August
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0540 Monday, 20 August 2007 [1] From: Ted Nellen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 17 Aug 2007 06:58:22 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 18.0535 Elizabethan Dining [2] From: Paul E. Doniger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 17 Aug 2007 05:09:19 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 18.0535 Elizabethan Dining [3] From: Nicole Coonradt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 18 Aug 2007 19:22:35 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 18.0535 Elizabethan Dining [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ted Nellen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 17 Aug 2007 06:58:22 -0500 (CDT) Subject: 18.0535 Elizabethan Dining Comment: Re: SHK 18.0535 Elizabethan Dining >Sorry to waste people's time with what may seem a silly question, but >can anyone tell me when the Elizabethans dined? > >If Beatrice comes to tell Benedick 'dinner is ready', is this midday or >evening? > >If it is evening, then presumably the women's gulling scene takes place >the next day. I believe dinner is the midday meal and supper is evening meal. Ted Nellen [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul E. Doniger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 17 Aug 2007 05:09:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 18.0535 Elizabethan Dining Comment: Re: SHK 18.0535 Elizabethan Dining Allardyce Nicoll (The Elizabethans. Cambridge UP, 1957: 102) quotes a contemporary source, saying that the gentry dined "at eleven before noon," and that "husbandmen dine also at high noon." Merchants, he says, "dine ... seldom before twelve at noon." Dinner seems to be equivalent to our (America's) lunch. Supper was the evening meal (between five and six p.m.). This explains the lines in Julius Caesar where Cassius invites Casca first to sup tonight and then to dine tomorrow (1.2.288-290). Paul E. Doniger [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nicole Coonradt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Saturday, 18 Aug 2007 19:22:35 +0000 Subject: 18.0535 Elizabethan Dining Comment: Re: SHK 18.0535 Elizabethan Dining I suspect there will be plenty of posts by members for this topic. For Judy Lewis re her query on Elizabethan mealtimes: in Ian Wilson's _The Evidence: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Man and His Work_ (New York: St. Martin's, 1993), I just came across a journal entry by Simon Forman about a Globe production of _Macbeth_ from 20 April 1610 (Forman was, according to Wilson, "an astrologer, plague curer and confidant of Emilia Lanier" [316]). Forman writes about the scene with Banquo's ghost that it occurs while the characters are "at supper" (316) and in the course of that play it comes as the evening meal in the action just after the murderers report successfully slaying Banquo (recall via stage direction, one extinguishes a torch-meaning it must be dark-while the other two attack), to which Macbeth replies that he will see them "tomorrow" and the feast follows immediately with Banquo's ghost appearing. (3.3 & 4) The scene closes with the Lady M's excuses and the company saying "good night" (3.4.119, 120) before the murderous couple discuss the night being "Almost at odds with morning" (3.4.126), and Lady M tells Macbeth to "sleep" (3.4.140) and he replies, "Come, we'll to sleep" (3.4.141). Etymologically, "dinner" comes from the Middle English, from the Old French, "disiunare"-to break one's fast, "dis" from the Latin for "reversal" or "undoing", and "iēiūnium," meaning "fast." So it was the first big meal of the day, apparently taken between rising and noon. Our word "breakfast" seems to post-date this usage somewhat, though for a while it seems they are synonymous (in Medieval times). I could be mistaken, but I think that, traditionally, when people in pre-Reformation times (ergo Catholics) went to Mass daily, one was not to have taken anything to eat or drink (not even water) prior to receiving the Blessed Sacrament of Holy Communion, which would account for the time of day in which dinner (or the erstwhile "breakfast" before the word was coined) would have been consumed-that is, post services. (Actually, come to think of it, that was probably the case for Catholics up until Vatican II, but for our interest here as regards Elizabethan England, with the Reformation, Mass, along with the whole of Catholicism, had been outlawed.) The Middle English Dictionary on-line is helpful in such etymological searches. Announced at SHAKSPER in early 2007 as completed and available to the public, on-line and free-of-charge, it is an **excellent and invaluable** resource (especially b/c we get common usage in English prior to what OED normally catalogs) and is extremely, user friendly. Try it here: http://ets.umdl.umich.edu/m/med/ Supper is listed most places as an evening meal. At MED it is listed variously as "sopere," "sopar," "sopir," "sopper," "souper," and "soupir". Noted first as the **final** meal of the day. So, based