April
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1112 Tuesday, 23 April 2002 From: H. David Friedberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 22 Apr 2002 20:21:29 -0400 Subject: 13.1094 Re: Tennyson as Shakespeare Comment: Re: SHK 13.1094 Re: Tennyson as Shakespeare I always think of this as "tis better to have loved and lost than never to have lost at all"! I prefer to think that it's better to have a negative HIV David _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1111 Tuesday, 23 April 2002 From: Kevin De Ornellas <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 22 Apr 2002 19:51:34 +0000 Subject: 'Hide Parke' Dear All, Does any publisher have plans for an edition of Shirley's 'Hide Parke'? Any (off-list) information would be appreciated. Kevin De Ornellas Queen's University, Belfast _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1110 Tuesday, 23 April 2002 [1] From: Dan Wright <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 22 Apr 2002 11:20:46 -0700 Subj: Re: Portrait of Southampton [2] From: Andy White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 22 Apr 2002 14:21:03 -0700 Subj: Portrait of Southampton [3] From: Jan Pick <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 22 Apr 2002 23:05:35 +0100 Subj: Southampton portrait [4] From: Stanley Wells <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 23 Apr 2002 12:42:56 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 13.1096 Portrait of Southampton [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan Wright <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 22 Apr 2002 11:20:46 -0700 Subject: Re: Portrait of Southampton Professor Stanley Wells stated to the Times: "There's a story that Southampton refused to marry a young woman and was fined
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1109 Tuesday, 23 April 2002 From: Brian Willis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 22 Apr 2002 11:09:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 13.1087 Re: Hamlets Comment: Re: SHK 13.1087 Re: Hamlets I always thought that part of the reason for casting Mel Gibson in the part is that he was instantly recognized as an action hero and could handle the verse. The sense of frustration at Hamlet for his inability to revenge is played out perfectly in our expectations of Gibson in a film, which are continually thwarted. It takes the ability to place oneself in the moment of the play and release our knowledge of what is going to happen (espoused by Keats in his reading of the plays but especially difficult with a play as well known as Hamlet). Then we understand that it is increasingly frustrating for a charismatic "Lethal Weapon" to be dulled and muddied in internal intellectual debate. At least that is Zefferelli's angle in this film. That said, I am not totally satisfied by the film, but at least I understand the interesting casting of its characters. I agree (gulp!) with Charles. A miracle! Charles does indeed like something, ANYTHING, about Shakespeare performance in the last 40 years. Scofield's ghost is my favorite and what I believe to be the most effective so far. No special effects, just an actor using his voice to subtle effect and a director known for his flamboyance taking the subtle route as well. To use Charles's words, which are so well put that they must be read again: > The worldly and > otherworldly agony that thrills > and trembles through his voice! Yet he does it with > the utmost > restraint and delicacy. Charles, why can't you produce something this well put every time you post? It is tiring to read endless negative commentary but so invigorating to read these words here. Personally, I would love to respond positively again. There are too many good things to write about, many other topics that can produce intelligent and thought-provoking discussion. Bravo for taking the first step towards a more positive thread discussion. Cheers, Brian Willis _______________________________________________________________ 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1108 Tuesday, 23 April 2002 [1] From: Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 22 Apr 2002 18:32:49 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 13.1100 Imperfect Seers [2] From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 22 Apr 2002 20:25:55 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 13.1074 Seeing Things [3] From: W.L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 22 Apr 2002 17:58:36 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 13.1074 Seeing Things [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 22 Apr 2002 18:32:49 +0100 Subject: 13.1100 Imperfect Seers Comment: Re: SHK 13.1100 Imperfect Seers "As someone who has worn glasses since I was eight years old, I do wonder what kind of world I would think I inhabited without them", muses Lisa Hopkins. A blurry one...? m PS: The Guild of Spectacle Makers were awarded their charter by Charles I in 1629. Did these guys make glasses, or was this just another name for the King's Men? The late and much-lamented Roy Porter wrote that "Descriptions of trusses and eye-glasses began to appear in the thirteenth century": *The Greatest Benefit to Mankind: A Medical History of Humanity from Antiquity to the Present* (London 1997), p.116 On p.385 he writes, "Like teeth and ears, eye troubles had long been treated by itinerants, but ophthalmology rooted itself as a specialty, with clinics and formal teaching [in the early 19th C.] In 1803, Gottingen introduced it as a taught course, and Vienna established the first clinic in 1812" etc. I cannot find that he writes much about opthalmology of any stripe in his chapter on "The New Science", which covers our period. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 22 Apr 2002 20:25:55 +0100 Subject: 13.1074 Seeing Things Comment: Re: SHK 13.1074 Seeing Things The answers to Terence Hawkes' questions must be readily available - there must be historians of opthalmology somewhere! I would suggest starting with the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine [I now find that it has been dissolved and the Wellcome Library re-absorbed by the Wellcome Trust: http://library.wellcome.ac.uk/ ] and/or the Science Museum http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/wellcome-wing/ which has the Wellcome's Museum Collection. Spectacles have been available since the late twelfth century - but only with simple convex lenses. These would correct long sight, and are ideal for reading glasses. So much so that they greatly extended the careers of elderly clerics and caused a blockage in promotion! This was only remedied by the great expansion of clerical posts in the thirteenth century. I don't know when good quality concave lenses became available - but they certainly existed by 1609 for Galileo to use them in his telescope. Later in the century Spinoza earned his living grinding and polishing lenses for spectacles. I would hazard a guess that those of Shakespeare's audience who required spectacles and could afford them would have been able to obtain them. I can't help with the question of hearing aids: perhaps actors spoke louder in those days? John Briggs [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W.L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 22 Apr 2002 17:58:36 -0400 Subject: 13.1074 Seeing Things Comment: Re: SHK 13.1074 Seeing Things Terry Hawkes asks for information or guesses about early modern seeing and hearing. I assume that Raymond Tallis could, if he would, venture a learned guess. He would have some thoughts on aging and on the problems of aging, and might be able to put these topics into historical perspective. Yours, Bill Godshalk _______________________________________________________________ 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.