation that the "sacramental closeness
 >of confession" was lost/denied once Elizabeth broke ties with the
 >Pope. I had not thought of the profound impact this very specific
 >and central tenant of Catholicism - repentance, forgiveness and
 >thus the possibility to entrance to heaven - would have had on the
 >Catholic population.

As the majority of the population went to confession just once a year in 
holy week (their "Easter duty"), they would've only partaken in the 
sacrament five times during Mary's reign before its ban again on 
Elizabeth's succession.  The "profound impact" of removing confession 
was of course the great fear of dying without death-bed confession 
("dis-appointed")...

Cut off even in the blossoms of my sin,
Unhouseled, dis-appointed, unaneled,
No reck'ning made, but sent to my account
With all my imperfections on my head.
O horrible, O horrible, most horrible!

Peter Bridgman

_______________________________________________________________
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.

High Scores without Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0351  Tuesday, 25 April 2006

[1] 	From: 	Marilyn A. Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 24 Apr 2006 12:51:32 -0400
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 17.0340 High Scores without Shakespeare

[2] 	From: 	Alan Pierpoint <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 25 Apr 2006 07:08:17 EDT
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0340 High Scores without Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Marilyn A. Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 24 Apr 2006 12:51:32 -0400
Subject: 17.0340 High Scores without Shakespeare
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0340 High Scores without Shakespeare

How appalling!  Even American students all over the country do entire 
Shakespeare plays (and usually entire novels by Bronte, Orwell, Golding, 
often Hardy, Dickens, etc etc etc).

Some lower-skills classes use "illustrated Macbeth" which is comic book 
w/ the entire text of the play... Or side-by-side editions which 
"translate" Shakespeare's language into late 20th century American (but 
do so with Shakespeare on the left leaf and the "translation" on the right).

I've seen teachers do Midsummer with 12 year olds with great success (as 
in I've read student work as well as seen videos of the teacher working 
w/ the students).

Mari Bonomi

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Alan Pierpoint <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 25 Apr 2006 07:08:17 EDT
Subject: 17.0340 High Scores without Shakespeare
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0340 High Scores without Shakespeare

Al Magary reports:  In a review of English teaching last year, 
inspectors criticised staff for using short extracts from key works of 
literature.  Only four percent of secondary schools said they went 
through entire books in English lessons, while more than half admitted 
to teaching bite-sized sections rather than whole works.

The Holt series we're teaching from now has no complete Shakespeare play 
in the 12th grade book, despite it's being, at 1237 pages, about 50% 
thicker than the Scott, Foresman edition I started with 16 years ago. 
Shakespeare is represented by a few sonnets, three "Dramatic Songs," and 
four "Famous Shakespearean Speeches" from Hamlet, Macbeth, Henry V, and 
The Tempest.  The publisher seems to be doing its best to serve many 
masters, including the "California standards" and what might be called 
literary globalism--the inclusion of texts from other cultures.  My 
students each got copies of the Folger Hamlet, followed by Pride and 
Prejudice, and after a week in the textbook, wanted to know when we'd 
read another "real book."  I took them to the bookstore last week.  Now 
they want to know why they spent all that money on the anthology.  The 
dilemma of course is "coverage" v. depth.  Bless them, they seem to 
prefer depth.

Alan Pierpoint / Southwestern Academy

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Characters, Motivations, Themes,

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0349  Tuesday, 25 April 2006

From: 		Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Subject: 	Characters, Motivations, Themes, and ULTIMATE Meanings

Dear SHAKSPEReans:

Many, many issues surrounding my working environment/employment are 
coming to a head this week, and subsequently my thoughts are principally 
engaged with these matters. However, several "Editor's Notes" that I 
have offered in the past few days regard concerns that I find quite 
interesting and important as I continue to re-vision "SHAKSPER 2006" 
(The title here is being employed in the same spirit as, for example, 
"Windows '95" or "Office 2003"). I will give these some slight attention 
now with the promise that I will bring them back up as my other concerns 
dissipate.