on the contemporary evidence provided by Forman's journal and the etymology, it appears that the meal in _Much Ado_ to which Lewis refers occurs early in the day, midmorning and NLT noon. Interestingly, our word "lunch" the truncated form of "luncheon," as the noon repast, originally meant **drinking** at noon. From Middle English "nonshench," "none" being "noon," and "shench" from "drink" originally, Old English "scencan," "to pour out." We also have a reference to "supper" in Hamlet when the Prince says that Polonius can be found "at supper" (4.1.19), "Not where he eats, but where he is eaten" (4.3.21). Though Hamlet uses this only as a mad joke and it may not be taken as reference to the "real" time of the play, it certainly seems to suggest a "final" meal-of-the-day status, especially for the dead Polonius. (Supper also appears as "The Last Supper" in reference to Christ as early as c. 1300.) As far as diction is concerned, Hamlet does not say the King will find Polonius "at dinner." Hope this is helpful. Best, Nicole Coonradt _______________________________________________________________ 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 18.0539 Monday, 20 August 2007 From: John F. Andrews <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Sunday, 19 Aug 2007 13:40:03 -0400 Subject: Late-Summer Update from ESU Washington As August segues into September, we're pleased to call your attention to a number of coming attractions, among them (a) a remarkable Shakespeare on Screen series at the Library of Congress, (b) a September 18 luncheon with Laura Sessions Stepp, an award-winning Washington Post reporter who has stimulated a great deal of soul-searching with her book Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love, and Lose at Both, (c) a September 27 reception and conversation with historian Douglas L. Wilson, who'll talk about his prize-winning study of Lincoln's Sword: The Presidency and the Power of Words, (d) an October 2 luncheon with biographer Lynne Olson, who will discuss her much-admired narrative about Troublesome Young Men: The Rebels Who Brought Churchill to Power and Saved England, and (e) an October 11 luncheon with two of our leading lexicographers, Paul Dickson, who has produced more than a score of books about slang, technical jargon, and other special vocabularies, and Fred Shapiro, who has revolutionized our sense of what constitutes a familiar quotation. For more detail about these and other events, including links to Web pages other than ESU Washington's, see the paragraphs that follow and visit www.esuwdc.org/calendar.html and www.esuwdc.org/shakespeare.html. _____________________________ Shakespeare on Screen In one of its many contributions to the 2007Shakespeare in Washington festival, the Library of Congress is exhibiting some rare and wondrous classics from its enormous archive of film, television, and recorded stage performances. For a complete schedule of the screen features to be shown free of charge between now and the end of August, visit www.esuwdc.org/calendar.html for a link to the Library's listings for the Mary Pickford Theatre. John F. Andrews, OBE Executive Director, ESU Washington President, The Shakespeare Guild 1604 New Hampshire Avenue NW Washington, DC 20009-2512 Phone 202 234 4602 Fax 202 234 4639 www.esuwdc.orgThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. _______________________________________________________________ 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 18.0538 Friday, 17 August 2007 [1] From: John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 16 Aug 2007 15:49:26 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 18.0533 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare [2] From: Cary DiPietro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 17 Aug 2007 01:25:08 +0900 Subj: RE: SHK 18.0533 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare [3] From: Bruce Young <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 16 Aug 2007 12:12:38 -0600 Subj: RE: SHK 18.0533 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare [4] From: Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 16 Aug 2007 16:12:54 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 18.0528 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 16 Aug 2007 15:49:26 +0100 Subject: 18.0533 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare Comment: RE: SHK 18.0533 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare I think, Ros, that there's big difference between what you call 'cherrypicking' of meanings and the kind of thing that Terry Hawkes talks about in 'Meaning By Shakespeare' and since. I think we can all agree that - as the other Terry puts it - 'King Lear is not about Leeds United.' BUT that still leaves plenty of room for manoeuvre that invites us to think about how we make sense of a particular constellation of words that comprise a 'Shakespeare text'. If we are thinking about inked marks on a page (the basic material of textual bibliography)then we have some very real problems since those inked marks draw on a series