2007

Conference: SHK 18.0344 Sunday, 20 May 2007

 From: 		Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 Date: 		Sunday, May 20, 2007
 Subject: 	SHAKSPER and SPAMMERS (continued)
	
 Dear SHAKSPEReans,
	

 Eric and I have both been tirelessly addressing the Spamming problem that
 SHAKSPER has been having. I will not provide any of the details, but I will
 step by step begin restoring SHAKSPER services. As for my wonderful timing,
 you can see that I have chosen the end of the semester when my grades are
 due to make the situation all that more challenging for me.
	
	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.

When sorrows come . . . SHAKSPER and SPAMMERs

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0343  Friday, 18 May 2007

From: 		Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, May 18, 2007
Subject: 	When sorrows come . . . SHAKSPER and SPAMMERs

Dear SHAKSPEReans,

The SHAKSPER server has been hijacked yet again.

Neither Eric Luhrs, technical advisor, or I can figure out how, but we 
have been compromised and my domain shaksper.net is being 'blacklisted" 
all over the Internet with hundreds of members of the list being 
automatically dropped by their ISPs.

Another eleven SPAMs have somehow gotten through our security and been 
distributed with the listserv software from my LINUX server. In addition, 
eight SHAKSPER messages SHK 18.0334 to SHK 18.042 have disappeared from 
the SHAKSPER logs mysteriously.

Until we can figure this out I am going to turn off listserv and possibly 
sendmail and my server.

Sadly,
Hardy M. Cook
Editor

PS: And this trouble coming as my grades for the term are due, an 
unfortunate conclusion to an exceedingly difficult semester for me.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

New Shakespeare 'Works

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0340  Tuesday, 15 May 2007

[1] 	From: 	Tony Burton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Tuesday, 8 May 2007 14:10:06 -0400
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0309 New Shakespeare 'Works'

[2] 	From: 	William Proctor Williams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Tuesday, 08 May 2007 15:08:30 -0400
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0330 00

[3] 	From: 	Sean King <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Tuesday, 8 May 2007 16:59:02 -0400
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0330 00

[4] 	From: 	Jeffrey Jordan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Wednesday, 9 May 2007 01:28:24 -0500
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0330 00

[5] 	From: 	Tom Reedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Saturday, 12 May 2007 22:56:04 -0500
 	Subj: 	Re: Re: SHK 18.0309 New Shakespeare 'Works'

[6] 	From: 	Robert Projansky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:20:32 -0700
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0330 00


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Tony Burton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 8 May 2007 14:10:06 -0400
Subject: 18.0309 New Shakespeare 'Works'
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0309 New Shakespeare 'Works'

For anyone not bored silly with the recent pollax/pole-axe thread to which 
I am a guilty accessory, let me point out that the new Bates RSC "Hamlet" 
gives "He smote the steeld pole-axe on the ice."  With explanatory 
footnote.

That should settle things once and for all.  The texts got it wrong.

Tony

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		William Proctor Williams <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 08 May 2007 15:08:30 -0400
Subject: 18.0330 00
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0330 00

Sean King says, replying to William Proctor Williams,

>An edition which tries "to reconstruct the text as it entered the
>printshop." is not doing much which is different from what textual
>criticism has been doing for over 100 years.

Their point is that they're not conflating-"the text" here is the First 
Folio, and they're editing *that*.

And that was just my point.  They are not concerned, or say they are not 
concerned, with the source of setting copy, underlying matters of 
transmission (for example, from 1594 to 1623 through 3 variant quartos in 
the case of Titus) or any of that sort of stuff, but are only setting 
forth what actually got printed in F1.  That looks like exiting the print 
shop rather than entering it to me, as I said in the full text of my 
posting.

William Proctor Williams

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Sean King <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 8 May 2007 16:59:02 -0400
Subject: 18.0330 00
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0330 00

Replying to Tad Davis

[...]

>what the words "the sledded" mean

[...]

This edition winds up with "the steeled pole-axe" -- Bate tells us his 
thinking in the "Case."

