Pedantry

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0525  Tuesday, 18 December 2012

 

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

Date:         Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Subject:     Pedantry 

 

As a sometimes scholar, I recognize certain habits of discourse used by some outside of my circle BLANK me off. A few examples will suffice. 

 

Example One:

 

The OTHER might write: The earth IS flat.

 

I might write instead:

 

1. It seems to me that the earth is flat.  Or

 

2. The members of my group argue the earth is flat.  Or

 

3. The evidence of my perceptions suggests to me the earth is flat.

 

 

Example two:

 

The OTHER might write: I demonstrate that the earth is flat.

 

Whereas I might write: As I peered out from the top of K2, it seemed as if the earth were flat since I could not perceive any roundness, only an edge, from every direction I turned my attention. 

 

I prefer to be alerted to one’s critical POV and to have logical “warrants” stated rather than implied.

 

From one very slow learner,

Hardy

 

Addendum: I would, also, never write “At this point in time, . . . .”  And never, never get me started on commas, hyphens, semicolons, or colons or put me in bright light, get me wet, or fed me after midnight.

 

The Venus & Adonis Dedication

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0523  Tuesday, 18 December 2012

 

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

Date:         December 18, 2012 7:21:13 AM EST

Subject:     The Venus & Adonis Dedication 

 

I know not how poor will be the perception of my argument, if I leave so much surmise resting on so little substance.

 

A newcomer to the forum would reasonably assume that I was politely (and humbly) acknowledging deficiencies in my thesis.

 

Those familiar with the earlier content of this thread might see different messages (though maybe not Scot).

 

A reader from a third category might realize that the thrust of the words is ambiguous. Without a complete background, s/he would be reliant on surrounding remarks for clarification. If these were also ambiguous—and the theme of the alternate meanings was consistent—s/he would become increasingly suspicious. Eventually, s/he would conclude that the ambiguity may be deliberate and seek to test this hypothesis.

 

In my article I show that the V & A Dedication of some 130 words contains persistent ambiguity. The alternate theme is both cohesive and antithetical to the messages perceived by the unquestioning. The article contains a mental experiment designed to strip away the barriers of preconception and familiarity. It proceeds to quantify a range of probabilities that the punning was deliberate. None of this has been undermined.

 

Subsequently, I dealt with questions on Shakespeare’s motivation. Anyone who doubts the feasibility of my answer is of saintly disposition or otherwise ignorant of human nature. There is, at least, no doubt as to Shakespeare’s ability to pun. I repeat: we would probably be hailing the address as a fine example of his understanding of both human interaction and wordplay, if he had presented the situation in one of his own plays. (Pace you dim shadows of Larry and Julia). 

 

I am sorry that I have had to raise hypothetical scenarios in order to provoke analysis and discussion. That attention has, however, shown the pillars of my case to be rather sturdy (if now a little yellow-stained). Any further testing will be gratefully received. 

Shorthand R&J

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0522  Tuesday, 18 December 2012

 

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

Date:         December 17, 2012 9:52:04 PM EST

Subject:     Shorthand R&J

 

Steven Urkowitz replied to some R&J memorial corruption:

 

> Here in Q1, “stufft” can mean also “supplied with

> stuff,” or “comprised of” as “my household stuff,”

> not necessarily “crammed to full capacity,”

 

This sounds like George Carlin’s “stuff” to me.

 

> as appears to be the different usage in the Q2

> version, “an allegater stufft”:

 

This passage is simply mis-remembered, much as Q1’s ‘Queen Mab’ speech, of which van Dam observes: “we see that nearly every word is right but that the sequence of the words is in the greatest disorder . . . . [T]he whole of the quoted text is a mechanical recital of words and cadences while the actor did not know what he was saying. We [me & van Dam] do not think it possible to explain such passages in any other way. Even Mssrs. Pollard and Wilson’s pirate actor . . . could never have written down the nonsense of the quoted text.”

 

> and as for Downs’ evaluation of Q2, it is just too

> silly to contemplate that Shakespeare would have

> converted “stufft shop” to “An allegater stuft.”

 

That’s correct, because there’s a far better, ‘memorial’ explanation.

