2006

Roderigo's Fate

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 Demise of the Coward

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.

Jensen Collection

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 Archbishop Wasn't There? So Forth.

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.

MV Casket Choices

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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.