2009

Middle School Drama

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0129  Friday, 20 March 2009

[1]  From:  Fran Teague <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
      Date:  Thursday, 19 Mar 2009 16:35:33 -0400 (EDT)
      Suct:  Re: SHK 20.0124 Middle School Drama

[2]  From:  Matthew Henerson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
      Date:  Thursday, 19 Mar 2009 15:47:41 -0700
      Suct:  Re: SHK 20.0124 Middle School Drama

[3]  From:  Louis Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
      Date:  Thursday, 19 Mar 2009 23:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
      Suct:  Re: SHK 20.0124 Middle School Drama


[1] -----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Fran Teague <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Thursday, 19 Mar 2009 16:35:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 20.0124 Middle School Drama
Comment:    Re: SHK 20.0124 Middle School Drama

David Frankel's remarks about reading plays as if they were novels are 
right on the money. That sort of reader might well find Our Town dull, 
or Hamlet a fixed character who can be analyzed, or Jonson third-rate. 
If one reads Our Town with a sense of the way it experiments formally to 
impose narrative point-of-view in a drama, or thinks of Hamlet being 
embodied by a variety of actors in a wide range or productions, or 
recalls how well Jonson plays, then one realizes how much can be gained 
by attending to plays as plays.

Fran Teague
http://www.english.uga.edu/~fteague

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Matthew Henerson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Thursday, 19 Mar 2009 15:47:41 -0700
Subject: 20.0124 Middle School Drama
Comment:    Re: SHK 20.0124 Middle School Drama

Pornographic?  "Our Town?"  I'm definitely seeing the wrong productions.

Matt Henerson

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Louis Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Thursday, 19 Mar 2009 23:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 20.0124 Middle School Drama
Comment:    Re: SHK 20.0124 Middle School Drama

Evidently I am without the requisite "histrionic sensibility" that would 
allow me to appreciate "Our Town," a play about two families whose chief 
concerns are preparing breakfast for their children, getting them off to 
school, their children's struggle with schoolwork, the local organist's 
drinking problem, later arranging a wedding (to which they invite the 
milkman and his wife!). In a subsequent scene, we are taken to the 
children's school where the boy has been elected president of the senior 
class; he is admonished by the girl for giving too much attention to 
baseball. Following these exciting matters thrillingly examined in 
cloying sentimental detail over two acts, we are treated to a cemetery 
landscape where the girl is buried, leaving her husband and young son. 
She insists on returning to her earlier life and there laments that the 
living know little about either death or life. I must say I am delighted 
to be without a sensibility that would move me to honor such vapidity.

I would be overjoyed to thrill to beat the band over this play with the 
most intense histrionic sensibility if anyone here can enlighten me as 
to the significant dramatic moment of these saccharine scenes of homey 
nothings that alternately cause an audiences' bodily apertures to pucker 
with embarrassment, or threaten imminent sleep because of the 
godawfullest boredom well beyond the yawning of it.

Perhaps someone here can also tell me the formal relationship (in the 
argument of the play) among such disparate subjects as preparing 
breakfast, going to school, struggles with studies, drunken organists, 
invitations to milkmen, senior class elections, obsession with baseball, 
etc. I have the distinct impression that one might toss in any matter 
whatever -- the weather, property taxes, fashionable dress, etc. -- an 
endless recitation of further trivia, without losing one iota of 
whatever dramatic force is contained in the nonsense already present in 
this argument of this play.

I have seen at least three productions of this play ("hope springs 
eternal in the human breast"), one with Burgess Meredith as the Stage 
Manager, another with Paul Newman in that role. Although their 
performances and those of the rest of the members of the companies 
wanted little in the way of competence, nothing saved this play; I had 
the impression that the actors might as well have recited the telephone 
book.

Perhaps there will be a brilliant director who will see and present 
sharp edges and great depths in the events, characters and lines of this 
play (such great rescues are sometimes possible in theater); but the 
productions I have seen so far have come nowhere near such salvific 
delights.