A poster was having problems accessing some of the RSC material -- this 
should be a direct link to the above document:

http://www.rscshakespeare.co.uk/pdfs/Case_for_Folio.pdf

...perhaps any broken links are a US/UK thing? (I believe Modern Library 
is maintaining a site parallel to that of the British publisher... at any 
rate the banner at the top of the blog at this address

http://palgrave.typepad.com/rsc/

leads to www.rscshakespeare.co.uk and everything seems to work fine from 
there...)

S.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Jeffrey Jordan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 9 May 2007 01:28:24 -0500
Subject: 18.0330 00
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0330 00

Replying to Tad Davis.

>Explaining what the words "the sledded" mean in this context is a
>problem; but not as big a problem as explaining how the experience
>of  the stalking ghost reminds Horatio of a battle. ...

It's not such a problem, if one goes back to Q2 and observes the exact 
spelling "sleaded," and takes it seriously.  Elizabethan days were earlier 
in the Great Vowel Shift, and "sleaded" was pronounced 'slay-dead' if 
dragged out just a tad.  Drawl Elizabethan "sleaded" and you get 
"slay-dead."

The "sleaded pollax" is the slay-dead 'head' axe.

But that's not to be taken literally; it's the wordplay, for King Hamlet's 
behavior.  The Danish King Hamlet swung his Danish battle axe like an 
executioner swinging a slay-dead 'head' axe.  The implication is that 
there were some Polish fellow's necks in the way at the time.  When King 
Hamlet swung his slay-dead 'head' axe, his enemies were dying, "Polacks" 
in this case.

Horatio doesn't necessarily mean he was there.  He's probably referring to 
a painting, in commemoration of the Danish victory.   Some Elizabethan era 
paintings are so well done they're virtually photographic, notably the 
Holbein portraits of Henry VIII.  In a painting the King will have his 
beaver up, even if in a battle he did not.  Artistic license.

The reason why the Ghost reminds Horatio of a battle is because the Ghost 
is wearing armor.  That's so obvious I'm surprised it needs mention.  The 
men expressly talk about the tense military situation, which might lead to 
war.  The Ghost appears in armor.  It's hardly any mystery why Horatio 
thinks of a battle.  And Horatio thinks of an icy battle since it's so 
cold at night, as Hamlet and Horatio later mention.  The idea of an icy 
battle follows directly from what's expressly stated in the dialogue.

-----
Replying to Tony Burton.

>I believe Jeffrey Jordan has gone astray in a portion of his reply
>to Tad Davis that seeks to explain the word "pole-axe."

There is not factually the word "pole-axe" in the original printings. 
None of the original printings shows that word.

Whether an edged military weapon is a beheading tool depends on who's 
swinging it, and how sharp it is.  A kitchen knife is not much of a 
beheading tool, but anything sharp, and heavy enough to be swung with both 
hands by a strong man, well.

The old Danish battle axe bears an interesting resemblance to the 
executioner's axe.  But one big two-hand axe can look much like another, 
and be used much like another.

I do agree there's reference to 'Polacks.'  King Hamlet's slay-dead 'head' 
axe was swung against the sledded Polacks.  The Folio and Q2, between 
them, do pretty well to reveal the intended wordplay.  It's great luck 
that history has preserved both Q2 and F1, and not only in this instance.

>If one wishes to play with the idea that "poll"="head", other
>considerations make it quite difficult to equate "pole-axe" with
>a headsman's axe.

There is factually no word "pole-axe" in the original printings.  It is 
not "play" to learn and use the dictionary definitions of words, nor is it 
"play" to carefully observe one's sources.  It is "play" to do otherwise.

The concept of a headsman's axe is obviously relevant to the events of 
'Hamlet,' as mentioned earlier.  The technicalities of the tool maker's 
art are not relevant.  The suggestion that the word "poll" could somehow 
be restricted to the art of the toolmaker is obviously wrong.

