The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0335  Friday, 12 July 2013


From:        Michael Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         July 12, 2013 10:51:16 AM EDT

Subject:     Re: Anti-?


Stratfordian and non-Stratfordian are perfectly clear and have the merit of being traditional terms which everyone recognizes. They are also neutral which of course is why the pejorative, ambiguous and inaccurate Anti-Shakespearean has been introduced.


Larry Weiss wants to brand non-Stratfordians “heretics,” and Hardy Cook would burn Shakespeare Beyond Doubt? if he could. Maybe we should call this Roman Shakespeareanism, with its own holy city, text and priesthood engaged in a counter-reformation. 


Michael Egan


[Editor’s Note


>>I have also read Shakespeare Beyond Doubt? ed. Shahan 

>>and Waugh (LLumina 2013) and hope that others do too. 

>[Editor’s Note: No. –Hardy]


My “No” was only intended to indicate that I had not read Shakespeare Beyond Doubt? And NOT that I “would burn Shakespeare Beyond Doubt? if he [I] could.” Perhaps I was not clear, but I do object to having words put in my mouth, especially ones that imply that I am a Nazi or Savonarola book burner. Come on now. I will say that I do not find “Stratfordian and non-Stratfordian” to be “neutral”; to me they are loaded with connotations to which I object. –Hardy]


Lunch at Tiffany’s


The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0334  Friday, 12 July 2013


From:        Gerald E. Downs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         July 12, 2013 1:29:58 AM EDT

Subject:     Lunch at Tiffany’s


John Briggs questioned my authorship attribution:


> I think it is unfair to give Tiffany Stern all the blame

> (as Gerald E. Downs does) for “Shakespeare in Parts”.

> The authorship statement is “by Simon Palfrey and Tiffany

> Stern” and I found it to be a remarkably uneven book.

> I didn’t do a stylometric analysis, but it seemed to be easy

> to guess which author wrote which part.


“Lunch at Simon’s” didn’t have the same ring. I wondered if anyone would notice. I assumed the book is backed by both authors equally.


Gerald E. Downs


In ‘Viola,’ Shakespeare Is Lens to Look at Young


The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0332  Friday, 12 July 2013


From:        Bo Bergstrom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         July 12, 2013 12:45:38 PM EDT

Subject:     In ‘Viola,’ Shakespeare Is Lens to Look at Young 


From The New York Times online: 




July 11, 2013

Movie Review

Romantic Puzzles in Need of Solving

By A. O. Scott


The mischievous paradox of Matías Piñeiro’s “Viola” is that it is at once devilishly complicated and perfectly simple. The characters belong to a recognizable, transnational urban tribe; their Buenos Aires could be Austin or Edinburgh, Brooklyn or Prague or any other city with a significant population of artistically inclined, financially insecure, sexually free young people.


To describe Mr. Piñeiro, a 31-year-old Argentine filmmaker living in New York, as the exponent of a South American version of mumblecore would not be inaccurate, just incomplete. The social milieu of his movies — an enlightening and enlivening retrospective of them has been part of this year’s LatinBeat series at the Film Society — is certainly familiar. Men and women in their 20s, students or recent graduates, come and go in apartments and cafes, speaking of love and work and grocery shopping.


But there is an elegance to Mr. Piñeiro’s visual style, a sinuous precision to his camera work, that suggests a different kind of artistic ambition. And in “Viola,” as in its shorter, earlier companion “Rosalinda,” he explores the romantic puzzles and creative explorations of his generation through the work of Shakespeare. Both films are being shown as a double feature that is an excellent introduction to this filmmaker’s work and a beguiling companion to Joss Whedon’s splendid screen adaptation of “Much Ado About Nothing.”


The connection between Shakespeare and the Buenos Aires bohemians is, on one level, perfectly literal and straightforward. In both “Viola” and “Rosalinda,” a Shakespeare play is being rehearsed by an overlapping cast of actors who may or may not also be playing themselves. In “Viola” we see outtakes from an all-female production of “Twelfth Night”; in “Rosalinda,” lines from “As You Like It” are being run in and around what looks like someone’s parents’ country house in a forest alongside a muddy river. Shakespeare’s language, heard in Spanish with English subtitles, frames and punctuates ambivalent breakups and tentative hookups, while also broaching themes of desire, deception and the mutability of identity.


Both “As You Like It” and “Twelfth Night” are comedies of dissembling and disguise, in which true love is arrived at under false pretenses. In “As You Like It,” Rosalind pretends to be a man to get close to Orlando. In “Twelfth Night,” Viola, masquerading as a manservant, woos Olivia on behalf of Duke Orsino, who Viola herself will fall in love with even as Olivia falls in love with her. The unstable relationship between being and seeming is the essence of theater, and Mr. Piñeiro is interested in seeing how this confusion affects and illuminates the world beyond the stage.


For this reason, he has sometimes been compared with Jacques Rivette, the French director whose nimble cinematic disruptions of reality often include itinerant or experimental theater companies. The other French auteur who comes to mind is Eric Rohmer, who was transfixed by the way aimless talk and casual behavior could reveal the hidden currents and intricate patterns of social and sexual life.


But Mr. Piñeiro is more of a miniaturist than Mr. Rivette, and less of a perfectionist than Rohmer. Watching “Viola” is like walking into the middle of a party whose guests (and hosts) are mostly friends of friends, vaguely familiar, very attractive and a little mysterious. You try to glean who is connected to whom, and how. Are those two women friends or rivals? Did one of them just break up with her boyfriend, or get back together with him? And then you drift into another conversation and try to figure out how it is connected to the others. You end up zigzagging through strange parts of town on obscure errands that may just be excuses to do more hanging out.


And then at the end, unexpectedly, it all makes sense. A narrative shape and an emotional payoff arrive in the very last scenes, just as the spell is broken. You have been privy to a series of seductive, ephemeral moments, drawn into the eternal rhythm of youth and connected with something old and durable, one name for which is art.


[ . . . ]


Q: Stylometrics


The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0333  Friday, 12 July 2013


From:        Jed Serrano <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         July 12, 2013 1:03:09 AM EDT

Subject:     Q: Stylometrics


How would a kind and knowledgeable subscriber explain stylometrics to a kind but lay on the subject one?


Many thanks.





Reader’s Companion The Countess of Montgomery’s Urania


The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0331  Friday, 12 July 2013


From:        Amy Greenstadt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         July 12, 2013 3:25:20 PM EDT

Subject:     Reader’s Companion The Countess of Montgomery’s Urania


Publication: Reader’s Companion to Mary Wroth’s The Countess of Montgomery’s Urania.


The Companion, published as a Kindle book, provides a guide to the complex plot of Wroth’s romance. More information can be found at: http://www.amazon.com/Readers-Companion-Countess-Montgomerys-ebook/dp/B00DTJK8V0.


Amy Greenstadt

Associate Professor of English

Portland State University


Subscribe to Our Feeds


Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.