May
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0487 Tuesday, 23 May 2006 [1] From: Paul E. Doniger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 22 May 2006 17:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Shakespeare's autobiography (was: "Waste of Shame" [2] From: Marvin Bennet Krims <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 23 May 2006 08:44:50 -0400 Subj: RE: SHK 17.0485 Regarding "Waste of Shame" [3] From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 Subj: Re: SHK 17.0485 Regarding "Waste of Shame" [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul E. Doniger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 22 May 2006 17:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Shakespeare's autobiography (was: "Waste of Shame"" Marilyn A. Bonomi has expressed a concern that I have often thought about: "Certainly it's more engaging to imagine that it's Shakespeare who's pouring out his heart to us. We do not, however, so far as I have read, have any proof that it is." It has always seemed to me that the whole idea of the dark lady and young man characters are fictions that Shakespeare created rather than any real people with whom Shakespeare had the kinds of relationships expressed in the sonnets. It seems (has long seemed) to me that the autobiographical assumption is a particularly romantic one, inspired by the influences of Goethe, Byron, and the rest. The notion of poet as autobiographer does not seem to fit the Renaissance so much. Or am I dead wrong? Is there any real evidence that he was writing a personal narrative into the sonnets? Paul E. Doniger P.S. It seems to me also that this is a new direction, so I've taken the liberty of retiling the thread ... with apologies to Professor Cook. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marvin Bennet Krims <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 23 May 2006 08:44:50 -0400 Subject: 17.0485 Regarding "Waste of Shame" Comment: RE: SHK 17.0485 Regarding "Waste of Shame" Ms. Bonomi is of course correct in pointing out there is no clear evidence that the Sonnets are autobiographical. But we have no evidence that they are not. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. If we dismiss autobiographical possibility out of hand, as seems many do, might we be closing off inquiry into what Shakespeare's personality might have been like? Marvn Krims [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 Subject: 17.0485 Regarding "Waste of Shame" Comment: Re: SHK 17.0485 Regarding "Waste of Shame" Here we are with yet another chestnut -- the Sonnets: FACT or FICTION -- a chestnut that too has been discussed on many occasions on SHAKSPER. In my essay, "Reception of the Sonnets," part of the introduction to the Renaissance Electronic Texts edition SHAKE-SPEARES SONNETS. (Ed. Hardy M. Cook and Ian Lancashire. RET Editions 3.1. 1998) <http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/ret/shakespeare/1609int2.html>, I survey those who argue for each of these positions. Determining whether the Sonnets are fact or fiction is, however, only the start. If one takes them as autobiographical, then there are the matters of the identities of the characters and the circumstances and natures of their relationships and interactions. If viewed as fictions, we can view the Sonnets mini-dramas or as radically metaphoric ciphers or riddles. The folly on both sides astonishes. Once again, as moderator, I have concerns about the nature of threads on these topics. Today, for example, Paul E. Doniger asserts that "The notion of poet as autobiographer does not seem to fit the Renaissance so much." Marvin Bennet Krims, on the other hand, argues that "If we dismiss autobiographical possibility out of hand, as seems many do, might we be closing off inquiry into what Shakespeare's personality might have been like?" Dr. Krims also notes, "Ms. Bonomi is of course correct in pointing out there is no clear evidence that the Sonnets are autobiographical. But we have no evidence that they are not. Absence of proof is not proof of absence." Yes, but one could also argue for insights into Shakespeare's personality from the Sonnets as dramas (if one were so inclined to do such things). So what are we left with? Two perspectives with infinities of possibilities for speculation. And then there is Ockham: Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate ("Plurality should not be posited without necessity"). The principle of simplicity inclines me to disregard autobiographical interpretations; yet I also have little regard for radically metaphoric interpretations of the Sonnets. So what is the simplest explanation? Well, for me, that the Sonnets are fictional, mini-dramas about the interactions of the poet, the youth, the lady, and the rival poet. My problem is that I don't have the time for infinite speculation, so I ask that posts on these matters be thoughtful ones and not simply more speculations about this or that. Hardy _______________________________________________________________ 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 Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0486 Tuesday, 23 May 2006 [1] From: Sandra Sparks <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 23 May 2006 07:02:17 -0400 Subj: RE: SHK 17.0474 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_? [2] From: John Crowley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 23 May 2006 10:37:04 -0400 Subj: What Happens to the Fool [3] From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 Subj: What