2008

Books to Buy

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0085  Sunday, 10 February 2008

[1] 	From:	Michael Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Wednesday, 6 Feb 2008 12:20:20 -1000
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0075 Books to Buy

[2] 	From:	Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Wednesday, 06 Feb 2008 17:38:34 -0500
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0075 Books to Buy

[3] 	From:	Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Wednesday, 6 Feb 2008 14:44:08 -0800 (PST)
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0068 Books to Buy


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Michael Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Wednesday, 6 Feb 2008 12:20:20 -1000
Subject: 19.0075 Books to Buy
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0075 Books to Buy

I'm sorry that Gabriel is being tarred with my brush. We share a last 
name, leftish opinions and an interest in Shakespeare, but that's it.

I am more sorry that Larry Weiss uses the dismissive word 'plumping' to 
describe a seven-year, 2000-page study demonstrating in detail 
Shakespeare's authorship of Richard II, Part One.

--Michael Egan

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Wednesday, 06 Feb 2008 17:38:34 -0500
Subject: 19.0075 Books to Buy
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0075 Books to Buy

 >I know that, despite Larry's accurate legal description of the
 >invalidity of assertions to copyright of images that are considered
 >to be "in the public domain," libraries and archives and other
 >"makers" like EEBO still insist on their right to charge permission
 >fees for reproduction of the images, arguing that they purchased
 >the equipment and expertise that enabled the images to be
 >digitized, and therefore own the process, not the work per se.

There is, indeed, a world of difference between charging a royalty for a 
work in the public domain and charging a fee for access to the work. The 
latter isn't even governed by copyright law, but, rather, by ordinary 
contract principles and (in some cases) the criminal law governing theft 
of services or even trespass. For example, the law that lets me make a 
copy of a First Folio does not allow me break into to Folger to make the 
copy. A library, photographic stock house and others who collect public 
domain images are perfectly free to charge for their services in 
gathering, keeping, indexing and retrieving them. A library that charges 
a fee for copies does nothing reprehensible in my opinion. After all, it 
does have to pay for the copier, its maintenance, the paper it consumes, 
the electricity it uses, the space it occupies and the labor of the 
employee who takes time to make the copy.

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Wednesday, 6 Feb 2008 14:44:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 19.0068 Books to Buy
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0068 Books to Buy

Gabriel Egan declares:

 >I don't feel morally bound to adhere to such irrational rules when
 >copying materials for the general good of teaching and research,...

There is a larger issue at stake, however---namely Gab[riel]'s cheery 
defense of piracy, which will appeal to the Oedipal rebel in all of us. 
Such an antinomian thrust will, in a Burkean sense, further unmoor and 
destabilize society, until Vincentio is forced to find his Angelo. The 
ancient dilemma remains: should Socrates escape prison or drink the hemlock?

Gabriel again, still cutting his 'great road through the law to get 
after the Devil':

 >It is perfectly rational to defend piracy. I would go further: it is a
 >social good to liberate knowledge by piracy.

But Gabriel, 'when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on 
you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat?...and if you cut 
them down, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that 
would blow then?'

Joe Egert (and Robert Bolt)

_______________________________________________________________
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.

A Titus Tangent of Tone

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0084  Sunday, 10 February 2008

From:		Paul E. Doniger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Wednesday, 6 Feb 2008 18:28:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 19.0072 A Titus Tangent of Tone
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0072 A Titus Tangent of Tone

Kristen McDermott paraphrases Robert Hornback's "Emblems of Folly in the 
First Othello: Renaissance Blackface, Moor's Coat, and 'Muckender'," 
Comparative Drama 35.1 (2001): 69-99: "He argues persuasively that 
blackface was equally associated with stage fools as with devils-very 
interesting stuff."

I wonder if this association is somehow connected with the black leather 
masks of Harlequin and others from the Italian Comedy (Brighella & Il 
Dottore also had black masks)? Does anyone know?

