October
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0971 Tuesday, 31 October 2006 [1] From: Kenneth Gross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 29 Oct 2006 19:24:26 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 17.0958 Roderigo's Fate [2] From: William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 29 Oct 2006 20:51:08 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 17.0958 Roderigo's Fate [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Gross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 29 Oct 2006 19:24:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: 17.0958 Roderigo's Fate Comment: Re: SHK 17.0958 Roderigo's Fate Whatever there is to say about Roderigo's resurrection, literal or merely by letter, it seems as if should be set against Desdemona's second speaking from her bed, after Othello had thought her dead. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 29 Oct 2006 20:51:08 -0500 Subject: 17.0958 Roderigo's Fate Comment: Re: SHK 17.0958 Roderigo's Fate Now that I'm on the same page as everyone else, "even now he spake / After long seeming dead" (Oxford Complete Works 5.2.337-38) doesn't sound much like the discovery of a letter. Steve Sohmer's suggestion that Roderigo undergoes a resurrection makes a lot more sense. The play does indeed (perhaps ironically) end on Sunday. Bill Godshalk _______________________________________________________________ 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 17.0970 Tuesday, 31 October 2006 [1] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 29 Oct 2006 18:46:18 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 17.0957 The Demise of the Coward [2] From: John Crowley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 31 Oct 2006 10:19:28 -0500 Subj: Cowards [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 29 Oct 2006 18:46:18 -0500 Subject: 17.0957 The Demise of the Coward Comment: Re: SHK 17.0957 The Demise of the Coward Shakespeare's most blatant cowards -- Falstaff, Pistol and Parolles -- share another characteristic as well. They are all astoundingly shameless. Each has his cowardice exposed and stands mocked, ridiculed, shamed; yet each soldiers on, shrugging off his disgrace with resignation and at least a modicum of good humor. Falstaff continues his prior course; Pistol resolves to live as best he can; and Parolles internalizes his shame to become his enemy's lackey. Perhaps their willingness to do so instead of crawling into the nearest hole evidences something like moral courage. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Crowley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 31 Oct 2006 10:19:28 -0500 Subject: Cowards >It was Hal's band of brothers if anything. In response to this and Bruce Young's fine analysis, wouldn't it be great in a production of Henry V to place Bardolph, Pistol etc in conspicuous positions when Hal makes his band of brothers speech? For a moment any man can be not a coward, or be included in the band of brothers, even if later he proves unworthy -- like Falstaff's conscripts in 2 Henry IV -- "mere men." _______________________________________________________________ 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 17.0969 Tuesday, 31 October 2006 From: Harvey Roy Greenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 29 Oct 2006 20:04:20 EST Subject: 17.0955 The Archbishop Wasn't There? So Forth. Comment: Re: SHK 17.0955 The Archbishop Wasn't There? So Forth. I am concerned that somewhere along the way -- regarding my questions about various historical reference in the A of C's oration, Henry 5, Act 1, Sc 2 -- re Saxon and Frankish history, who the devil was Pharamond, so forth -- that I am more concerned with 'actual' history than the reception of the oration by Elizabethan audiences, which is my first concern in approaching the speech dramaturgically. I believe, at least on the basis of what I have been able to winkle out, that audience members both 'high' and 'low' -- and I gather that a preponderant number were middle to upper class, and often not uneducated -- would have closely followed the oration, and, at the very least, would have gotten its gist. I surmise that dynastic and succession issues were on viewers' minds, at least in terms of the Lopez and Babbington conspiracies -- indeed, I would wonder if there were more than a few people who saw Lopez' ghastly death and applauded it, would several years down the line be applauding H5. The more educated, I would guess, would know about the dynastic struggles of the War of the Roses. I also would guess that even an illiterate viewer would be used to sundry proclamations, sermonizing, et cetera, would have known about Lopez, Babbington by oral transmission etc. At least, the 'groundlings' would have gotten the gist of Canterbury's speech, and indeed may have found the tune of his narration quite pleasing, if not quite getting the words, in terms of the sermonizing 'begattings' they were used to. Can't forget about the Armada either and the general sense of triumphalism, vindication of the Tudor myth otra vez. As far as whether or not Canterbury was at Leicester to give the speech, I've come to the conclusion -- and much helped by various correspondents -- that it don't signify ultimately in terms of performance etc. From all evidence -- and again -- I am not a Shakespearean scholar -- Holinshed was not deceiving anyone: he thought Canterbury was there, and drew the speech itself from sources I know not, but which he assumed were reliable. The real issue for me, is how to perform the oration before a non Elizabethan audience, notably of today, not much caring about, or certainly informed about hoary dynastic issues, the Law Salique, so forth. Thanks for the responses; they've been quite helpful. Harvey Roy Greenberg _______________________________________________________________ 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 17.0968 Tuesday, 31 October 2006 From: Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 30 Oct 2006 06:56:13 -0800 Subject: 17.0956 Jensen Collection Comment: RE: SHK 17.0956 Jensen Collection My thanks to Professor Rusche for expressing his concern that my