2010

Hammond Edition of Double Falsehood

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 21.0252  Wednesday, 23 June 2010

From:         Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:         June 22, 2010 4:08:20 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0248  Hammond Edition of Double Falsehood
Comment:      Re: SHK 21.0248  Hammond Edition of Double Falsehood

Clark J. Hollway says, "If any genuine remnant of Shakespeare's voice
can be found in <Double Falsehood>, I thank the Arden editors for
making it available to a modern audience." I thank them anyway-for
giving people like me a chance to form our own opinions on a play
which absolutely has some connection to Shakespeare.

John Briggs thinks I'm wrong to have said "Double Falsehood" absolutely has some
connection to Shakespeare.

Depends on your definition of "connection." I think that in context it was plain
that didn't think the connection was necessarily to Shakespeare as its original
author or co-author, as Mr. Briggs may have thought, but perhaps I should have
said some "significant connection" to Shakespeare, and given an example, such
as the fact that by being described as a version of a play by Shakespeare when
it was first performed it has ignited all kinds of discussion about Shakespeare
and his times, and his colleague, Fletcher, and his later scholar Theobald. I
believe it has advanced our knowledge of these subjects, significantly (because
interestingly).

--Bob 

_______________________________________________________________
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.

 

Middleton and Macbeth

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 21.0251  Wednesday, 23 June 2010

[1]  From:      David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:      June 22, 2010 2:44:24 PM EDT
     Subj:      Re: SHK 21.0246  Middleton and Macbeth 

[2]  From:      William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:      June 22, 2010 4:01:51 PM EDT
     Subj:      RE: SHK 21.0246  Middleton and Macbet

[3]  From:      Felix de Villiers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:      June 22, 2010 4:48:37 PM EDT
     Subj:      Middleton and Macbeth

[4]  From:      William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:      June 22, 2010 10:49:24 PM EDT
     Subj:      RE: SHK 21.0246  Middleton and Macbeth

[5]  From:      Stanley Wells <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:      June 23, 2010 6:01:58 AM EDT
     Subj:      Re: SHK 21.0246  Middleton and Macbeth

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:         David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:         June 22, 2010 2:44:24 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0246  Middleton and Macbeth
Comment:      Re: SHK 21.0246  Middleton and Macbeth

The TLS editors could be excused for declining to publish Hugh Grady's letter on the
Macbeth-Middleton//Taylor-Vickers controversy (SHK 21.0246) on grounds that it
clearly misrepresents Vickers' position. Grady proposes that "Vickers' attempt to
discredit Taylor by accusing him of reviving the views of the Victorian
disintegrators is highly ironic, since Vickers himself long since joined their ranks
in his published views in Shakespeare, Co-Author (OUP, 2002)." Vickers' point,
however, is not that Taylor argues in his edition of Macbeth that parts of it were
written by Middleton and therefore follows Clark, Wright, Fleay, Cuningham, and the
other Victorians in endorsing the possibility of multiple authorship per se. Vickers
has, indeed, made that enterprise his own principal scholarly task of late. It is
that Taylor follows his Victorian predecessors by adopting their "peacemeal" method:
"Typically, the disintegrators picked out a line here, a phrase there, as having
been added, or they stigmatized a whole speech but excepted four lines in the
middle, and so on" (TLS 28 May 2010, p.14). Vickers' own practice, indeed, through
recent books and articles, has been to argue that in several firmly canonical plays
significant parts were written by authors other than Shakespeare, and then to assign
to them whole scenes, even series of scenes, following what he considers to be "the
known procedures of early modern theatre companies."

It is, indeed, also the case that Vickers seems to accuse Taylor of making his
proposals on his own "cultural authority" -- his position as a big-time scholar,
able to tell the printers to reset the play in several different fonts on the basis
of his own "purely aesthetic grounds" -- rather than applying the sophisticated
linguistic tests devised over recent decades by several different scholars used by
Vickers and others, and that when he does cite other authorities, they are of
dubious value (R. V. Holdsworth, in an unpublished doctoral thesis) or are
misrepresented. The tone of this part of Vickers' article, and especially the last
part, does incline toward the ad hominem. Nevertheless, Vickers' case against Taylor
does call for serious consideration.

David Evett

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:         William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:         June 22, 2010 4:01:51 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0246  Middleton and Macbeth
Comment:      RE: SHK 21.0246  Middleton and Macbeth

Has anyone recently mentioned J. M. Robertson, The Shakespeare Canon (1922), in this
great disintegrationist debate? When I was a graduate student some decades ago, one
of my teachers of the "Modernist generation of Shakespeare scholars" presented J. M.
Robertson as someone to smile at, but not to read. Has Robertson been rediscovered
yet? 