happens to the Fool in _Lear_? [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sandra Sparks <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 23 May 2006 07:02:17 -0400 Subject: 17.0474 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_? Comment: RE: SHK 17.0474 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_? I much prefer the idea repeated in Peter Ackroyd's biography of Shakespeare: that originally Cordelia and the Fool were played by the same person. Gives a different depth to the line he speaks over Cordelia's body. I would like to see that casting done again. Sandra Sparks [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Crowley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 23 May 2006 10:37:04 -0400 Subject: What Happens to the Fool I can't see that the line is problematic at all. Disaster has come in all aspects of life; people are dying on all sides. Lear mentions the fool dying the way anyone would report on more disasters of war. It's exactly this suddenly-coming-to-mind of one more blow that makes it so poignant: amid all the things that have befallen me and my kingdom, there is this one too, that in a different time I might have time or space to mourn. These deaths in war announced casually -- aren't there more in Shakespeare? The hanging of Nym and Bardolph in Henry V, for instance. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 Subject: What happens to the Fool in _Lear_? The issue that the roles of Cordelia and the Fool were doubled has been discussed and discussed on SHAKSPER over the years. The most recent of which was initiated by me on March 21 <http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2006/0191.html> as an example of an "unprovable but currently discredited assertions" that appears throughout Ackroyd's <I>Shakespeare: The Biography</I>. I concluded with "Isn't it generally assumed that Robert Armin played the Fool in <I>Lear</I>? And isn't it unlikely, if not preposterous, that Armin would double the part of Cordelia, which most certainly was played by a "boy" of the company?" Bill Lloyd made the penultimate post in this discussion <http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2006/0260.html>: I don't myself necessarily believe in the Jacobean doubling of Cordelia and the Fool, but there are several things that might tend to support it which I haven't seen mentioned here. I believe it's been suggested [though I can't recall exactly where] that Robert Armin did not play the Fool because he was playing Edgar. The mad Tom o' Bedlam character is similar to John of the Hospital, a character that Armin created and played in his play Two Maids of Moreclack. [ . . . ] The believers in the Cordelia/Fool doubling sometimes assume that Armin would've have played both roles, but this is a virtual impossibility. Armin was about 37 years old in 1605, and it has been shown decisively [see Dave Kathman's "How Old Were Shakespeare's Boy Actors?" in the latest Shakespeare Survey] that women on the Elizabethan stage were played by teenage boys. If the doubling were to occur it must have been the boy actor of Cordelia playing the fool, so it is perhaps worth noting that Lear repeatedly addresses his fool as "boy". I found this entire thread thoughtful and stimulating. My concern as moderator is that when we discuss a chestnut (<I>OED</I> A. 7.) that we have something new or substantial to contribute or add to the body of knowledge on the subject. _______________________________________________________________ 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 Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0485 Monday, 22 May 2006 [1] From: Marilyn A. Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 17 May 2006 12:39:19 -0400 Subj: RE: SHK 17.0460 Regarding "Waste of Shame" [2] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 17 May 2006 15:23:22 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 17.0460 Regarding "Waste of Shame" [3] From: Elliott Stone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 17 May 2006 19:26:01 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 17.0460 Regarding "Waste of Shame" [4] From: Elliott Stone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 17 May 2006 19:26:01 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 17.0460 Regarding "Waste of Shame" [5] From: Sandra Sparks <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 18 May 2006 23:13:34 -0400 Subj: RE: SHK 17.0460 Regarding "Waste of Shame" [6] From: Dan Decker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 21 May 2006 23:54:48 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 17.0432 Regarding "Waste of Shame" [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marilyn A. Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 17 May 2006 12:39:19 -0400 Subject: 17.0460 Regarding "Waste of Shame" Comment: RE: SHK 17.0460 Regarding "Waste of Shame" Ms Sparks writes of Shakespeare's Sonnets, "He has laid his emotions flat out on page for the entire world to read" This troubles me; do we have any direct (as opposed to speculative) evidence that the Sonnets are either deliberately or accidentally autobiographical? I think we step into dangerous territory when we make the assumption that the narrative voice *is* the author's voice, barring direct statement from the author that it is so. We do not assume that every first person novel is really the author speaking to us; indeed, those of us who have taught literature spend great amounts of energy helping our students understand the difference between character