This past Friday, I tried to distribute a post from Bill Lloyd with an 
"Editor's Note"; for some reason that post was not delivered, so I sent 
it out again yesterday:

[Editor's Note: As editor of SHAKSPER, I entreat, and beseech, and 
adjure, and implore members NOT to send in posts on Hamlet that simply 
restate interpretations and theories that have previously been vetted 
here. Instead, I am thinking about instituting "The SHAKSPER 
Hermeneutics Competition." I have yet to work out all of the details; 
but as I imagine it, any member (I am still debating with myself if 
those who identify themselves as scholars or academics can participate.) 
who wishes to compete will submit his or her explication of the play or 
poem under consideration (We will, of course, begin with HAMLET). These 
interpretations will not be subject to comment by other members but will 
stand as the submitter's expression of the ultimate truth about the 
meaning of the play or poem under consideration. After the closing date, 
SHAKSPER members will vote on which interpretation is the WINNER. From 
that point forward, no further discussion of the meaning of that play or 
poem will be permitted on SHAKSPER. Anyone submitting a post about that 
play or poem will receive a form letter notifying the submitter that the 
matter of the meaning of that work has been determined and the answer of 
its true meaning can be found in such and such a post in the archives or 
in a special section of the web site (like a FAQ). Another alternative 
would be to set aside space on the SHAKSPER website for a bulletin board 
dedicated to that play or poem; the winner of the competition will 
moderate and any others who desire can argue amongst themselves to their 
heart's content, protected from the cynicism of those so-called scholars 
or academics who are fed up with listening to or participating in 
discussions of characters, motivations, themes, or the meanings of 
particular plays or poems.]

Also, yesterday in response to Jeffrey Jordan's inquiry [I know this 
thread began on the general subject of dumb shows, so before talking any 
more Hamlet I have to ask our editor, Mr. Cook, whether that's permitted 
on this thread.  I'm aware of the desire to keep threads on topic, and I 
know I'm already an offender.], I wrote:

[Editor's Note: That threads evolve, moving from one area of 
concentration to another, is not one of my concerns; however, when I 
announced in February <http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2006/0000.html> 
that to regain the academic focus of the early days of the SHAKSPER I 
intended to post only messages that I believe were of interest to the 
academic community, I was implicitly restricting posts that treated 
fictional characters as if they were REAL (Hamlet's reading knowledge of 
Italian, for example). My point is that for the most part discussions of 
characters and of their motivations, of themes or of the ULTIMATE 
meanings of particular plays or poems are not generally relevant to 
current academic interests in Shakespeare studies and are thus areas of 
discussion that I would like to avoid here.]

My Note about "The SHAKSPER Hermeneutics Competition" was intended as a 
joke: I'm REALLY not interested in establishing a contest or an 
"Ultimate Meaning FAQ" or a series of SHAKSPER message boards.

However, because I keep getting e-mails and snide remarks in messages 
asking what I mean by "of interest to the academic community," a 
statement that presents no hidden agenda or mysterious meaning to me 
because I consider that I am a member of the Shakespearean academic 
community and through my reading of books and essays, attending and 
presenting at academic conferences and the like I am conversant with the 
current state of the field, I feel, nevertheless, compelled to explain 
myself. Let me start with comments I have just received.

Of my first Note, Michael Luskin replied: "Very nice tongue in cheek.  I 
would like to suggest that you instead post to the list the techniques 
of searching the archive.  I think they are on the web site, but a 
restatement here would help a lot of people who don't know how to find 
the meaning of life in the archives. Not fully kidding."

A discussion of how members SEARCH the SHAKSPER archives is an 
appropriate one. I would suggest that members begin with familiarizing 
themselves with these sections: Current Postings, Browse SHAKSPER, and 
Search SHAKSPER. Members can find the daily digests in Current Postings 
should for any reason they cannot get to their e-mail and would like to 
read the digests on the web. Browse SHAKSPER is organized by year and 
volume (Volume 1: 1990 to Volume 17: 2007) with entries capable of being 
organized by date, thread, and subject. Search using the Web Site engine 
can be "restricted by" volume/year and what is searched for can be by 
"all words," "any words," or "boolean" operators (AND, OR, NOT). I 
welcome others to suggest alternatives and refinements.

Also, regarding the first Note, Larry Weiss observed the following: "The 
fault, dear Hardy, lies not in the enthusiasts but in the academics that 
you are so exasperated.  If the so-called scholars would give up their 
memberships in the A.C. Bradley Society and stop teaching 'characters, 
motivations, themes, or the meanings of particular plays or poems' the 
rest of us wouldn't think of discussing those subjects.  SHAKSPER could 
then happily confine itself to such things as how many children 
Compositor B had."

