2006

Pompey

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0477  Monday, 22 May 2006

From: 		David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 17 May 2006 16:50:18 -0400
Subject: 17.0450 Pompey
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0450 Pompey

In response to the query about Pompey, I would suggest a little patience. 
The Corpus of Renaissance Drama, under the editorship of sometime list 
member Brian Corrigan, is, I believe, nearly complete. When published, 
this searchable document will list every character in every early modern 
play-including those only alluded to as well as those in the dramatis 
personae properly speaking-with a pretty clear indication of their 
functions in the play. You can probably get some kind of forecast as to 
publication from Brian at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; if you were willing to take 
on one or more of the handful of plays not yet analyzed, you could 
accelerate the process-and get yourself a copy of the CD when it comes 
out.

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.

The Big Question

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0476  Monday, 22 May 2006

From: 		John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 17 May 2006 13:35:12 -0400
Subject: 17.0453 The Big Question
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0453 The Big Question

Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

>It may well be the biggest Shakespeare question of all time -
>certainly as far as Shakespeare himself was concerned.  If, indeed,
>he was at root a moralist before a poet before a playwright then
>what difference has he made?  Has "Macbeth" decreased the
>murder rate?  Are politicians less ambitious since "Julius Caesar"
>and "Richard III"?  Has jealously been better controlled since
>"Othello"?  Has the world become a better place since Shakespeare's
>plays?  If so, is it due to the steady erosion of social injustice by
>countless reformers and representational governments?  Or not?

One would have thought that Chekhov answered this for all time.

How is it that in a society in which genuinely moral issues are ignored, 
even laughed out of court, we can find no greater way to praise a man than 
to call him a moralist, provided only that he not, in fact, be one? (No 
doubt Shakespeare, if put to it, would, being a well instructed Christian, 
concede that morality, sub specie aeternitatis, is far more important that 
aesthetics. Nevertheless, it is aesthetics, and not morality, that is the 
proper concern of the artist, as it is the business of any man to pay due 
attention to whatever it is that he is doing, and not to something else.)

Our friend from Scotland knows that murder is wrong. Iago himself warns 
Othello against the green-eyed monster (and gets precisely the result he 
expects). And St. Paul cries in despair, "For that which I do I allow not: 
for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I," and in so 
saying, he speaks for all of us. And yet, it seems, nothing will do to 
alleviate the situation but to go looking for yet another tome of 
thou-shalt-nots, and if one is not to hand, why then to pick any book with 
a Great Name on the spine, and proclaim it the latest Gospel.

Shakespeare was a great poet and a great playwright, both of which are far 
better things to be than a cheapjack preacher of platitudes.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0474  Monday, 22 May 2006

[1] 	From: 	Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Wednesday, 17 May 2006 12:33:17 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0457 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?

[2] 	From: 	Sarah Cohen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Wednesday, 17 May 2006 10:56:58 -0700
 	Subj: 	RE: SHK 17.0457 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?

[3] 	From: 	Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Wednesday, 17 May 2006 19:38:52 +0000
 	Subj: 	RE: SHK 17.0457 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?

[4] 	From: 	David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Wednesday, 17 May 2006 17:14:05 -0400
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0457 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?

[5] 	From: 	Bruce Young <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Wednesday, 17 May 2006 15:34:38 -0600
 	Subj: 	RE: SHK 17.0457 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Carol Barton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 17 May 2006 12:33:17 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
Subject: 17.0457 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0457 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?

In line with Gregory McNamara's observation that the Fool's "prophecy" 
proves true where Cordelia is concerned, I have an entirely different 
"take" on Lear's response to his daughter's death. Just as the Fool has 
been Lear's "mirror up to nature," pointing out his follies, so Kent and 
Cordelia have been his Fools, too--not in the modern sense of one who is 
foolish, but in St. Francis of Assisi's sense, of one who does what men 
consider foolish in the service of God. The Fool risks death by exposure 
for accompanying Lear to the heath; Kent risks execution for defying his 
banishment; Cordelia loses her own life for saving her father; yet Lear is 
the true fool in the modern sense, because he fails (until the end) to see 
the great love and loyalty each of them bear to king and father, in spite 
of himself.