 

> from Brooks’ Romeus and Juliet:

>

> And in his [stuffed] shop he saw his boxes were

> but few. And in his window, of his wares, there

> was [stuffed] so small a shew; 

>

> Many of the specifically Shakespearean variants

> in rhetoric and characterization that she describes

> show up only tentatively in Q1 but are more fully

> realized in Q2.

 

But that’s to be expected in a cut, memorial text.

 

> There never was a final Romeo and Juliet, a single

> authoritative or authorial version of the play. There

> were only versions, from the start. Scripts to be acted,

> they presumed multiplicities and contingencies, the

> conditions of the theater (189).

 

Of course there was once at least one authorial version of the play, but otherwise I agree with Goldberg. The funny things are: We have by a miracle (repeated for other plays) an actual recording of one of these versions of R&J, replete with theatrical contingencies and conditions; and we just can’t face up to the evidence. Heywood said it; Heminges & Condell said it; George Buc said it. Q1 is, in my opinion, a shorthand report of a performance shortened from a Q2-like text, perhaps by the stenographer who recorded Bordox.

 

Gerald E. Downs

The Venus & Adonis Dedication

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0521  Monday, 17 December 2012

 

[1] From:        Ian Steere <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         December 15, 2012 9:13:34 AM EST

     Subject:     The Venus & Adonis Dedication 

 

[2] From:        Scot Zarela <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         December 15, 2012 11:57:35 AM EST

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Ven. Dedication 

 

[3] From:        Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         Monday, December 17, 2012

     Subject:     The Venus & Adonis Dedication 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:         December 15, 2012 9:13:34 AM EST

Subject:     The Venus & Adonis Dedication 

 

Hardy has joined the debate.

 

I should like, first, to acknowledge his principles. He has, in several private messages to me, indicated his disapproval. However, he has always allowed me to put my views to the forum.

 

Hardy rejects the existence of each of the two pillars to my case:

 

1. The overtly obsequious Dedication contains a pervasive theme of insult and rebuke. It is invisible to anyone who (quite reasonably) is expecting a eulogy;

 

2. It is extremely unlikely that this occurred by chance. That WS was also a master word-player brings the probability of deliberate punning to near 100%.

 

I have explained the reasoning which underpins the construction of each pillar (see original article). Hardy has ignored this justification in its entirety, as have others. He and they have made the unsubstantiated assumption that each pillar is illusory and, on this basis, have dismissed its use in any further construction.

 

It is impossible to debate rationally for or against the use of the pillars, until their underpinning is addressed. I have done so. Let others do so as well. Until then, the pillars stand.

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:         December 15, 2012 11:57:35 AM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Ven. Dedication

 

A significant misreading in Mr. Steere’s article: the “heir of my invention” (which may prove deformed) is the poem; the patron, Wriothesley, is the “noble godfather.” No implication, not even “veiled,” that Wriothesley may be deformed or debased: so, no implied insult.

 

Mr. Steere’s basic fault appears to be a mistaking of the dedication’s tone: what he calls “grovelling” is simply respectful; the social distance between poet and patron is given decent acknowledgement; a witty elegance of phrase bridges the distance; an offering is made and it is left to the patron, as social superior, to accept or refuse.

 

If I may venture a reflection on character, it would take a mean-spirited poet, and one doubtful of his own gifts, to resent having to make such an approach, or to spit—secretly, for his own vicious amusement—on the very patron whose name he (evidently!) thought would be a grace to the title page of his poem.

 

– Scot

 

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:         Monday, December 17, 2012

Subject:     The Venus & Adonis Dedication

 

Ian Steere writes above,

 

>I have explained the reasoning which underpins the construction 

>of each pillar (see original article). Hardy has ignored this 

>justification in its entirety, as have others. He and they have 

>made the unsubstantiated assumption that each pillar is 

>illusory and, on this basis, have dismissed its use in any 

>further construction.

 

I am sorry, but I have not ignored your arguments or your points. Scot Zarela above notes out some of the many points that I believe you completely misinterpret. You have no “smoking bed” and your assumptions are based on false premises and evidence. 