office or home will become cluttered by the Jensen collection when members of SHAKSPER (and those who read one of the newspaper articles published this weekend) contribute their Shakespeariana to it. I remind him that the donated items will be stored as a special collection in the Hannon Library at Southern Oregon University in Ashland, so that is not an issue. Items do go through my hands first so that I may write about them for the finding guide, but they soon reside on the library's second floor. Please permit me to also express gratitude for donations from the several people who have already contacted me about the collection and to Prof. Rusche for the excuse to give it this additional plug. If Prof. Rusche ever wishes to unburden himself of his clutter, the Jensen Collection will be happy to take the Shakespeare thimbles, ties, T-shirts (if never worn), pillowcases and miniature cars (?!) off his hands. All the best, Mike Jensen _______________________________________________________________ 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 17.0967 Tuesday, 31 October 2006 [1] From: Mario DiCesare <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 29 Oct 2006 18:11:33 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 17.0953 MV Casket Choices [2] From: Nora Kreimer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 29 Oct 2006 20:23:17 -0300 Subj: Re: SHK 17.0953 MV Casket Choices [3] From: Kristen McDermott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 29 Oct 2006 18:55:14 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 17.0953 MV Casket Choices [4] From: Cary Dean Barney <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 30 Oct 2006 09:47:46 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 17.0953 MV Casket Choices [5] From: John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 30 Oct 2006 09:46:34 -0000 Subj: RE: SHK 17.0953 MV Casket Choices [6] From: John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 30 Oct 2006 12:41:58 -0000 Subj: Re: SHK 17.0953 MV Casket Choices [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mario DiCesare <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 29 Oct 2006 18:11:33 -0500 Subject: 17.0953 MV Casket Choices Comment: Re: SHK 17.0953 MV Casket Choices >In "the Merchant of Venice", ... the poem in the silver casket >states "marry who you will"........what's up with the discrepancy? Any >suggestions ? I never noticed it before.... > >Virginia Byrne In II.ix, the "label" (referring to the picture of the blinking idiot) reads in part: Take what wife you will to bed, I will ever be your head. Most editors slide right by this; John Russell Brown (Arden) notes that Dr. Johnson thought WS had obviously forgotten the condition never to "woo a maid." Mario A. Di Cesare [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nora Kreimer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 29 Oct 2006 20:23:17 -0300 Subject: 17.0953 MV Casket Choices Comment: Re: SHK 17.0953 MV Casket Choices Sigmund Freud, "The Theme of the Three Caskets" [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kristen McDermott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 29 Oct 2006 18:55:14 -0500 Subject: 17.0953 MV Casket Choices Comment: RE: SHK 17.0953 MV Casket Choices Bravo to your student! Here's my purely subjective guess: Perhaps this line is part of the overall curse/injunction to an unsuccessful chooser: he must agree never to marry, but should he attempt to renege, his marriage bed will be cursed with idiot progeny ("I will ever be your head"). Which makes me wonder whether there's a nod to Aragon's Juana the Mad, Philip II's great-aunt and Mary Tudor's aunt? Kris McDermott Central Michigan University [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cary Dean Barney <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 30 Oct 2006 09:47:46 +0100 Subject: 17.0953 MV Casket Choices Comment: Re: SHK 17.0953 MV Casket Choices I'm glad I'm not the only one whose students pick up on things their prof misses... Could it be that the mastermind behind the casket plot (Portia's father, presumably) expects the losers to go back on their oath? After all they've shown their character by chosing the wrong caskets. Also, with similar logic, the implication may be that Arragon will take someone else's "wife to bed", perhaps the natural consequence of not being able to marry himself. Love those loose ends. [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 30 Oct 2006 09:46:34 -0000 Subject: 17.0953 MV Casket Choices Comment: RE: SHK 17.0953 MV Casket Choices Interesting point, but the injunction to which Arragon agrees is that he will "never in my life / To woo a maid in marriage" and that if he fails he will "Immediately [to] leave you and begone. I take the emphasis on the act of 'wooing' to be crucial here. The same thing happens with Morocco earlier who is enjoined: "if you choose wrong, / Never to speak to lady afterward / In way of marriage;" (2.1.40-2). Is not the emphasis here upon 'romantic' courtship? Would this preclude a 'political' or arranged marriage in which the man takes no active part in the way of courtship? Elsewhere in Shakespeare there are more absolute embargoes on marriage for failure to obey an injunction. I wonder to what extent the suitors to Portia reflect the anxieties about marriage That involved Elizabeth herself (esp. foreign 'political' marriages?) Just a thought Cheers, John Drakakis [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Ramsay <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 30 Oct 2006 12:41:58 -0000 Subject: 17.0953 MV Casket Choices Comment: Re: SHK 17.0953 MV Casket Choices Actually Shakespeare wrote: ' Take what wife thou will to bed' . Virginia must be working with a simplified or Bowdlerized version. Either way, there is no discrepancy. Both expressions mean marry someone else because you're not marrying me. In modern English it is common enough to say: 'You can do what you want.' But the implication is clear that you can do what you want with someone else, not me. John Ramsay _______________________________________________________________ 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.