L. Swilley

_______________________________________________________________
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.

50 Best American Plays

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0128  Friday, 20 March 2009

[1]  From:  Billy Houck <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
      Date:  Thursday, 19 Mar 2009 14:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
      Suct:  Re: SHK 20.0123 50 Best American Plays

[2]  From:  Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
      Date:  Thursday, 19 Mar 2009 18:36:45 -0500
      Suct:  Re: SHK 20.0123 50 Best American Plays

[3]  From:  Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
      Date:  Friday, 20 Mar 2009 07:10:11 -0700
      Suct:  RE: SHK 20.0123 50 Best American Plays

[4]  From:  Scot Zarela <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
      Date:  Friday, 20 Mar 2009 12:17:02 -0400
      Suct:  Re: SHK 20.0123 50 Best American Plays


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Billy Houck <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Thursday, 19 Mar 2009 14:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 20.0123 50 Best American Plays
Comment:    Re: SHK 20.0123 50 Best American Plays

I would like to propose:

Kennedy's Children by Robert Patrick
Zoot Suit by Luis Valdez
Uncle Tom's Cabin by George L. Aiken
The Hairy Ape by Eugene O'Neill

Billy Houck
Arroyo Grande High School

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Thursday, 19 Mar 2009 18:36:45 -0500
Subject: 20.0123 50 Best American Plays
Comment:    Re: SHK 20.0123 50 Best American Plays

In answer to David Frankel:

 >Bob Grumman comments that too many American plays have an
 >"obsession with family," and that this "flaw" makes them examples
 >of adolescent playwriting.

More exactly, examples of playwriting about adolescent subject matter.

 >First, I'd point out that _Oedipus_ is a play obsessed with family, as 
are
 >a great many plays from the beginning of the drama.

If you consider Oedipus (and Hamlet) "obsessed with family" the way the 
Glass Menagerie is, all I can say is that I don't see it.

 >Second, I'd suggest that perhaps Mr. Grumman (and others) thinks of plays
 >in relationship to novels and poems  --  as pieces of written 
literature. Although
 >many plays may profitably be studied as literature (in a more or less 
traditional
 >way), plays as instances of theatrical literature do not work in the 
same way.

I am missing the point. What would my alleged view of plays as 
literature have to do with my view that American plays are deficient 
because (TOO) concerned with family?

 >Third, I'd point out that in many American plays (_The Glass 
Menagerie_ among
 >them) family is a stand-in for something larger. The Wingfields 
represent both
 >themselves and a large slice of American life during the end of the 
depression.
 >As with _Our Town_, however, _The Glass Menagerie_ has often been 
diminished
 >as a nostalgic, even sentimental, gloss on American or family life; if 
you read the
 >play carefully (and ask, among other things, why Williams included the 
"screen
 >device" in his published versions of the script), you will see it is 
anything but sentimental.

I don't care whether it's sentimental or not, and understand that any 
work can be given symbolic meaning. I am simply talking about what so 
many American plays are explicitly about. Where is our Man and Superman, 
for instance?  Or Lear (though I know you'll tell me that's a family 
play). Or Twelfth Night?  Or The Misanthrope or Lysistrata?  Or The 
Lady's Not for Burning?

  -- Bob G.

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Friday, 20 Mar 2009 07:10:11 -0700
Subject: 20.0123 50 Best American Plays
Comment:    RE: SHK 20.0123 50 Best American Plays

Obsession with the family?

What plays of Shakespeare do NOT have what we could call an obsessive 
(or at least "intense") concern with family relationships?

I have my list and it's mighty short, I can tell you.

don

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Scot Zarela <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Friday, 20 Mar 2009 12:17:02 -0400
Subject: 20.0123 50 Best American Plays
Comment:    Re: SHK 20.0123 50 Best American Plays

 >These are my own, I don't claim to know Charles Weinstein's reasons;
 >only that, whatever they may be, we come out at the same place.

Not really; your position and Weinstein's can be identified only by a 
sort of syntactic pun of the "I only wish I had such eyes. . . . To be 
able to see Nobody!" variety.

This in my inbox today with the latest Shaksper digest. . . .

At the risk of tiring Hardy, and boring everyone else, with a 
clarification of my very interesting views, may I say that I don't wish 
to join in poking Charles Weinstein with a stick. His gnomic utterance 
may have meant only what I took from it; if it meant more (and worse), 
that's for him to object to my mistaken common-cause with him. If he's a 
sleeping bear, or any other kind of sleeper, he may go on sleeping far 
as I'm concerned.