"My poor Fool is hanged" can mean in this context any one of the three 
Fools who were daring enough to tell Lear the truth, each at his or her 
own peril. I don't think there's any warrant in the text for believing 
that the figure in Lear's arms--who we know for certain has been 
hanged--is anyone but Cordelia--and certainly, the lament "Why should a 
dog, a horse, a rat have life, and thou no breath at all...?" would be a 
little OT, unless it did in fact refer to his daughter.

Best to all,
Carol Barton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Sarah Cohen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 17 May 2006 10:56:58 -0700
Subject: 17.0457 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0457 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?

>is "fool" used as a term of endearment anywhere else in
>the canon?


Yes.

* The Nurse twice refers to the infant Juliet as "pretty fool".

*  Hermione says " Doe not weepe (goode Fooles) There is no cause." Wint. 
T. II. i. 118 (The OED uses this quote to illustrate the use of the word 
fool "as a term of endearment or pity".)

Also, the following uses of the word "fool" might arguably play on a 
double meaning of "fool" as "simpleton" and "child":

* Hamlet (Polonius to Ophelia): "Tender yourself more dearly; or - not to 
crack the wind of a poor phrase, running in thus - you'll tender me a 
fool".

* All's Well That Ends Well (Parolles to First Soldier): "I know him: a' 
was a botcher's 'prentice in Paris, from whence he was whipped for getting 
the shrieve's fool with child, --a dumb innocent, that would not say him 
nay."

Cary Dean Barney's point is well taken, though. In the overwhelming 
majority of instances, the word "fool" appears to be either an insult or a 
job description.

Sarah Cohen

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 17 May 2006 19:38:52 +0000
Subject: 17.0457 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0457 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?

Cary Dean Barney asks:

>is "fool" used as a term of endearment anywhere else in
>the canon?  Wouldn't Shakespeare have chosen another such term so as
>to avoid confusion with another character in the play?

Couldn't Shakespeare have intended the confusion or mind meld of Fool and 
Cordelia? Furness in his NEW VARIORUM KING LEAR (republished 1963) offers 
a three-page note on V.3.106. All the cited critics, save one, opt for 
"Cordelia" as the "poor fool": they include Chambers, Clarke, Collier, 
Dyce, Halliwell, Hudson, Knight, Lloyd, Malone, Moderly, Rann, Steevens, 
Verplanck, Wright, and Furness himself. Of these, Collier, Halliwell, 
Knight, and Lloyd see the confusion as possibly deliberate.  Sir Joshua 
Reynolds alone votes for the "Fool" as Lear's "poor fool."

Regards,
Joe Egert

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 17 May 2006 17:14:05 -0400
Subject: 17.0457 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0457 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?

>I recall an RSC production in which Michael Gambon played
>Lear and Antony Sher played the Fool, and in the mock justice
>scene Lear accidentally stabs the Fool who sinks back dead into
>a barrel.  Lear of course, does not notice what he's done.
>
>It's as good a theatrical solution as any to an intractable problem.

The ploy has been borrowed (or maybe reinvented) for the Actors' 
Shakespeare Project production of the play, with the 81-year-old Alvin 
Epstein as a memorable King. It will be reprised at LaMaMa in New York 
June 16-July 2.

David Evett

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Bruce Young <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 17 May 2006 15:34:38 -0600
Subject: 17.0457 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0457 What happens to the Fool in _Lear_?

Though Cary Dean Barney makes a plausible case that Lear is referring to 
the Fool when he says, "My poor fool is hanged," I'm still not convinced. 
A brief summary of my reasons:

(1) Though Lear's mentioning the Fool might be another example of bad 
timing along with several others, it doesn't feel to me like the others. 
(For instance, Kent's interruption to reveal himself is just the sort of 
thing a person might do in such a situation; but Lear's interruption of 
himself when he's so intensely focused on Cordelia rings less true to me.)