and author. How then can we assume that the speaker of the Sonnets is the writer thereof? Certainly it's more engaging to imagine that it's Shakespeare who's pouring out his heart to us. We do not, however, so far as I have read, have any proof that it is, and given his skills in characterization in his plays, there is an equally good possibility that Shakespeare has crafted a fictional persona whose angst appears in the Sonnets. None of the above is to criticize Ms Sparks for crafting a fictional character modeled after Shakespeare for her play-creating a backstory for him in the process. Mari Bonomi [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 17 May 2006 15:23:22 -0400 Subject: 17.0460 Regarding "Waste of Shame" Comment: Re: SHK 17.0460 Regarding "Waste of Shame" Bruce Young responds to my Socratic question of whether there is a principled distinction between a wild biographical speculation about a real person and filling in the backstory of a fictional character by saying: >I see the similarity between this and an invented backstory, but >one distinction is the following: the biographical speculation could >presumably be confirmed or contradicted by evidence yet to be >discovered Of course this is so; but I prefer not to speculate in advance of the evidence. That is a capital mistake as Sherlock said repeatedly. As a lawyer, I am trained to derive conclusions from the evidence, not to make them up and hope that the evidence will come along. -- Well, now that I think of it .... [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elliott Stone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 17 May 2006 19:26:01 -0400 Subject: 17.0460 Regarding "Waste of Shame" Comment: Re: SHK 17.0460 Regarding "Waste of Shame" David Evett asks,"What has happened to the work that he was paid for?" I would like to suggest that Ben Jonson burned up all that couldn't get pass the Censors in a very convenient fire in his fireplace! BEST, Elliott H. Stone [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elliott Stone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 17 May 2006 19:26:01 -0400 Subject: 17.0460 Regarding "Waste of Shame" Comment: Re: SHK 17.0460 Regarding "Waste of Shame" Sam Schoenbaum made what most critics consider a definitive argument that the Sonnets were published by Thorpe without the author's permission. Professor Foster took up the opposite position in his book on "The Elegy By W.S.". It was critical for his views since the "Elegy" was published by Thorpe after the Sonnets and he could not very well argue that Shakespeare would allow his poem to be published by a man who had earlier published his work without permission. Schoenbaum's analysis appears to still reign in this controversy and new back stories giving theories about the author's intentions in the Sonnets should overcome this basic critical point. Best, Elliott H. Stone [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sandra Sparks <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 18 May 2006 23:13:34 -0400 Subject: 17.0460 Regarding "Waste of Shame" Comment: RE: SHK 17.0460 Regarding "Waste of Shame" To Bruce Young: >Until that evidence is found, though, I'd say the biographical >speculation is even more suspect than many backstories. We know (that >is, we can infer from the evidence) a good deal more about the >personalities and motives of many of Shakespeare's characters than we >know about his." Definitely. I am finding in my latest reading, however, that sometimes the biographical speculation can feel (yes, back to feelings again) as if it is following a decent direction. At the moment I am reading Peter Ackroyd's "Shakespeare The Biography." The speculation is reasonable, far more logical than some of the things I have read recently, and the book is very well laid out. He is not trying to go in a new direction: he is making biographical speculation that is agreed upon by a great many researchers seem more accessible and understandable for people who are not scholars. On top of all that, he is making it truly interesting. I have been most puzzled by people who speculate about WS's life or the origin of the works by going in a direction that is totally against the tide of evidence. Some are very determined to do so. Why do it? What is the compulsion? It fascinates me. To David Evett: >I want to address Sandra Sparks' reductive idea of early modern >artistic patronage as any simple quid pro quo arrangement." Since I am writing an e-mail and don't want to overburden Hardy, I thought I should be brief and to the point. If that is reductive, so be it. As an artist who still occasionally has patrons: I know it is not as simple as that. Nevertheless, if you support an artist, financially, it would follow that you want the artist's work. The poor people who have my things around them assure me they like it when I give nice quid pro quo, and I am happy to do so; I hope the same could be said for WS and his patrons. Second of David's comments I'd like to address: >The books themselves, indeed, made money mainly for their >publishers; in many cases, some of this presumably came back to the >author as lump sum or (much less likely) percentage; if, as Sparks >suggests, there may have been cases where the person celebrated also got >a cut, I do not know of them, and it seems to me highly unlikely that >there were many if any." Show me where I suggested that, and I'll show you the concrete evidence that the 17 sonnets were written for Southampton. ;) There are reasons for publishing other than money, and at the