The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0610. Thursday, 29 May 1997.
[1] From: Jody Tate <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 28 May 1997 14:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subj: Re: SHK 8.0606 Re: Speaking the Verse
[2] From: Paul Franssen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 09:47:01 -0600 (CST)
Subj: RE: SHK 8.0605 Qs: Droeshout
[3] From: Gabriel Wasserman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 28 May 1997 20:59:05 -0400
Subj: Q: Handwriting/Ironside; Re: SHK 8.0605 Q: Droeshout
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jody Tate <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 28 May 1997 14:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 8.0606 Re: Speaking the Verse
Comment: Re: SHK 8.0606 Re: Speaking the Verse
In response to an earlier post concerning speaking Shakespeare's verse
Roger Gross writes:
> In your post, I find what seems to be a linking of correct verse
> speaking and the grand style. I encourage you to give up that link.
> Verse can be spoken 'correctly' in either the grand style or in a
> 'conversational' style. Style and rhythm are quite independent of each
> other.
I'm most intrigued by the distinction you make between style and
rhythm. Meter, as it has been shown by recent theorists (notably Derek
Attridge, Amittai Aviram, and Richard Cureton to name a few), imparts a
regular rhythm to language and meter is considered to be a type of
stylistic device. This might explain why I tend to associate style and
rhythm.
You suggest that they are independent, but I ask: do they inform one
another in your view? Does style, or meter for example, inform rhythm
and does rhythm inform style? And can the two together then inform our
larger understanding of a play, or only localized moments of rhetorical
emphasis? The last question is larger than our current discussion, so
feel free to ignore it!
Thanks for your post, and I look forward to your response.
Jody Tate
Graduate Student
U. of Washington, Seattle
P.S. To other list members:
Could anyone direct me to a discussion of metrical or verse style and
its relation to thematic content in the new Norton Shakespeare? thanks.
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul Franssen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 09:47:01 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 8.0605 Qs: Droeshout
Comment: RE: SHK 8.0605 Qs: Droeshout
Re Tom Marshall's query: the modern Dutch pronunciation of the name
Droeshout would be approximately /dru:shaut/, with the stress on the
first syllable. In case you are not familiar with phonetic
transscription: "oe" as in "drew", "ou" as in "out", and the "s" and "h"
as two separate sounds rather than one, so NOT "drew-shout" but more
like "Druce-howt". Precisely how the name would have been pronounced in
Shakespeare's own time, let alone in Shakespeare's London, I do not
know.
Paul Franssen
University of utrecht
The Netherlands
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gabriel Wasserman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 28 May 1997 20:59:05 -0400
Subject: Re: SHK 8.0605 Q: Droeshout
Comment: Q: Handwriting/Ironside; Re: SHK 8.0605 Q: Droeshout
Droeshout? As in Martin? That's easy: it's <DRO-schaut>, isn't it?
My big problems are with "Chandos" and "Cardenio". I always pronounce
them as <SHAN-doss> and <car-DEE-nee-o>. Sometimes I hear people say
<CHAN-doze>, and, in comparison to that, <SHAN-doss> seems overly
"polite" and "French". It reminds me of the first page of the *Dunciad*
proper, in a note (I don't remember it quite accurately, so I'll do a
memorial reconstruction) signed "-THEOBALD", though it can't really be
by him (it's actually by Pope-or Poop, and maybe I should say
"Theobald-or Tibbald". My great respect for Theobald always makes it
hard to think "Tibbald"-A pronunciation issue in itself. People
sometimes look at me funny when I speak of Poop and Tibbald.) about how
to spell "Dunciad". He says that "DuncEiad" is right, because it's
dunce+iad, but not "duncEiadE", because that's a "French" spelling of a
"purely English" word. But enough of the *Dunciad*. Cnd "Cardenio" be
pronounced <car-dih-NYE-oh>, with a slight accent on the "car", and a
heavy one on the "nye"?
On Thursday, 08 Dec 1994 09:01:27 -0400 (EDT), Don Foster
<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote: Re: SHK 5.0980 Cardenio
>Charles Hamilton is notorious for speaking with great enthusiasm and certainty
>even when he hasn't a clue what he's talking about. Every time Hamilton comes
>across a document in the Elizabethan "secretary hand," he announces it to be
>Shakespeare's. For example, he told the press that he knew "in five seconds"
>that the _Ironside_ MS was in Shakespeare's hand, but in fact the _Ironside_
>ms. is in the same hand as that of a playhouse scribe who elsewhere signs
>himself "W.P." (as even Eric Sams has since been forced to acknowledge).
>Eric Sams has said that *Ironside* is not in Shakespeare's handwriting?
When? He still said it in *Shakespeare's Edward III: an Early Play,
Recently Restored to the Canon* (or as someone said a while ago on this
list, "...to the canon") (1996), and, Don, you wrote that in 1994! How
did you know what Eric Sams would do in the future?
Speaking of *Ironside*, on Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 23:26:07 +0100:
>
>>Locrine
>
>Don't think this is in SHAXICON, but I don't think it's too likely that
>Shakespeare wrote it.
>
>Dave Kathman
Well, doesn't Jonathan Hope have a Marlowe-Shakespeare-Dekker ---
doesn't-sound-like-Marlowe position on *Locrine*, thus leaving
Shakespeare and Dekker?
Best wishes to all,
Gabriel Z. Wasserman