Bill

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:         Felix de Villiers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:         June 22, 2010 4:48:37 PM EDT
Subject:      Middleton and Macbeth

June 4, 2010. Erne writes: "As long no scholarly consensus is emerging, we may have
no better option than to rely in our own readerly judgement."

Excellent words. I have been fading out somewhat as a contributor, because too
involved in other periods of music and poetry, but this subject arouses my passion.
In the case of Macbeth, it seems all too obvious that the play was and could only
have been by Shakespeare. If there are a few words and witches' ditties added by
another, this makes absolutely no difference. Now, this argument of co-authorship
has been extended to plays like Titus Andronicus. There is one style and one only
that carries the play from beginning to end, Shakespeare', I believe. Despite the
subject matter it maintains exactly the same level of lyrical excellence -- others
will say bad taste -- from beginning to end. Whichever way you see it, the style is
one, consistent and coherent. There are more lapses of style in greater plays. The
prejudice against this play has to do with its extremely barbaric content. In the
quasi-Victorian edition I still have, the Introduction states: "If we disregard 
Titus Andronicus, that many editors have refused to believe in its authenticity..."
then it was not his first tragedy, it simply did not exist. Many are the attempts to
tame Shakespeare moralistically and domesticate him. It can't be done. Cruelty and
suffering find expression in Titus and everything depends on how this is done. I
started writing an essay on the play when I was with Arden and I really think I
should finish it to sort out all these implications. -- I can open the play at any
page and recognize Shakespeare's gait and lines that could only have been written by
one hand, as Edith Sitwell says of these lines.

When did the Tiger's young ones teach the dam?
O1 do not learne her wrath; she taught it thee;
The milke thou suckst from her did turn to Marble;
Even at thy teat thou hadst thy Tyranny. (II,3)

Felix de Villiers
Temple of the Arts
Verona

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:         William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:         June 22, 2010 10:49:24 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0246  Middleton and Macbeth
Comment:      RE: SHK 21.0246  Middleton and Macbeth

After asking my question about J. M. Robertson, I consulted Vickers Shakespeare, Co-
Author, and noted that Vickers does mention Robertson as undisciplined and
unscholarly. This J. M., 'by the by' knew little or nothing about Chaucer. 

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:         Stanley Wells <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:         June 23, 2010 6:01:58 AM EDT
Subject: 21.0246  Middleton and Macbeth
Comment:      Re: SHK 21.0246  Middleton and Macbeth

I entirely endorse Hugh Grady's comments. And Vickers has no right to assume that
John Jowett's views result from only a 'cursory' reading, as if anyone who read his
arguments carefully would inevitably agree with them. 

Stanley Wells

_______________________________________________________________
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.

 

CFP - World Shakespeare Congress Seminar 14

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 21.0253  Sunday, 27 June 2010

From:         Rebecca Totaro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:         June 24, 2010 5:16:22 PM EDT
Subject:      CFP - World Shakespeare Congress Seminar 14

Ninth World Shakespeare Congress:
Renaissance Shakespeare / Shakespeare Renaissances
Prague, Czech Republic - 17-22 July 2011

Call for papers - Seminar No. 14.
"Must I remember?": Trauma and Memory in Early Modern England

Seminar Leaders
Margaret Healy (University of Sussex, UK) and
Rebecca Totaro (Florida Gulf Coast University, USA)

Seminar Description:
As he recalls his mother's affection for his deceased father, Hamlet suffers from a
memory that he cannot dislodge. "Let me not think on't," he exclaims, but he
reiterates his painful memory in multiple ways thereafter. Shakespeare's plays and
poetry contain many forms of narrative trauma, reviving time and again for public
consumption national, personal, and imaginary dramas of suffering. This seminar
seeks papers that explore some aspect of the following: trauma in the plays, poetry,
and/or prose of Shakespeare and/or his contemporaries within and outside of London's
drama scene; texts that bear the marks of personal, social, national, religious, or
authorial trauma; the implications of representing and viewing trauma. Papers may be
broadly theoretical or particularized readings.

Deadline for proposals of papers just extended until 30th September 2010:
http://www.shakespeare.org.uk/content/view/442/446

Best wishes,
Rebecca Totaro
Professor of English
Florida Gulf Coast University
Email: This 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.