_______________________________________________________________
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 Portrait of Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0126  Friday, 20 March 2009

[1]  From:  Bruce Young <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
      Date:  Thursday, 19 Mar 2009 14:40:51 -0600
      Subj:  RE: SHK 20.0122 New Portrait of Shakespeare

[2]  From:  Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
      Date:  Friday, March 20, 2009
      Subj:  Shakespeare Unfound(ed)?: Katherine Duncan-Jones in TLS

[3]  From:  Tom Reedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
      Date:  Thursday, 19 Mar 2009 17:55:33 -0500
      Suct:  Re: SHK 20.0122 New Portrait of Shakespeare

[4]  From:  Maureen E Mulvihill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
      Date:  Thursday, 19 Mar 2009 19:44:36 -0400
      Suct:  'Shakespeare' portrait - its inscription

[5]  From:  Anne Cuneo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
      Date:  Friday, 20 Mar 2009 10:04:08 +0100
      Suct:  SHK 20.0115 New Portrait of Shakespeare

[6]  From:  Will Sharpe <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
      Date:  Friday, 20 Mar 2009 18:04:30 +0000
      Suct:  Re: SHK 20.0122 New Portrait of Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Bruce Young <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Thursday, 19 Mar 2009 14:40:51 -0600
Subject: 20.0122 New Portrait of Shakespeare
Comment:    RE: SHK 20.0122 New Portrait of Shakespeare

Thomas Hunter asks, "how we know that those who knew Shakespeare 
accepted the Droeshout perhaps along with the bust in Holy Trinity 
Church as resembling him."

I'm sure others will give more elaborate answers, but I'll start by saying:

(a) Concerning the Droeshout engraving: It appeared in the first folio, 
a volume that resulted from the efforts of two of Shakespeare's fellow 
players, who certainly knew him well. Also, facing the engraving in the 
first folio is a poem by "B. I." (presumably Ben Jonson) claiming that 
"the Graver," though not adequately conveying "his wit," "hath hit / His 
face" (that is, copied his physical appearance) accurately -- or at 
least has striven with Nature to see which would best display him.

(b) Concerning the bust in Holy Trinity Church: Though it may have been 
repaired many times since, it apparently was placed in the church 
between 1616 and 1623 (it's referred to by another poem in the first 
folio). Many of the churchgoers would have known Shakespeare and would 
have had some sense of how accurately the monument represented him.

Bruce Young

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Friday, March 20, 2009
Subject:    Shakespeare Unfound(ed)?: Katherine Duncan-Jones in TLS

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article5931174.ece?&EMC-Bltn=QLVGDA

The link above is to Katherine Duncan-Jones's thoughts in TLS about the 
new "Shakespeare" portrait.

 From The Times Literary Supplement
March 18, 2009
Shakespeare Unfound(ed)?
The real identity of the sitter for the new "Shakespeare" portrait

Katherine Duncan-Jones

A claim by the eminent Shakespearean Stanley Wells that a Jacobean 
painting from the family collection of Mr Alec Cobbe, long held in 
Ireland, is a "life portrait" of Shakespeare, has been widely 
publicized. From April 23, Shakespeare's birthday, the painting will be 
the centrepiece of an exhibition at the Shakespeare Centre in 
Stratford-upon-Avon entitled Shakespeare Found. Meanwhile, an 
illustrated brochure by Mark Broch and Paul Edmondson outlines the basis 
of this exciting claim. Four surviving versions of the portrait, of 
which the "Cobbe" is claimed as the original or "prime", can be shown to 
date from around 1610. "Long traditions" are mentioned which identify 
the sitter as Shakespeare. However, no dates or sources are provided for 
these "traditions", which appear to relate chiefly to the version now 
owned by the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, DC, whose close 
similarity to Alec Cobbe's picture seems to have got this ball rolling. 
The Folger version has been altered at various times, apparently to make 
a resemblance to Shakespeare more plausible, for example in increasing 
the sitter's baldness. Other key points made in support of the claim are 
the alleged similarity of the "Cobbe" painting to the Droeshout 
engraving, the world-famous image that was the frontispiece portrait in 
the First Folio of 1623; and the possibility that it was originally 
owned by Shakespeare's earliest attested patron, the third Earl of 
Southampton.