of discursive fields, some of which are not literary at all, and they also invite us to try to reconstitute the processes by which those inked marks came into existence. Hawkes' claim, and you may think that it is a polemical one, is that we cannot assume that what grounds our readings is the 'authority' of Shakespeare, and his excavation of the predispositions of particular critics (from 'That Shakespearian Rag' onwards) maintains this important focus. Perhaps another way of looking at it would be to ask why particular plays rise into critical (and even popular) consciousness at particular times. For my many sins I've been ploughing through a series of early Gothic novels recently, and I'm surprised at the number of references to 'King John' (alongside the expected references to 'Hamlet', 'Macbeth', King Lear', 'Othello' etc.). In trying to account for this I don't think that 'going back to the text' would be of much help. In the criticism of the times (1760-1820 roughly) some mention is made of the 'authenticity' of the emotion of the character of Constance, and there is a lot in Romantic Criticism that actually shapes both the interpretation and the reception of Shakespeare. Now I don't think that wanting to emphasise these aspects of interpretation is 'cherrypicking' so much as adjusting an emphasis. Hawkes' point is that Shakespeare, as a subject 'in history' did it (possibly without being fully conscious of what he was doing), and that this is exactly what we do. The difference is that we have no excuse for not being conscious of what we are doing. Cheers, John Drakakis [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cary DiPietro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 17 Aug 2007 01:25:08 +0900 Subject: 18.0533 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare Comment: RE: SHK 18.0533 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare This may be an argument about semantics, but Ros King is wrong to suggest that texts create meaning. How can they when they are not sentient? No, texts have meaning systems embedded within them, systems that are historically contingent; and though French poststructuralism has instructed us well in the fallacy of authorial intention, careful close reading of the text with attention duly paid to the historically determined meaning of words, syntax structures and rhetorical figures can teach us about the complexity and nuance of textual meaning as it changes over time. However, even when we 'discover' the text in its own historical situation, to mean properly historicize it (and the criticism of the last twenty years has taught us the necessity of doing this, despite its misplaced emphasis on context), we inevitably embed those discoveries in interpretive narratives that speak to or about our own social and cultural paradigms. This is scholarly common sense, but presentism takes this one step further to argue that we can never wholly reenter the past to encounter those earlier meanings in an unmediated way, nor should we: narrative process is both inevitable and inescapable. And this is Hawkes's point: our priority must be to consider how and why these texts mean for us now. In response to this, however, I would argue that this project does not disallow nor is it antithetical to the project of historicist analysis; to interrogate how and why texts mean for us now is necessarily to historicize them, to address the meaning systems that are embedded and sedimented in our inherited reading and performance practices, and to make sense of them by telling, as it were, 'stories about the past', stories that are self-consciously narrative. I don't think Hawkes will disagree with this. Reading the early works of Terence Hawkes was a formative experience of my own Shakespeare education, but I'm not sure that a return to them here would be a productive exercise. The methodological approach exemplified in, for example, _Meaning by Shakespeare_ is presentist in principle, if not in name, and to revisit the arguments made there would be to rehash many of the points that were made (and largely ignored) in the Presentism Roundtable. Will Sharpe is right to suggest that the intelligent and timely questions posed by Hugh Grady and John Drakakis, among others, were never satisfyingly addressed or answered. In any case, focusing on Hawkes's early works may lead to the misapprehension that he invented, rather than merely paraded, the notion that textual meaning is created by and dependent upon interpretive communities; we might note that the title of the Washington Post article implicitly references that earlier work by Jan Kott, _Shakespeare, Our Contemporary_. Performance and film critics of Shakespeare have long been making this argument, even while they've been marginalized professionally by an academy that has come to be dominated by historical (rather than historicist) scholarship. Presentism is meant to serve as a corrective to this misplaced emphasis on history, to the erroneous notion that we can ever recover or return to the meaning of the past, and the annoying moralism that