Privately, I responded to Larry: "This is not what or how I teach. I am 
not interested in teaching the ultimate meaning of a play or poem. 
Instead, I try to empower my students with the skills to READ 
plays/poems from acknowledged perspectives and in the process I explore 
how these texts enable a variety of readings that can be and are 
realized in PERFORMANCE. Thus, there is not Hamlet; instead there are 
Hamlets." I welcome discussion of how other members approach the 
teaching of Shakespeare.

By the way, to demonstrate that I too can make universalizing and 
totalizing claims, the answer to "how many children Compositor B had" is 
42.

Privately I responded to this inquiry by Donald Bloom:

 >Hardy writes:
 >
 >"Another alternative would be to set aside space on the SHAKSPER website
 >for a bulletin board dedicated to that play or poem; the winner of the
 >competition will moderate and any others who desire can argue amongst
 >themselves to their heart's content, protected from the cynicism of
 >those so-called scholars or academics who are fed up with listening to
 >or participating in discussions of characters, motivations, themes, or
 >the meanings of particular plays or poems."
 >
 >While I applaud his efforts keep order on the list, this part of the
 >post leaves me puzzled (especially "the cynicism of those so-called
 >scholars or academics who are fed up with listening to or participating
 >in discussions of characters . . ."). There seems to be more irony here
 >than I can readily keep track of.

My response prompted Don to write

 >Hardy :
 >
 >You say, "My point is that for the most part discussions of characters,
 >motivations, themes, or the meanings of particular plays or poems are
 >not generally relevant to current academic interests in Shakespeare
 >studies."
 >
 >I was afraid that was what you meant.
 >
 >Could you clarify for me what are the "current academic interests"?

Don and others this is what I am trying to do here and will continue as 
I am able.

David Bishop asks, "The idea that no criticism of Hamlet can at this 
late date be interesting is an uninteresting idea about Hamlet. A great 
deal has been written about the play, and also a great many love songs 
have been written, most of them not very good. Should we therefore stop?"

And continues, "Though I sympathize with part of Hardy's motivation, 
when a professor of Shakespeare can write of being "fed up with 
listening to or participating in discussions of characters, motivations, 
themes, or the meanings of particular plays or poems" I hear the dying 
gasps of a sterile and bankrupt theory. I wonder if Hardy made clear at 
the SAA that he wanted a Shakespeare discussion group that avoided these 
topics. Can this be how Shakespeare is now being taught? On another 
thread we hear of Shakespeare being eased out of the curriculum. I would 
suggest that these developments are related."

Now, this is a subject that deserves more attention than I can give it 
now. But what I had in mind was expressed in my second Note quoted in 
full above with special emphasis on the following: "I was implicitly 
restricting posts that treated fictional characters as if they were REAL 
(Hamlet's reading knowledge of Italian, for example). My point is that 
for the most part discussions of characters and of their motivations, of 
themes or of the ULTIMATE meanings of particular plays or poems are not 
generally relevant to current academic interests in Shakespeare studies 
and are thus areas of discussion that I would like to avoid here."

So long for now and thanks for all the fish,
Hardy

Shakespeare Honors Seminar in a Two-Year College

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0350  Tuesday, 25 April 2006

From: 		Norman Hinton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 24 Apr 2006 11:24:57 -0500
Subject: 17.0341 Shakespeare Honors Seminar in a Two-Year College
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0341 Shakespeare Honors Seminar in a Two-Year College

Congratulations to you and your school for such a well-founded program!

I taught for many years in an open-admission school, but also taught 
(I'm now retired) in an Ivy League school and a Midwestern school with 
very high expectations of its entering students. (Alas, I taught 
medieval studies, so I don't have any good Renaissance assignments to 
suggest)  I found that the brightest students at the open admissions 
place were every bit as good as the brightest in the other school: it 
was the presence of students at the other end that marked the 
difference.  But I also found, as I'm sure you know, that if I treated 
all the students as good students, they responded that way to the best 
of their abilities.  I deplore all approaches that say "we have to take 
into account their difficulties (poor things)".  So give them good sound 
studies of Shakespeare and make good sound assignments --but I am 
probably telling you something you already know.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

The Penguin/Pelican Edition and TNK

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0348  Tuesday, 25 April 2006

From: 		Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 25 Apr 2006 08:12:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 	The Penguin/Pelican Edition and TNK

Is there an explanation for excluding Two Noble Kinsmen from The 
Complete Pelican Shakespeare (eds. Orgel and Braunmuller, 2002)? It's my 
teaching text, and I enjoy using it, but I do tell my students that it 
should be called The (Almost) Complete Pelican Shakespeare.

_______________________________________________________________
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.