The "Cobbe" portrait is a splendid painting, whose sparkling colours 
have benefited from recent restoration. The italic inscription at the 
top of the picture, "Principum Amicitias!" -- "the leagues of princes!" 
-- appears too large in scale, as well as highly unusual in its 
deployment of an exclamation mark, and was perhaps added later. The 
"Shakespeare" claim does not rely crucially on the authenticity of this 
motto from Horace's Odes, II.i, though the authors of the brochure 
remark that "it can be no coincidence that Horace's words were addressed 
to a playwright". It might have been helpful to examine the picture's 
reverse for further inscriptions or telling marks, but at the preview 
the back was veiled with a brown paper screen. But the man portrayed, 
with his elaborate lace collar and gold embroidered doublet, appears far 
too grand and courtier-like to be Shakespeare. Though a leading "King's 
Man", Shakespeare was no nobleman, and even his status as "gentleman" 
was repeatedly called in question by some of the heralds. (As John 
Davies of Hereford records, both Shakespeare and Burbage hoped for 
further preferment from James I, but didn't get it.) When players 
dressed above their rank offstage, it tended to get them into trouble. 
It is hard to believe that Shakespeare would have been rash enough to 
permit himself to be portrayed in such grand array.

The Wells team make much of an inscription on the "Folger" portrait 
describing the sitter's age as forty-six, and the picture's date as 1610 
-- the correct age for Shakespeare at that time. But the sitter himself, 
in all versions, looks much younger -- in the "Cobbe", almost boyish. . . .

[ . . . ]

An authentic portrait of Sir Thomas Overbury (1581-1613) was bequeathed 
to the Bodleian Library in Oxford in 1740. This picture bears a 
startling resemblance to the "Cobbe" painting (and its companions). 
Features such as a distinctive bushy hairline, and a slightly malformed 
left ear that may once have borne the weight of a jewelled earring, 
appear identical. Even the man's beautifully intricate lace collar, 
though not identical in pattern, shares overall design with "Cobbe", 
having square rather than rounded corners.  . . . The Bodleian's picture 
is considerably larger and its sitter is enclosed within a newly 
fashionable "feined oval" surround. Below this oval an earlier 
inscription, now barely legible, runs "Aetatis Suae 32 Anno Domini 
1613", and a later one, above, records the picture's bequest by Sir 
Thomas Overbury of Barton, in Warwickshire. This was the birthplace also 
of the donor's namesake and forebear -- a Warwickshire man, and a poet, 
but not a playwright.

The Wells team make much of the likelihood that the "Cobbe" portrait 
derives from the collection of Shakespeare's early patron, the third 
Earl of Southampton. But this is not so surprising. . . .

He [Overbury] was an arrogant and stubborn young man. According to 
Aubrey, it was "a great question who was the proudest", Sir Walter 
Ralegh or Sir Thomas Overbury -- but opinion favoured Overbury. . . . He 
had succeeded in offending both the Queen (at whom he and Carr are said 
to have laughed mockingly through a window) and the King. Four months 
later he was dead. Whether this was the result of repeated attempts to 
poison him, or, as Considine suggests, the ministrations of court 
physicians, we shall never know. But the upshot was that Sir Thomas 
Overbury immediately became a celebrity, his colourful story nourishing 
both court gossip and penny-dreadfuls. Many of his former friends and 
allies, including Southampton, would have wanted to possess visual 
mementoes of their friend. He was also mourned by members of his large 
family, and especially by his devoted father, Sir Nicholas. Perhaps it 
was he who commissioned the portrait later given to the Bodleian. It may 
have been painted by the younger Gheeraerts, possibly on the basis of an 
Isaac Oliver miniature, as hinted by the blue background. With its solid 
provenance -- first with the Overbury family, then with the library -- 
the "Bodleian" Overbury appears to be the "prime" version of which the 
"Cobbe" portrait and the rest are fine, but smaller, copies. . . .

For myself, I can live with the Droeshout and the Stratford funerary 
monument's "pork butcher" images of Shakespeare.