 

I simply find no merit in your arguments and see no reason to engage with you further. (i.e., this is my last word on the subject; others are free to write but I am through. I have better things to do such as to continue with my annotations of Lucrece, which I have been studying and writing about for countless years, having finished my diplomatic transcription of Q1, Modern edition, and annotations and collations of Venus and Adonis: http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Foyer/plays/Ven.html .) –Hardy 

 

Announcement: Latest Issue of Cahiers Elisabethains

 

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0520  Monday, 17 December 2012

 

From:        Jean-Christophe MAYER <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         December 17, 2012 6:20:45 AM EST

Subject:     Announcement: Latest Issue of Cahiers Elisabethains

 

The latest issue of Cahiers Elisabethains is now available: Cahiers Elisabethains 82 (2012).

 

* Please note also that article submissions are now open for the next issues of the journal. For details about submissions and/or subscriptions, please see the end of this message.

 

 

ARTICLES:

 

“Cruelty destroys all praise for honourable valour”: Reflections on Boudica in Petruccio Ubaldini (Samantha Frenee)

 

“Have Not They Suffer’d?”: Pain and Comedic Structure in The Merry Wives of Windsor (Kimberly Huth)

 

“What Warlike Noise Is This?” Hamlet, Sovereignty, and Lethe Wharf (Suzanne Stein)

 

 

NOTES:

 

Epic Antecedents of the Ghost of Hamlet’s Father: Reminiscence and Allusion? (H. Gaston Hall)

 

On the Last Four Lines of Paradise Lost (Joseph P. Jordan)

 REVIEW ARTICLE

 

Pedestrian Shakespeare and Punchdrunk’s Immersive Theatre (Colette Gordon )

 

 

PLAY REVIEWS:

 

En Midsommernatts Drom (A Midsummer Night’s Dream), directed by Peer Perez Oian, for the Bergen Festival, Studio Theatre, The National Theatre, Bergen, Norway, 5 June 2012 (Stuart Sillars)

 

Macbeth, directed by John Tiffany and Andrew Goldberg for the National Theatre of Scotland, Rose Theatre, Lincoln Center, New York, 7 July 2012 (Todd Andrew Borlik)

 

Dido, Queen of Carthage, by Christopher Marlowe, Actors’ Renaissance Season, American Shakespeare Center, Blackfriars Playhouse, Staunton, Virginia, 22 March, 2012 (Marina Favila)

 

Henry V, directed by Des McAnuff, The Festival Theatre, Stratford, Ontario, 3 July, 2012 (Dana E. Aspinall)

 

Julius Caesar, directed by Gregory Doran for the RSC, Royal Shakespeare Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon, 3 July 2012 (Peter J. Smith)

 

The Comedy of Errors, directed by Amir Nizar Zuabi for the RSC, The Royal Shakespeare Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon, April 2012 (Elizabeth Sharrett)

 

Twelfth Night, directed by David Farr for the RSC, Royal Shakespeare Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon, 25 April 2012 (Peter J. Smith)

 

The Tempest, directed by David Farr, Royal Shakespeare Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon, 7 May 2012 (Peter J. Smith)

 

Troilus and Cressida, directed by Mark Ravenhill for the RSC and Elizabeth LeCompte for the Wooster Group, The Swan Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon, 9 August 2012 (Janice Valls-Russell)

 

Much Ado About Nothing, directed by Iqbal Khan for the RSC, The Courtyard Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon, 1 August 2012 (Peter J. Smith)

 

Westward Ho!, directed by Perry Mills, for Edward’s Boys, Levi Fox Hall, King Edward VI School, Stratford-upon-Avon, 11 March 2012 (Elizabeth Dutton)

 

Bingo: Scenes of Money and Death, by Edward Bond, directed by Angus Jackson, Young Vic Theatre, London, 20 February 2012 (Laura Estill)

Hamlet, directed by Dominic Dromgoole and Bill Buckhurst, a touring production by Shakespeare’s Globe, the Bodleian Quad, Oxford, 25 July 2012 (Eleanor Collins)

 

The Winter’s Tale and Henry V, directed by Edward Hall for Propeller, The Rose Theatre, Kingston-upon-Thames, 24 and 25 March 2012 (Neil Allan)

 