Paul E. Doniger

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Untouchable Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0082  Sunday, 10 February 2008

[1] 	From:	Anthony Burton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Thursday, 7 Feb 2008 09:59:31 -0500
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0070 Untouchable Shakespeare

[2] 	From:	Lynn Brenner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Thursday, 07 Feb 2008 15:35:22 -0500
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0062 Untouchable Shakespeare

[3] 	From:	Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Sunday, 10 Feb 2008 11:46:23 -0800 (PST)
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0062 Untouchable Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Anthony Burton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Thursday, 7 Feb 2008 09:59:31 -0500
Subject: 19.0070 Untouchable Shakespeare
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0070 Untouchable Shakespeare

I was dramaturge for a Merchant of Venice production here in Amherst, 
back in the summer of '04, and wrote a piece for the program putting my 
case that the play -- widely and wildly misunderstood -- depicts 
anti-Semitism but is not anti-Semitic. One thing leading to another, a 
panel discussion was organized that fall at the U. Mass Center for 
Renaissance Studies. The participants included a local rabbi, Harley 
Erdman (of the U. Mass theater department, who had written a book on 
depictions of Shylock), and myself. Arthur Kinney, director of the 
Center, opened the discussion before a very crowded room with remarks 
that included the observation that, following WWII and the Holocaust, 
Merchant was a play that has been overtaken by time (an idea he 
acknowledged borrowing from a study of Othello) and could not be 
considered simply as one play among others in Shakespeare's canon. In 
the course of a very animated and far-ranging discussion, at least one 
Holocaust survivor and several other younger Jewish attendees (students, 
probably) strongly expressed the view that the play was irredeemably 
offensive and should simply not be performed.

So, from the evidence of this heterogeneous and generally enlightened 
corner of the world, contemporary reactions to Merchant can go far 
beyond simple distaste for its portrayals of anti-Semitism, to the 
belief that the harm from a performance is so much greater than the good 
that it simply should not be staged. I could recount similar reaction to 
other performances, expressed in group and individual discussions after 
the show, and am surprised that other contributors have not encountered it.

As a very brief digression, it seems obvious that the more vile the 
portrayal of Shylock, the more it appears that the unthinking 
anti-Semitism of the various Christians is justified. In this light, 
sympathetic portrayals of Shylock may be less about sanitizing him than 
about drawing attention to the Christians who disregard his humanity. 
But as every actor knows, every performance is a collaboration involving 
author, cast, and audience. The Merchant might be a barrel of laughs to 
Puck: "What fools these mortals be."

Tony Burton

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Lynn Brenner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Thursday, 07 Feb 2008 15:35:22 -0500
Subject: 19.0062 Untouchable Shakespeare
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0062 Untouchable Shakespeare

I think your sources are mistaken.

A few months ago, the Theatre for a New Audience -- an off-Broadway 
company that relies on subscriptions and donations -- put on the 
Merchant of Venice and Marlowe's Jew of Malta in repertory. Both 
productions sold out, there was a line of people waiting for 
cancellations at almost every performance, and I don't recall seeing or 
reading about any picketing or protests of any kind.

By contrast, there were picketers passing out fliers every evening at 
the recent off-Broadway production of `My Name is Rachel Corrie', a 
little play about a young American peace activist who was crushed to 
death by an Israeli bulldozer. In fact, the New York Theater Workshop, 
originally the venue for `Rachel Corrie', canceled the production 
altogether after protests that it was anti-Semitic. It was eventually 
produced by another company.

The New York Theatre Workshop also relies heavily on subscriptions and 
donations.

Lynn Brenner

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Sunday, 10 Feb 2008 11:46:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 19.0062 Untouchable Shakespeare
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0062 Untouchable Shakespeare

Carol Morley writes:

 >...I'm trying to
 >substantiate whether the pointed reaction I have encountered from older
 >Americans, that to read, teach or perform the Merchant is an act of
 >Anti-Semitism per se., is either widespread or influencing curricula...

On Israeli Hebrew and American Yiddish productions of the MERCHANT and 
their attendant controversies, check out:

---Oz, Avraham, "Transformations of Authenticity: the MECHANT OF VENICE 
in Israel", published in variant versions in FOREIGN SHAKESPEARE (1993); 
in YOKE OF LOVE (1995); and in NEW CASEBOOKS THE MERCHANT OF VENICE (1998).

---Berkowitz, Joel, SHAKESPEARE ON THE AMERICAN YIDDISH STAGE (2002).

Hope this helps,
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.

WS & GWB

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0083  Sunday, 10 February 2008

[1] 	From:	JD Markel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Wednesday, 6 Feb 2008 16:11:57 -0800 (PST)
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0074 WS & GWB

[2] 	From:	Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Thursday, 7 Feb 2008 10:53:07 -0000
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0074 WS & GWB


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		JD Markel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Wednesday, 6 Feb 2008 16:11:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 19.0074 WS & GWB
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0074 WS & GWB

The most famous/notorious comparison of an American politician to Henry 
V was by John Kerry to himself.  Remember his Band of Brothers campaign 
theme?  How on the first day 2004 Democratic convention he led them 
ashore at Boston harbor in a perverse recreation of a Mekong River 
engagement? Under withering fire, questions, his men disbanded and the 
Band of Brothers speech (Shakespeare's) has matters such as the showing 
of scars which are problematic for Kerry to live up to, though he likes 
to talk about his medals in compensation as if living up to the honor of 
showing scars on St. Crispin's Day.  The speech even has an eerie 
Vietnam connection, a military leader named "Westmoreland" asking for 
more forces.