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Tom Reedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Thursday, 19 Mar 2009 17:55:33 -0500
Subject: 20.0122 New Portrait of Shakespeare
Comment:    Re: SHK 20.0122 New Portrait of Shakespeare

Thomas Hunter <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

 >Bruce Young <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> writes,
 >
 >>...the Droeshout engraving, the one
 >>depiction (perhaps along with the bust in Holy Trinity Church) we
 >>know to have been accepted as resembling Shakespeare by those who
 >>knew him....
 >>
 >>Bruce Young
 >
 >I'm sorry, I must have missed class that day. Please advise how we know
 >that those who knew Shakespeare accepted the Droeshout perhaps along
 >with the bust in Holy Trinity Church as resembling him.
 >Where do I find that evidence documented? Thank you for your assistance.
 >
 >Thomas Hunter, Ph.D.

Ben Jonson in his prefatory poem to the FF wrote that the Droeshout 
looked like Shakespeare, and the family evidently accepted the bust as a 
good likeness for the memorial that was placed in the church they attended.

Tom Reedy

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Maureen E Mulvihill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Thursday, 19 Mar 2009 19:44:36 -0400
Subject:    'Shakespeare' portrait - its inscription

What is curiously odd about this portrait -- what caught my eye, at 
once, as being perhaps 'wrong' -- is the use of the exclamation point in 
the two-word Latin inscription, a flourish which may have originated in 
early English-language editions of Horace (did Horace use such marks? I 
think not). I don't recall seeing the exclamation point in other 
inscriptions on 17thC canvas or wood-panel portraits, or 
portrait-miniatures (do you?). Also the script looks too pristine & 
artificial (almost template-perfect). The inscription is a later, modern 
addition, I wager; the writing lacks a contemporary feel. It's certainly 
a beautiful & lush picture, now displayed on the frontpage of the March 
10th New York Times (see link, below); but having taught Shakespeare 
seminars on two occasions over the years, I don't believe that this is a 
Shakespeare which I see before me. As viewers continue to comment & 
probe, more information will ('Will'?) come to light. MEM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/world/europe/10shakespeare.html?ref=books

PS: My observation re the portrait's exclamation mark and also its 
pristine (template-like) script was originally posted on the ExLibris 
List, 10 March 2009. I am pleased to see similar remarks in today's TLS 
(Thursday, 19 March 2009). Best wishes, MEM

[5]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Anne Cuneo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Friday, 20 Mar 2009 10:04:08 +0100
Subject: New Portrait of Shakespeare
Comment:    SHK 20.0115 New Portrait of Shakespeare

I was relieved to read that I am not the only sceptic here.

When I think how unbelieving Stanley Wells has been towards all kinds of 
theories pertaining to the Shakespeare age and to Shakespeare's life, I 
am flabbergasted to see him taking his wishes for reality, as one says 
in French.

My first reaction was that the man in the portrait looks rather young to 
be a 46 year old man of the time. Many portraits of older Renaissance 
men omit their wrinkles, of course, but you still see they are not so 
young, in the eyes for instance. This man IS younger.

I do not doubt the portrait dates from 1610, that is what science can 
ascertain -- what I don't get is the leap of faith which concludes: this 
is Shakespeare. 90% of certainty, sais Mr. Wells.

I have looked and listened well to the video where he explains why he 
thinks the portrait is of Shakespeare: it is all conjecture. He says so 
himself, and then all of a sudden he slips into certainty.
This reminds me of A.L. Rowse's theory about the Dark Lady. Rowse 
assembled more circumstantial evidence for Emilia Bassano being 
Shakespeare's mistress than anybody about any of the other candidates. 
Everything is very logical -- so logical that at some point Rowse went 
from circumstantial to certainty. Emilia Bassano was the Dark Lady. He 
was ridiculed by critics about this, there was much finger-pointing, 
including by Mr. Wells I think.

I wrote Rowse's research into a novel (at his suggestion), and 
personally I think Emilia Bassano might well be the Dark Lady but I do 
NOT take the leap of faith, because the final proof is still missing. I 
think it's just the same about this portrait.