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Tom Reedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Saturday, 12 May 2007 22:56:04 -0500
Subject: SHK 18.0309 New Shakespeare 'Works'
Comment: 	Re: Re: SHK 18.0309 New Shakespeare 'Works'

Sean King wrote:

>Replying to Jeffrey Jordan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
>[...]
>
>>... (How could I not love an edition where old Hamlet's "pollax"
>>remains the pole-axe of an impatient king, banged against the ice
>>in frustration?)
>>
>Remains?  The word is not "pole-axe" in any of the original printings,
>Q1, Q2, or F1.  It's identically "pollax" in all three, except
>capitalized in F1.
>>
>The "pole-axe" editorial interpretation was advanced by Alexander Pope
>in 1723,
>
>Well, *Pope* had "Polack" (sing.) -- or so say the Arden2 and the
>Variorum. *Rowe's* supposed to have given us "Pole-axe" (and actually
>would simply have been hyphenating his copytext [F4: Poleaxe] )

Harington, John, Sir, 1560-1612 (trans.) / Ariosto, Ludovico (orig.):
  ORLANDO FVRIOSO [from Orlando Furioso (1607)]

From Sir John Harington's translation of Ludovico Ariosto's *Orlando 
Furioso* (1607):

The Ninth Booke

299         My seruant standing in a secret place,
300         Which I to him did for this purpose show,
301         Affoords him to his sport but little space,
302         And with a Pollax strake him such a blow,
303         That staggring straight, and making little strife,
304         He left his loue, his liuing and his life.

TR

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Robert Projansky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:20:32 -0700
Subject: 18.0330 00
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0330 00

Tad Davis says:

>Old Hamlet is described as frowning "in an angry parle," not
>fighting a pitched battle on the ice. Are there other cases where
>"parle" means "battle"?

Isn't "angry parle" a metaphor here?

>Explaining what the words "the sledded" mean in this context is a
>problem; but not as big a problem as explaining how the experience
>of  the stalking ghost reminds Horatio of a battle. There are
>problems with either interpretation.

I beg to differ: explaining how something reminds anyone of anything else 
is neither a problem nor an obligation in this context. Like taste, the 
triggers of memory have nothing to do with logic and there is simply no 
accounting for them. If Horatio or any other character says x reminds him 
of y you certainly don't have to understand, explain or justify the 
psychology of that cause and effect to believe that is what he means to 
say. If Horatio says something reminds him of a battle, so be it.

But, that said, isn't Horatio simply saying here that the frown he's just 
seen on the ghost reminds him of the way the dead king frowned  on another 
occasion?

Best to all,
Bob Projansky

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Distinguishing Goneril from Regan

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0341  Tuesday, 15 May 2007

[1] 	From: 	Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Tuesday, 8 May 2007 13:56:07 -0400
 	Subj: 	Distinguishing Goneril from Regan

[2] 	From: 	Mario DiCesare <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Tuesday, 08 May 2007 23:18:06 -0400
 	Subj: 	Distinguishing Goneril from Regan

[3] 	From: 	Elliott Stone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Wednesday, 9 May 2007 08:23:40 -0500
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0326 Distinguishing Goneril from Regan


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 8 May 2007 13:56:07 -0400
Subject: 	Distinguishing Goneril from Regan

About an earlier post of mine, Larry Weiss comments:

"Ed Taft seems to suggest that the sisters' birth order and supposed 
differences in the paternal affections they received gave Goneril a 
preference for weak men while Regan preferred strong ones. If that were 
so, it would be likely that Regan would exhibit other submissive 
characteristics, but she does not.  Then, having made this point in the 
absence of any real evidence in the text, Ed has to strain to explain why 
the sisters (with supposedly diametrically opposed personalities and 
preferences in men) should both fall in love with Edmund."

This is a very intelligent comment, but it doesn't quite put the pieces of 
the puzzle together. First off, Goneril would prefer weak men if she was 
once Lear's favorite but is no longer. Having been supplanted by Cordelia, 
Goneril now hates Lear, who has forsaken her.

The fact that Regan chooses a Lear-like husband suggests that she NEVER 
was Lear's favorite.

Hence, she hates her father too. It doesn't mean she is passive; it means 
she wants what she never got.

There's no "strain" in explaining why both women fall in love with Edmund 
[not Edgar, thanks, Larry!].

The Lear-like, young Edmund gives Goneril a chance to get Daddy back, 
while it gives Regan one last chance to get Daddy in the first place.

It all fits, Larry. Modern psychological theories do not help us 
understand every early modern text, but they "fit" THIS one - just as, for 
example, they help explain _Coriolanus_.