time, WS showed by his real estate investments and his partnership in the company that he knew where the money was - and it wasn't in publishing the sonnets. If you measure the material of the sonnets against the usual material of the times, this publication may have been a very risky thing for him to do. Why do it? Telling the world that you are in love with another man hasn't stopped being controversial yet. Add to that a suggestion of a menage a trois and you are well into shock value. A reader called the sonnets "wretched infidel stuff." Many people may have felt that way. Why did WS take that chance? Certainly not for money, and I never thought so. It was an act that could have amounted to professional suicide. It's a measure of the regard in which he was held by supporters of all kinds that it didn't. Sandra [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan Decker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 21 May 2006 23:54:48 EDT Subject: 17.0432 Regarding "Waste of Shame" Comment: Re: SHK 17.0432 Regarding "Waste of Shame" My only problem with Emilia Lanier as the dark lady is that she was not black, as the poems say the dark lady was. There were many black people in London and in Will's plays. He knew what the word meant. My only problem with the homosexual-theme idea is that there are no homosexual references in any of the sonnets save one. Quite the opposite, actually. (Will was not shy about sexual references; refer to the dark lady sonnets.) _______________________________________________________________ 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 Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0484 Monday, 22 May 2006 From: Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 19 May 2006 23:36:50 -0700 Subject: Chandos vs. Sanders: Canadians think they know the winner of the portrait contest Controversy continues to rage over Cdn-owned Shakespeare portrait Matthew Chung Canadian Press, Friday, May 19, 2006 http://www.canada.com/topics/entertainment/story.html?id=839c2a69-2a48-418e-8cf0-a37f7bfe8865&k=8462 TORONTO (CP) - A Canadian-owned portrait of William Shakespeare is at the heart of a transatlantic debate over who can lay claim to the only authentic sketch of the Bard. The so-called Sanders Portrait, which will be the centrepiece of a southwestern Ontario Shakespeare festival to be held next year, is going head-to-head until the end of the month with five other "contender" portraits in London's National Portrait Gallery. Four of those portraits have been discounted as fakes. But the gallery is standing behind the so-called Chandos portrait, the first painting presented to the facility in 1856. The Sanders Portrait, believed to have been sketched in 1603 by a friend of a then 39-year-old Shakespeare, is the property of Ottawa resident Lloyd Sullivan, 73, who says his heritage can be traced back to the portrait-painter John Sanders. The retired engineer has put his portrait through tree-ring dating of the wood it was sketched on, radiographic testing of the canvas and radiocarbon testing of the paper label on the back of the painting. He also tracked his genealogy back to 1607, which he says makes it almost certain that his painting is authentic. All that's left is to trace his heritage into the 1500s and to date the ink of the painting. But Sullivan was told to wait for the technology to improve so a smaller sample of the painting could be used. "If the ink dates back to that time, it proves that my ancestor knew when Shakespeare was born, knew when he died," Sullivan said. The national gallery's website, in promoting its "Searching for Shakespeare" event, lumps the Sanders portrait in with four other portraits which it says are "purporting to represent Shakespeare." Of the Chandos, it says, "the identity of this picture is still considered unproven and today we have no certain lifetime portrait of England's most famous poet and playwright." Daniel Fischlin, a University of Guelph professor and the leader of an ongoing study on all adaptations of Shakespeare's works, said the "business of Shakespeare" plays a large role in this battle of the Bards. "The licensing fees around who owns the authentic image is critical," he said. "There's tremendous national self-interest as well. "Who owns the most authentic portrait? It's got to be England, you know?" Details of the "Shakespeare - Made in Canada" festival - to be held in Guelph, Ont., in January 2007 - will be released Wednesday. _______________________________________________________________ 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 Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0483 Monday, 22 May 2006 From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 21 May 2006 21:25:54 +0100 Subject: 17.0466 ESTC to Go Online Free in the Fall Comment: Re: SHK 17.0466 ESTC to Go Online Free in the Fall Al Magary wrote: >A union catalogue of some 400,000 books printed in English and other >languages 1475-1700, held by 1,500 libraries, ESTC has been available >by online subscription (from RLG--Research Libraries Group) and on >very expensive CD-ROM (from ProQuest). The actual coverage of the ESTC is 1473 to 1800. It started life as the Eighteenth century Short Title Catalogue, but was later extended to include STC/Wing. (The earlier-period entries are probably being upgraded - I once asked how the eighteenth-century titles were shortened, and was told that they weren't!) John Briggs _______________________________________________________________ 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.