All through those 20 minutes, Mr. Wells goes from speculation to 
certainty, to speculation, to certainty etc.

And I find rather pathetic that as hard a critic of speculation as Mr. 
Wells falls into the trap of believing his desire is reality. Pathetic 
and reassuring, I might add.

Anne Cuneo

[6]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Will Sharpe <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Friday, 20 Mar 2009 18:04:30 +0000
Subject: 20.0122 New Portrait of Shakespeare
Comment:    Re: SHK 20.0122 New Portrait of Shakespeare

 >Bruce Young <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> writes,
 >
 >>...the Droeshout engraving, the one
 >>depiction (perhaps along with the bust in Holy Trinity Church) we
 >>know to have been accepted as resembling Shakespeare by those who
 >>knew him....
 >>
 >>Bruce Young
 >
 >I'm sorry, I must have missed class that day. Please advise how we know
 >that those who knew Shakespeare accepted the Droeshout perhaps along
 >with the bust in Holy Trinity Church as resembling him.
 >Where do I find that evidence documented? Thank you for your assistance.
 >
 >Thomas Hunter, Ph.D.

Why so sarcastic, Thomas? I think Bruce Young's comments are perfectly 
reasonable and I'm sure he would better respond to a courteous, rather 
than a caustic, request for clarification. I suppose the best evidence 
is the commendatory verse supplied by Ben Jonson -- who incontestably 
knew Shakespeare and what he looked like -- which accompanies the 
engraving in the Folio, in which he claims that the likeness is exact. 
Of course, he could either be a) lying b) ostensibly telling the truth, 
but wrong because he'd forgotten exactly what his erstwhile friend had 
looked like in the seven years since his death or c) correct. We'll 
never know but 'c' certainly seems at least reasonable. As for the Holy 
Trinity monument, Leonard Digges' reference to it in the Folio means it 
must have been erected either prior to 1623 or 1623 or thereabouts when 
it is likely that his wife (who died in August 1623) was still alive, 
and Shakespeare's two daughters and son-in-law, John Hall, certainly 
were. Perhaps when it went up all of them cried in unison about how it 
bore no resemblance whatsoever to the man they knew, but, again, it is 
unlikely.

Cordially,
Will Sharpe

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Michael Best 2009 Award for Outstanding Achievement

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0127  Friday, 20 March 2009

From:       Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Friday, March 20, 2009
Subject:    Michael Best 2009 Award for Outstanding Achievement

I will post the official announcement when it arrives, but I thought 
this message interesting enough to put out now.

The Internet Shakespeare Edition editors were delighted to find the 
following announcement from Roberta Livingstone, Vice President of the 
Internet Shakespeare Editions, in their mailboxes this morning:

It is with great delight that I am writing you to announce some 
important news.

Michael Best is receiving a very distinguished award:  the 2009 Award 
for Outstanding Achievement for Computing in the Arts and Humanities 
presented by the Society for Digital Humanities, the leading academic 
society in Canada in the field of digital humanities, for the 
"world-renowned Internet Shakespeare Editions (ISE)".

The award will be presented at the annual conference, which will take 
place in Ottawa in May.

Announcements will be circulated in the media and on various 
organizational (i.e., academic) websites soon.

All the best,
Roberta Livingstone
Vice President
Internet Shakespeare Editions


_______________________________________________________________
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.

Wartime Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0125  Friday, 20 March 2009

From:       Sally Drumm <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Friday, 20 Mar 2009 10:51:23 -0400
Subject: 20.0121 Wartime Shakespeare
Comment:    Re: SHK 20.0121 Wartime Shakespeare

If there is a website for this conference, please share address. I would 
like to be able to share information from this conference with Milspeak 
writers, some of whom are Shakespeare fans, including me.

Milspeak website: http://www.milspeak.org

Also, the conference attendees might find the stories on the Milspeak 
website fuel their discussions.

Sincerely,
Sally Drumm
Founder & Director, Milspeak Creative Writing Seminars


[Editor's Note: The announcement for this conference arrived with a 
registration from. Since the digest was considerably long, I decided 
against including this form. I am sure that interested parties will be 
able to get as much information as they please by contacting the poster 
Irene Makaryk at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. --HMC]


_______________________________________________________________
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.