Best,
Ed

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Mario DiCesare <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 08 May 2007 23:18:06 -0400
Subject: 	Distinguishing Goneril from Regan

Dear Colleagues,

This has been quoted and commented on more than once in this quite 
interesting thread:

    "Both, of course, fall in love with Edgar, whose overwhelming 
masculinity...."

I guess it's what one of my merrier teachers called a "lipsis languae" 
[sic]. Fine. But that it should be repeated....

Cheers,
Mario

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Elliott Stone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 9 May 2007 08:23:40 -0500
Subject: 18.0326 Distinguishing Goneril from Regan
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0326 Distinguishing Goneril from Regan

Do we all agree with Brad Berens statement "--I think, worth pointing out 
that Shakespeare never expected the primary manner in which people would 
interact with his plays to be via reading"? There are many people that 
take this as fact. However, could it possibly be true? We all puzzle when 
we read the Shakespeare plays and poems over the most pleasing and 
sophisticated thoughts. The depths of the works can never be plumbed in a 
single performance on the stage. We need to read the works over and over 
again. Can we honestly believe that Shakespeare was writing just for an 
uneducated class of yeoman who filled up the yard and rough benches at the 
Globe?

Best,
Elliott H. Stone

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Alms for Oblivion

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0339  Tuesday, 15 May 2007

[1] 	From: 	Charles Weinstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Thursday, 03 May 2007 18:55:11 -0400
 	Subj: 	Alms for Oblivion

[2] 	From: 	Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Sunday, 6 May 2007 13:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0321 Alms for Oblivion


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Charles Weinstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Thursday, 03 May 2007 18:55:11 -0400
Subject: 	Alms for Oblivion

Terence Hawkes writes:

<I repeat.  Charles Weinstein says that, in Coriolanus, William Houston 
"unforgivably alters his penultimate line to "...like an eagle in a 
dove's-cote. I/Fluttered all your Volscians in Corioles."'  Could he be 
more specific?>

I did not previously understand the question, since I took "he" to be a 
reference to Houston, and the entire remark to be a waggish comment on the 
vagueness imparted to the line by Houston's interpolation of "all."  (Of 
course, "dove's-cote" for "dove-cote" is also inaccurate).  I now assume 
that "he" refers to me, in which case I still don't understand the 
question, or at least the reason why it was posed.  Professor Hawkes must 
know the line as well as I do; in which case he also knows that Houston 
flubbed it.  I winced when I heard it, and I doubt that I winced alone.

--Charles Weinstein

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Sunday, 6 May 2007 13:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 18.0321 Alms for Oblivion
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0321 Alms for Oblivion

Robert Projansky writes:

>>Joseph Egert writes:
>>
>>Robert Projansky writes:
>>
>> "There is no artist more abused by novelty than WS."
>>
>>In the year 2007, or 56 AD (Anno Derridi), a man about fifty,
>>intimately familiar with Shakespeare's works, both paged and
>>staged, buys a ticket to the Stratford Doran production of
>>"CORIOLANUS by William Shakespeare." There he witnesses, as
>>described by Charles Weinstein, "an intermittent androphilia/
>>gynophobia", an "unforgivably" changed penultimate line, and the
>>title character's self-impalement on Aufidius' sword and Pieta
>>cradling in his enemy's arms. Furious, the patron tracks down the
>>theater owner and complains, "This play, as performed, is not by
>>William Shakespeare, as advertised. This is outright cozenage! I
>>demand my money back!" The owner refuses, at which point the patron
>>warns, "I Will not rest until I am reimbursed."
>>
>>Who should decide who gets the money? What is the optimal legal
>>mechanism?
>>
>> Perplexed,
>> Joe Egert
>
>"Dear Perplexed,
>
>"... I would rather see the most
>pedestrian (but intelligible) production imaginable than to see a
>production that does violence to the play."

The question I pose to Bob and fellow members is what legal mechanism 
he/they would find optimal for rendering final verdict on reimbursement of 
Bob or the patron in question, when either finds the "production does 
violence to the play." Who should decide the case where both parties are 
unyielding? a lone judge? a jury? an executive committee of scholars? an 
authorized Copyright official? a majority vote of SHAKSPER's membership?