(2) It seems to me unlike Shakespeare to casually (and ambiguously) refer 
to a significant character's death with no further explanation about when, 
where, by whose orders, etc.--especially in such a way that the casual 
reference could be taken as referring to someone else.

(3) "Poor fool" could be a term of endearment.  At the moment I can't 
think of other uses by Shakespeare, but I just ran across one by Ben 
Jonson, in Bartholomew Fair: Littlewit is looking for his wife--"my pretty 
little Win"--and says, "Poor fool, I fear she's stepped aside" (Act V, 
scene vi).

I'm sure further research would yield evidence that might make me more or 
less confident in thinking Lear is referring to Cordelia.

Bruce Young

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Baseball/Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0475  Monday, 22 May 2006

[1] 	From: 	Stuart Manger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Wednesday, 17 May 2006 16:49:40 +0100
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0454 Baseball/Shakespeare

[2] 	From: 	Chris Stroffolino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Wednesday, 17 May 2006 10:50:27 -0700
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0454 derogatory "Shakespeare"

[3] 	From: 	Margaret Litvin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Wednesday, 17 May 2006 17:41:09 -0400
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0454 Baseball/Shakespeare

[4] 	From: 	John Crowley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Saturday, 20 May 2006 13:57:24 -0400
 	Subj: 	Shakespeare as derogation


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Stuart Manger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 17 May 2006 16:49:40 +0100
Subject: 17.0454 Baseball/Shakespeare
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0454 Baseball/Shakespeare

Pace Arthur Lindley, but is it derogation to use 'Shakespeare' as done in 
'Glass Menagerie'?
Is there not only very gently mockery and a deal of admiration / 
mateyness?

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Chris Stroffolino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 17 May 2006 10:50:27 -0700
Subject: 17.0454 derogatory "Shakespeare"
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0454 derogatory "Shakespeare"

A year or so ago the prominent "LANGUAGE poet" Barrett Watten, who knew I 
had written my Ph.D. on Shakespeare (and also had published an essay, 
which favorably compares the writing of Carla Harryman, who happens to be 
his wife, to Shakespeare), instead of saying 'Hi" to me, just said 
"Shakespeare" and it definitely was meant as a put-down. This make not 
really make much sense without some context, but I just thought I'd bring 
it up here since people were asking. Chris

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Margaret Litvin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 17 May 2006 17:41:09 -0400
Subject: 17.0454 Baseball/Shakespeare
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0454 Baseball/Shakespeare

I thought of The Glass Menagerie as well.  Shakespeare as emblem of high 
culture, and thus a put-down for someone who has the nerve to aspire to 
better things.

A comparable moment occurs in Emile Habiby's Saeed the Pessoptimist 
(1974), an Arabic satirical novel much like Voltaire's Candide.  The 
protagonist Saeed gets nicknamed Shakespeare, which leads into a brutal 
but comically narrated beating in an Israeli prison (chapters 36-37). 
There are references to R&J, JC, and Othello.  And then, as they begin to 
beat him:

"Quote some Shakespeare for us, you son of a bitch!"

"Here, take this, Caesar!"

"A thousand welcomes, our very own Shakespeare!"

Besides the general anti-intellectual connotations there is a subtext 
about cultural trespassing.

Best,
Margaret Litvin

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John Crowley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Saturday, 20 May 2006 13:57:24 -0400
Subject: 	Shakespeare as derogation

>Unintentional derogation: 'Shakespeare' is what the Gentleman Caller in
>The Glass Menagerie calls the protagonist because that's the only name
>of a writer that he's aware of.