is commonly intoned to justify the historical approach, our responsibility to the past, the text in history, etc. A note to Ros King: have you read the new book by Terry Eagleton on close-reading? I haven't read it yet, but I understand that one of the goals of the project is to reconcile, or perhaps even update, the philosophy of close-reading with post-structuralist analysis. That's *very* exciting. I say let's nip this stupid 'after theory' thing in the bud. Cary DiPietro [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Young <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 16 Aug 2007 12:12:38 -0600 Subject: 18.0533 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare Comment: RE: SHK 18.0533 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare Sorry to stretch this out further, but my curiosity still hasn't been satisfied. My questions on this thread seem to have dropped into the void, the closest to a response being the suggestion (under the heading "SHAKSPER Roundtable") that lesser Shakespeareans should be careful in what they say about Terence Hawkes's opinions. My questions are genuine ones. I agree with Hawkes that "we mean by [means of] the plays." And I agree with John Drakakis's interpretation of Hawkes's words: "that the act of 'making sense' is something that we perform as readers and spectators." But I'm not sure why Hawkes sees this as a misfortune ("We mean. Worse, we mean it by the plays"). I don't see Hawkes's statements as implying that "we mean" or ought to mean whatever we whimsically or arbitrarily want. (But I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong.) "By the plays" seems to imply that the plays are indeed something (i.e., that we can distinguish one play from another and agree to some extent on a given play's content or features) and that they have a role in this meaning-making business. Furthermore, the word "it" in "we mean it by the plays" suggests that we (when we do things with or say things about a play) are meaning something discernible. And since Hawkes introduces his points with "the truth is," it appears that he believe there's some meaning or content to his own words too-that it would be perverse or possibly psychopathic for someone to quote him and then announce that what he really means is that Shakespeare's plays have a single, ideal, eternal meaning that can be determined once and for all. I'm guessing-and hoping-that Hawkes and I are not far apart in all of this. But I'm still trying to make sense of that word "worse." Is he just saying, "You essentialists will think the interpreter's role in meaning-making is a bad thing" (silently adding, "but I don't agree"). Or is he himself feeling nostalgia for self-contained texts with stable and definitive meanings? In which case, constrained by honesty, realism, and perhaps concern for the rest of us, is he telling us the sad truth? The only other possibilities I can see at the moment are that "worse" was a slip of the keyboard or that Hawkes never meant to be tied to anything quite so definite as I've suggested. Perhaps he was just thrusting and parrying so as to point out the foolishness of other people's views. To some, my attempt to ask what he meant or means may seem perverse. But I genuinely believe this meaning-making we're talking about is a communal enterprise that ought to involve conversation. It isn't the activity of solitary egos encountering a pure text or announcing truths that are beyond question. Bruce Young [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 16 Aug 2007 16:12:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 18.0528 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare Comment: Re: SHK 18.0528 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare John Drakakis asks: >"Perhaps Joe Egert can tell us what a 'fact' is, and how we might >separate it from a 'value' or even from ideology! Even F.R.Leavis had >sufficient theoretical savvy to assert that 'there is a value implicit >in the realising'. The question is: WHAT do we 'realise' and HOW? >Hawkes' claim - and it's one that disciples of the independent authority >of the 'text' need to ponder very carefully, and in the full knowledge >of the empirical evidence that the texts as we have them furnish for us >- is that the act of 'making sense' is something that we perform as >readers and spectators." Let Dr D re-view: http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2007/0125.html I construe fact as the actual Object or Event that exists before our separate and imperfect attempts to experience or recapture it. It is the absolute Other that stands "wholly outside our gates" of perception and judgment, independent of and yet the basis for what we individually hear and translate (or interpret and valuate). Real history (not the tales of historians) constitutes then an evolving continuum of actual past and present with its tensions and supports, its conflicts and resonant harmonies. Surely JD will agree that the present, as perfect issue of its past, can never be in overall "dialectic relation" to it. Isn't presentism