 

Hamlet's Feminine Endings

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 21.0252  Wednesday, 23 June 2010

[1]  From:      Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:      June 22, 2010 3:35:26 PM EDT
     Subj:      Re: SHK 21.0249  Hamlet's Feminine Endings

[2]  From:      John W Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:      June 22, 2010 4:02:59 PM EDT
     Subj:      Re: SHK 21.0249  Hamlet's Feminine Endings

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:         Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:         June 22, 2010 3:35:26 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0249  Hamlet's Feminine Endings
Comment:      Re: SHK 21.0249  Hamlet's Feminine Endings

This is a familiar religious concept of a duality in the two aspects of the soul,
the angelic and the devilish-aspects described by Shakespeare about these friends in
Sonnet 144. The concept exists in Judaism as the "good" and the "evil inclinations"
but is not exclusive to the Jewish religion.

Or any religion. It is very prominent, for example, in Plato (Phaedrus, in
particular) and Freud, who took Plato's notion of a charioteer driving a good and
bad horse and called them Das Ich, Es und Uberich.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:         John W Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:         June 22, 2010 4:02:59 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0249  Hamlet's Feminine Endings
Comment:      Re: SHK 21.0249  Hamlet's Feminine Endings

Martin Mueller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote,

>With regard to Sonnet 20 Abigail Quart and I are playing tennis on the same
>side of the net. Unstressed endings are statistically rarer than stressed
>endings. So if you have a sonnet in which all the endings are unstressed,
>something is going on. It's clearly an outlier that calls for explanation. 

But it's a different matter with the other cases that were raised. What rate of
unstressed endings over a given stretch of lines is likely to register as beyond the
threshold value of random noise? 100% over more than ten lines? Absolutely. 100%
over four lines? Probably not. 

But a sonnet is rhymed. You're not looking at fourteen lines, but at seven rhymes.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

 

Kindle and iPod Versions of Shakespeare, Sex and Love

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 21.0254  Sunday, 27 June 2010

[1]  From:      Jeffrey Bauman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:      June 23, 2010 4:54:08 PM EDT
     Subj:      RE: SHK 21.0250  Kindle and iPod Versions of Shakespeare, Sex and Love

[2]  From:      William Sutton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:      June 24, 2010 1:52:46 AM EDT
     Subj:      Re: SHK 21.0250  Kindle and iPod Versions of Shakespeare, Sex and Love
 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:         Jeffrey Bauman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:         June 23, 2010 4:54:08 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0250  Kindle and iPod Versions of Shakespeare, Sex and Love
Comment:      RE: SHK 21.0250  Kindle and iPod Versions of Shakespeare, Sex and Love

>The current Amazon USA list includes a wonderfully enthusiastic customer
>review of my book Shakespeare, Sex and Love-written by someone I don't
>know, I hasten to say-but remarks that the Kindle and iPod versions are
>'atrocious. Many words are run together, others are hyphenated in
>impossible ways. Shakespeare's texts were apparently clipped out as images
>rather than texts, and pasted together so that, for instance, you get part
>of a sonnet in one font, a few blank lines, and the rest of the sonnet in
>another font. The iPod version is left- and right-justified without
>proportional spacing, making it impossible to read. But don't let the bad
>editing deter you. Perhaps the paper edition is edited correctly. The Kindle
>edition is readable, despite the bad typesetting. This book is a masterpiece
>of scholarship.'
>
>I should like to assure possible purchasers that the printed edition is
>indeed 'edited correctly.' I have no knowledge of how the electronic
>versions were transmitted, and am enquiring of the publishers. The
>Amazon listing also includes part of a review of an entirely different book.
>I have told Amazon of this error.
>
>Stanley Wells

As a Kindle user who has experienced some of these problems, I'd be curious to see what
Amazon says but I think I have some idea of what caused the issues. Because it's possible
(and, for some of us, desirable) to set the font size on the screen, there is no such thing
as a page as there is in a book. The result is that the formatting of a paper edition cannot
be brought into the Kindle. Rather than having page numbers, the Kindle has "location"
numbers which do not track the pages in the book. I'm now reading James Shapiro's _Contested
Will_ where the image problem has occurred and I've found it in other books as well.

I'd be curious to see if anyone has any other ideas.

Jeff Bauman

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:         William Sutton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:         June 24, 2010 1:52:46 AM EDT
Subject: 21.0250  Kindle and iPod Versions of Shakespeare, Sex and Love
Comment:      Re: SHK 21.0250  Kindle and iPod Versions of Shakespeare, Sex and Love

I hope all goes well with the mangled transmission of text via the new media. Looking forward
to reading the book.

All the best
Will

_______________________________________________________________
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.