Much Ado About Nothing, directed by Peter Reid for AC Productions, Project Arts Theatre, Templebar Dublin, 18 August 2012 (Derek Dunne)

 

Les Trois Richard [The Three Richards], after Richard III, directed by Dan Jemmett, translated by Mériam Korichi, Amphithéâtre d’O, Montpellier, 7 & 8 June 2012 (Gaëlle Ginestet)

 

 

BOOK REVIEWS:

 

Richard Marienstras, Shakespeare et le desordre du monde, foreword by Elise Marienstras, edited and introduced by Dominique Goy-Blanquet (Gallimard, 2012) (Jean-Christophe Mayer)

 

Eric Rasmussen and Anthony James West, eds., The Shakespeare First Folios: A Descriptive Catalogue (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012) (Noriko Sumimoto)

 

Lois Potter, The Life of William Shakespeare: A Critical Biography (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012) (R. S. White)

 

Joel B. Davis, The Countesse of Pembrokes Arcadia and the Invention of English Literature (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011) (Danielle Clarke)

 

George Peele, The Troublesome Reign of John, King of England, ed. Charles R. Forker, The Revels Plays (Manchester University Press, 2011) (Charles Whitworth)

 

Bruce Danner, Edmund Spenser’s War on Lord Burghley, Early Modern Literature in History Series (Palgrave Macmillan 2011) (Joan Fitzpatrick)

 

Kevin A. Quarmby, The Disguised Ruler in Shakespeare and His Contemporaries (Ashgate, 2012) (Eoin Price)

 

Sarah Carter, Ovidian Myth and Sexual Deviance in Early Modern English Literature (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011) (Atsuhiko Hirota)

 

William Baker and Kenneth Womack, eds., The Facts on File Companion to Shakespeare, 5 vols. (Facts on File, 2012) (Yves Peyré)

 

James Daybell, The Material Letter in Early Modern England: Manuscript Letters and the Culture and Practices of Letter-Writing, 1512-1635 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012) (Kerry Gilbert-Cooke)

 

 

BOOKS RECEIVED (presented & commented):

 

David Carnegie & Gary Taylor, eds., The Quest for Cardenio: Shakespeare, Fletcher, Cervantes, and the Lost Play (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), xiv+420pp., ISBN 978-0-19-964181-9, £35.00.

 

Pascale Drouet, Mise au ban et abus de pouvoir: Essai sur trois pièces tragiques de Shakespeare, série Britannia (Paris: Presses Universitaires Paris Sorbonne, 2012), 318pp., ISBN 978-2-84050-852-6, €22.00.

 

Richard Hillman, French Reflections in the Shakespearean Tragic: Three Case Studies (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2012), 236pp., ISBN 978-0-7190-8717-2, £60.00.

 

Thomas Betteridge & Greg Walker, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Tudor Drama (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), xx+688pp., ISBN 978-0-019-956647-1, £95.00.

 

Roger Kuin, ed., The Correspondence of Sir Philip Sidney, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), lxx+1382pp., ISBN 978-0-19-964540-4/541‑1 (pack: 978-0-19-955822-3), £250.00.

 

Stephen Bardle, The Literary Underground in the 1660s: Andrew Marvell, George Wither, Ralph Wallis and the World of Restoration Satire and Pamphleteering (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 184pp., ISBN 978-0-19-966085-8, £60.00.

 

Lady Margaret Douglas and Others, The Devonshire Manuscript: A Women’s Book of Courtly Poetry, ed. Elizabeth Heale, The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe: The Toronto Series 19 (Toronto: Centre for Renaissance and Reformation Studies, 2012), xiv+278pp., ISBN 978-0-7727-2128-0, Can$24.50.

 

Peter J. Smith, Between Two Stools (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2012), xii+292pp., ISBN 978-0-7190-8794-3, £65.00.

 

 

To order issues:  <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

 

Submissions can be send to either of Cahiers’s assistant editors: <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> or <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

 

More information: <http://recherche.univ-montp3.fr/cahiers/>

 

With our best wishes for the festive season,

Jean-Christophe Mayer and Nathalie Vienne-Guerrin

Co-General Editors

 

**************************************************

 

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.