then merely one endpoint of the historicist project as a whole and not its mighty dialectical opposite? What else grounds the movement of Terence Hawkes and his acolytes but an elementary truism taught to scholars and historians since before Marcus Aurelius? Imagine, if you will, a scholar, as accomplished as JD, engaged in editing, say, THE MERCHANT OF VENICE. In Act II, Scene 2, he comes across the stage direction: "Enter old Gobbo with a basket." Poring over the available quartos and folios, he notes "Iobbe", not "Gobbo", used elsewhere. Would JD advise this editor for his edition to replace the stage direction's "Gobbo" with "Iobbe"? If so, why? If not, why not? Surely John would not judge "speculating about authorial intention" a "guilty" endeavor---a "trap" to be avoided by any scholar worth his salt? And surely John would not reduce the enterprise of scholarship to whatever has "current social value" while discounting all else as outmoded, i.e., an "antiquarian veneration of monuments"? Or would he? 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0537 Friday, 17 August 2007 [1] From: Rachel Wifall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 16 Aug 2007 11:00:47 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 18.0526 Redheads [2] From: David Frankel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 16 Aug 2007 11:12:23 -0400 Subj: RE: SHK 18.0532 Redheads [3] From: Mary Rosenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 16 Aug 2007 09:49:36 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 18.0532 Redheads [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rachel Wifall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 16 Aug 2007 11:00:47 -0400 Subject: 18.0526 Redheads Comment: Re: SHK 18.0526 Redheads As far as I know, in Roman comedy, slaves wore red wigs. Rachel Wifall Saint Peter's College Jersey City, NJ [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Frankel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 16 Aug 2007 11:12:23 -0400 Subject: 18.0532 Redheads Comment: RE: SHK 18.0532 Redheads Thanks for the responses. As from the ASTR list, all the replies concern Shylock. I was curious, because the person I quoted spoke of "his most menacing characters." Apparently, Shylock has multiplied. C. David Frankel Assistant Director of Theatre School of Theatre and Dance University of South Florida [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Rosenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 16 Aug 2007 09:49:36 -0700 Subject: 18.0532 Redheads Comment: Re: SHK 18.0532 Redheads August 18 In his original manuscript for The Masks of Anthony and Cleopatra Marvin wrote that Enobarbus "is marked physically by the red beard his name implies." I was puzzled by this, as I had never particularly associated Eno with "red" nor Enobarbus with a red beard. I made various enquiries and came up with the following footnote (p. 88 in the finished book): "The 'red beard' of his name may derive from the prefix Oeno (from Greek oino) meaning wine: or (less likely) from the Egyptian ivy, henna, which was used as a gold-red dye." More interesting is the Enobarbus-Judas association, which would presumably strengthen the idea of Enobarbus's red hair. My footnote continues: "For Elizabethans a red beard often denoted a villain or Judas-figure (See AYLI 3.4. Rosalind: His very hair is of the dissembling color. Celia: Something browner than Judas's). If, as has been suggested, there are implications of the Last Supper in Anthony's feasting of his soldiers in 4.2, then the Judas symbolism becomes more significant, with Enobarbus's subsequent "betrayal" of the Christ-like Anthony." Any further thoughts on the subject would be welcome. Mary Rosenberg _______________________________________________________________ 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 18.0536 Friday, 17 August 2007 From: JD Markel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 16 Aug 2007 13:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: James D. Linton, Illustrator I am in possession of a copy of "Shakespeare's Comedy of THE MERCHANT OF VENICE with illustrations by Sir James D. Linton, P.R.I." Publisher is Hodder & Stoughton, with no publication date. Inside the cover is attached an envelope with handwritten letter from Linton to a Brooklynite dated April 6, 1915, "[sender's address] Dear Sir In answer to yours of March 14 . 1915 I have only illustrated two of Shakespears plays. [viz.?] the two you mention "Henry VIII" & the "Merchant of Venice" The only other colour book was published by [Messrs?] Hodder Stoughton. The subject "Mary Queen of Scots, the landscapes of the book were illustrated by Mr. James Orrock, R.I. The Royal Institute of Painting in Water Colours published a colour print [frame?] my picture of "She Stoops to Conquer" [ ? ] [ ? ] James D Linton" His illustrations are good. If you have a particular interest in Linton I'll e-mail you a scan of the letter. _______________________________________________________________ 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.