Bob's example of "violence?":

"Duncan as a godfather mafioso and Mac and all the
other thanes his mob. That's what I mean by abused by novelty."

I believe Shakespeare aims precisely at Duncan as capo di capos, but 
subtly camouflages this subtext within the censorship constraints of the 
period. His murder unveils the suicidal contradictions inherent in 
feudalism's war ethos. Who is judged for teaching Macbeth bloody 
instruction? Who "o'ercharges" the cannon Macbeth with double cracks of an 
imperial charge, the recoil of which will slay Saint Duncan? Who creates 
his own hangman, a new avenging Cawdor, by summary execution of the rebel 
Cawdor? Who is the unconscious equivocator in league with the Sisters 
Weird? Who is the farmer who sows the poisoned weed Macbeth, then reaps 
the fatal harvest? Who is the serpent under the innocent flower, that has 
hatched Macbeth? Whose blood-smeared spongy officers bear the guilt of 
their great quell, of the revolt the newest state? Who has fed his 
harnessed horses full of horrors until they grow wild, turn on each other, 
and unseat their royal rider? Who is summoned ("a heavy summons") to 
Heaven, or to Hell? It is not milk that flows in gracious Duncan's veins. 
Who could have imagined "the old man had so much blood in him?" Who indeed 
is the "painted devil" of this play?

Now back to the case at hand.

I neglected to mention the fifty year old patron was strangely dressed in 
early 17thC British attire. Upon being asked about his costume, he 
announces: "I am William Shakespeare in the flesh, poet and playwright, 
son of John and Mary Shakespeare of Stratford. I am come from the past to 
resolve the authorship issue once and for all. Though I am forbidden to 
reveal my mode of conveyance or the horrors awaiting those who deny me 
justice, I will relate in detail my oeuvre's composition and any 
collaboration, revision, or adaptation. All errors will be corrected, all 
cruces unraveled You may interrogate and test me at length until you are 
satisfied I am who I say.

A panel of hastily assembled world class scholars and scientists thereupon 
subjected the revenant to rigorous examination. Yet his plausible detailed 
explanations did not fully convince. He then motioned to the panel and 
growing crowd, "Follow me." He led them to the grounds at New Place, drew 
a circle in the dirt, then pointed with his cane: "Here is where I buried 
my instruments fathoms deep. Dig and ye shall find." Hours and hours of 
digging at last unearthed a leaden casket. Inside were a broken pen and 
inkwell of Renaissance vintage--the souvenirs he had saved upon 
retirement.

The revenant next led them to the deepest well in Stratford and pointed 
down: "Dive deep. Here is where I drowned my book." Salvage experts dove 
down to the bottom and emerged later with a tightly sealed waterproof 
golden casket. Inside were the holy promptbooks of the canon along with 
the author's foul and fair holographs (unburnt)--in short, the mother 
lode. Exhaustive meticulous inspection and testing of the artifacts, 
texts, and revenant himself now led to one inescapable conclusion. The 
panel was unanimous: the revenant was indeed William Shakespeare 
incarnate.

As the word spread, the world gasped in wonder and anticipation.

Still, three groups did not join in celebration. First were the 
anti-Strats, sunk in deep depression, their raisson d'etre shattered. 
Rumors spread of suicide attempts and murder plots. Security was tightened 
to protect the revenant.

Next were the political ideologues, who refused to authenticate the 
revenant's identity before learning his positions on issues of the 
present--namely class, race, gender, environment, and colonial status. 
Only if acceptable, would they grant him legitimacy.

Last, of course, were the floating postmodernists, who remained calm and 
indifferent throughout the proceedings. To them, the incarnate traveller 
represented merely one more subject position of the unstable text "William 
Shakespeare."  After all, like Pilate before them, they had long ago 
washed their hands of the Truth.

Shakespeare himself, however, remained adamant: "I still demand my money 
back! If the theater owner insists on retaining the title "CORIOLANUS", 
then I further demand that my name be stricken from the marquis, stricken 
from every ad, stricken from every promotion. At long last, who will give 
me justice?"

Who indeed?
Joe Egert

_______________________________________________________________
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.