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Thursday, 7 Feb 2008 10:53:07 -0000
Subject: 19.0074 WS & GWB
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0074 WS & GWB

Arthur Lindley is correct. By the time Henry is king, he no longer 
refers to himself as 'Hal' but as Harry. And it must be interesting 
that, as 'warlike Harry', he recalls the snarling blood-stained creature 
who had famously shared that name in the theatre next door: Harry Hunks. 
There's an unsignalled community of interest somehow at work here.

T. Hawkes

_______________________________________________________________
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 Pious Chanson in Hamlet II.ii

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0081  Sunday, 10 February 2008

[1] 	From:	Jan Earl Hammerquist<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Wednesday, 6 Feb 2008 15:24:17 -0500
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0073 The Pious Chanson in Hamlet II.ii

[2] 	From:	Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Wednesday, 06 Feb 2008 17:23:41 -0500
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0073 The Pious Chanson in Hamlet II.ii

[3] 	From:	Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date:	Thursday, 7 Feb 2008 15:20:32 -0800 (PST)
	Subj:	Re: SHK 19.0067 The Pious Chanson in Hamlet II.ii


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Jan Earl Hammerquist<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Wednesday, 6 Feb 2008 15:24:17 -0500
Subject: 19.0073 The Pious Chanson in Hamlet II.ii
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0073 The Pious Chanson in Hamlet II.ii

Jennifer Pierce writes:

 >Though I think the choice to have Hamlet returning from Wittenberg
 >would not be lost on an Elizabethan audience I think it's also
 >important to note that Hamlet takes place when the Danes controlled
 >England, some several hundred years prior to nuns and monks running
 >amok in Germany.

--though jumping o'er times is a staple of Shakespearean poetics.

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Wednesday, 06 Feb 2008 17:23:41 -0500
Subject: 19.0073 The Pious Chanson in Hamlet II.ii
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0073 The Pious Chanson in Hamlet II.ii

 >Hamlet takes place when the Danes controlled England, some
 >several hundred years prior to nuns and monks running amok
 >in Germany.

Claudius purports to send Hamlet to England to collect the long 
neglected Danegeld but that, of course, was a ruse. In fact, the Danes 
had long abandoned and realistic claim to England by the time of The 
Confessor.

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:		Thursday, 7 Feb 2008 15:20:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 19.0067 The Pious Chanson in Hamlet II.ii
Comment:	Re: SHK 19.0067 The Pious Chanson in Hamlet II.ii

Steve Sohmer writes:

 >Hamlet is issuing a warning to Polonius via the
 >tale of Jeptha-as rendered in both Judges 11:30-40 and in the pious
 >chanson: keep your daughter out of harm's way.

Doesn't the Jephtha analogy support the case for Ophelia's virginity?

Joe Egert

[Editor's Note: One of my undergraduate professors, a fine Southern 
Gentleman, Professor James G. McManaway, made just such a contention in 
"Ophelia and Jephtha's Daughter." _Shakespeare Quarterly_ 21 (1970): 
198-200. I was also in his class when he announced that he had uncovered 
a discovery about that he later published in "John Shakespeare's 
'Spiritual Testament'" _Shakespeare Quarterly_ 18 .3 (1967): 197-205. 
But what I shall never forget is the paper I wrote for him as a naive, 
dyslexic, undergraduate: I hyphenated (This was the early days of 
covered wagons and typewriters - no personal computers for another 
fifteen years) the dramatist's name as "Shakes- peare." When he returned 
our papers, Dr. McManaway asked me in front of the entire class if I had 
typed this paper myself. I shyly said, "Yes." Whereupon this quiet man 
raised his voice, slapped my paper down on the desk in front of me and 
said in a mocking tone, "The name is 'SHAKE' 'SPEARE' NOT 'Shakes' 
'PEARE.'" I was humiliated, but I never made a mistake in hyphenating 
this name again. I must add that there was no malice or harmfulness in 
his tone; he was clearly enjoying himself, correcting this newly 
declared English major. -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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.