I'd say it's more widespread or common than that, since the name was 
applied to me in high school (1954 - 1960) and was the literary or 
humanities version of Einstein.  Whether it was derogation or not depended 
similarly on your opinion of the eponym; but in both cases represented the 
esoteric, the tough and the mental.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Shakespeare's Hidden Catholicism

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0473  Monday, 22 May 2006

[1] 	From: 	Duncan Salkeld <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Wednesday, 17 May 2006 16:46:45 +0100
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0448 Shakespeare's Hidden Catholicism

[2] 	From: 	V. K. Inman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Wednesday, 17 May 2006 12:57:41 -0400
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0448 Shakespeare's Hidden Catholicism

[3] 	From: 	Duncan Salkeld <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Wednesday, 17 May 2006 18:15:57 +0100
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0448 Shakespeare's Hidden Catholicism

[4] 	From: 	Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Wednesday, 17 May 2006 14:39:31 -0400
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0448 Shakespeare's Hidden Catholicism

[5] 	From: 	Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Wednesday, 17 May 2006 23:58:44 -0700
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0448 Shakespeare's Hidden Catholicism


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Duncan Salkeld <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 17 May 2006 16:46:45 +0100
Subject: 17.0448 Shakespeare's Hidden Catholicism
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0448 Shakespeare's Hidden Catholicism

Richard Stratfords were christened at the following dates and places:

22 Nov 1581  	Aldermaston, Berkshire
30 Aug 1584  	Nuneaton, Warwickshire
13 Nov 1588     Onibury, Shropshire
1 Nov 1590      Bierton, Buckingham

Take your pick,
Duncan Salkeld

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		V. K. Inman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 17 May 2006 12:57:41 -0400
Subject: 17.0448 Shakespeare's Hidden Catholicism
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0448 Shakespeare's Hidden Catholicism

I am traveling in the Mideast and do not have my library with me. I am 
also trying to type on a French keyboard. I have long believed Shakespeare 
to be a hidden Catholic based on his theological representations, and 
published works (which I am unable to cite at this point) have supported 
this-though there are many who refuse to agree:  If this string is still 
going when I get back to Pennsylvania I will try to give some 
bibliography.

V. K. Inman

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Duncan Salkeld <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 17 May 2006 18:15:57 +0100
Subject: 17.0448 Shakespeare's Hidden Catholicism
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0448 Shakespeare's Hidden Catholicism

It's equally if not more likely that this Gulielmus came from Stratford, 
London, than Stratford upon Avon (no hyphens in Shakespeare's day).

Duncan Salkeld

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 17 May 2006 14:39:31 -0400
Subject: 17.0448 Shakespeare's Hidden Catholicism
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0448 Shakespeare's Hidden Catholicism

According to the cited article, someone signed the book in Latin 
"Gulielmus Clerkue Stratfordiensis".  Even assuming the provenance and 
authenticity of the book, it is a wild stretch to assume that William, 
Clerk (or Secretary) of Stratford was the signer.  Such an entry can be 
probative only to one who needs no convincing.

If the book was in autograph, it might be interesting to compare the 
signature with WS's known signatures.

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 17 May 2006 23:58:44 -0700
Subject: 17.0448 Shakespeare's Hidden Catholicism
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0448 Shakespeare's Hidden Catholicism

>I ran across an article in the online National Catholic Register today 
that seemed
>interesting. The link to the article is 
http://www.ncregister.com/articulo4.php?artkod=NDQ3
>A Father Andreas Kramarz, LC, is the author and he refers to a hitherto 
unknown
>entry in the Pilgrims book of the English College in Rome which 
supposedly refers to
>Shakespeare studying in Rome in 1585 during the lost years...

Kramarz writes, "In October 1613, the presumed pseudonym Ricardus 
Stratfordus appears on the college's guestbook - 'Richard' was the name of 
Shakespeare's paternal grandfather and also of the last of his brothers, 
buried in Stratford in February 1613.'

Ha ha.

Cheers,
Al Magary

_______________________________________________________________
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.