September
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1767 Tuesday, 28 September 2004 From: HR Greenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 27 Sep 2004 21:01:21 EDT Subject: 15.1761 Rights of Descent in Henry V Comment: Re: SHK 15.1761 Rights of Descent in Henry V Thanks, gentles all, for sharing your thoughts about the Salique Law justification by AC. in Henry 5. After reading many posts and consulting with a variety of people in theater I respect, I believe the Archbishop's knavery is obvious, King Henry's purposes ambiguous depending upon the read, but I still think the scene should be played straight, possibly with some shifting about in the court, and the audience. I don't like the idea of Ely turned into a blundering idiot, which he is not. I do not think the parallel to Polonius holds, however. Polonius is a dodderer of shifting identities. The AB and Ely are neither dodderers or fools, and they are deeply committed to the Church, willing to pay off Henry, who they secretly think is pitzing around -- at least according to Hall. I'll pass on the idea of my scroll, it is heretical and besides it don't scan. Thanks again to all. HR Greenberg MD _______________________________________________________________ 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 15.1766 Tuesday, 28 September 2004 [1] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 27 Sep 2004 13:35:39 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 15.1760 Shakespeare's Leap [2] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 27 Sep 2004 13:44:13 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 15.1760 Shakespeare's Leap [3] From: Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 27 Sep 2004 13:32:28 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 15.1760 Shakespeare's Leap [4] From: John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 27 Sep 2004 20:43:15 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 15.1760 Shakespeare's Leap [5] From: John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 28 Sep 2004 11:42:53 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 15.1760 Shakespeare's Leap [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 27 Sep 2004 13:35:39 -0400 Subject: 15.1760 Shakespeare's Leap Comment: Re: SHK 15.1760 Shakespeare's Leap >There is no evidence whatever that the two ever met; neither is it >particularly probable; neither is there any evidence that Dr. Lopez was >any sort of "inspiration", beyond the obvious fact that his execution >probably played a part in Shakespeare's decision to write a play with a >Jewish villain. There is the passing reference to "a wolf hanged for human slaughter," generally taken as a reference to Lopez -- more accurately Lopes, as he was Portuguese -- since the name evokes "lupus." Beyond that, I can't see any "inspiration." [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 27 Sep 2004 13:44:13 -0400 Subject: 15.1760 Shakespeare's Leap Comment: Re: SHK 15.1760 Shakespeare's Leap >Shylock's plea that he be recognized as a human being was perceived as >nothing more than the crafty outburst of a despised comic villain. >Without question, his plea was answered by unqualified laughter and >banter by Shakespeare's audiences. Precisely! Consider the similar scenes in WWII era films -- vide Ernst Lubitsch's "To Be Or Not To Be" -- where a comic Nazi character express bewilderment at why he should be regarded with low esteem, as he has a discriminating taste for good music, wine and women. Try this: Go through the "Hath not a Jew" speech and substitute "Nazi" for "Jew." Shylock says only that he is human. But no one ever denied that; what was questioned was not his humanity but his humaneness. Shylock is too literal to understand the distinction, and that's the humour of it. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 27 Sep 2004 13:32:28 -0700 Subject: 15.1760 Shakespeare's Leap Comment: Re: SHK 15.1760 Shakespeare's Leap >There is no evidence whatever that the two ever met; neither is it >particularly probable; neither is there any evidence that Dr. Lopez was >any sort of "inspiration", beyond the obvious fact that his execution >probably played a part in Shakespeare's decision to write a play with a >Jewish villain. It's a little disconcerting to be told there is absolutely no evidence; especially if there is absolutely no evidence because then neither statement can possibly be true. An internal paradox or would it be a paradigm? Sounds Churchillian! As to the Lopez question, I grant there is no, "Hi Will, how are you?" "Fine thanks, Dr. Lopez" moment that can be pinpointed in the chronicles of Shakespearean Scholarship. However, there's a ton o' fun to be had with the possibilities. Lopez was an ardent friend of Antonio Perez. He was despised by Robert Devereux. I see Will in the mix. Also, Gratiano's comments in the trial with regard to 'wolf', while again extremely debatable as to intent of meaning, might, as a long shot, be grounds for enquiry? Colin Cox [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 27 Sep 2004 20:43:15 -0400 Subject: 15.1760 Shakespeare's Leap Comment: Re: SHK 15.1760 Shakespeare's Leap Melvyn R. Leventhal <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > >Thus >Shylock's plea that he be recognized as a human being was perceived as >nothing more than the crafty outburst of a despised comic villain. >Without question, his plea was answered by unqualified laughter and >banter by Shakespeare's audiences. In light of my previous response on this very thread, I may seem to be reversing course here, but I cannot easily accept this position either. Shakespeare's great mastery was in character, and /Merchant/ is far closer in time to /Hamlet/ than, say, /Errors/. Granted that Shylock is a comic villain in a comic play, yet why should not Shakespeare take a moment to let us see into his heart? He does as much for Claudius. [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 28 Sep 2004 11:42:53 +0100 Subject: 15.1760 Shakespeare's Leap Comment: RE: SHK 15.1760 Shakespeare's Leap Melvyn Leventhal is right, I think. I'm fascinated by the scenario that Greenblatt constructs, but it is speculative. The problem arises in this play because Shakespeare gives the Jew a 'voice'. I wonder if we should not treat the term 'Jew' in this context in the same way that we have come to treat the term 'puritan'. In the play the two are not entirely unconnected. Cheers John Drakakis _______________________________________________________________ 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 15.1765 Tuesday, 28 September 2004 [1] From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 27 Sep 2004 15:15:54 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 15.1754 Judith's Wedding; Shakespeare's Death [2] From: Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 27 Sep 2004 16:13:58 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 15.1754 Judith's Wedding; Shakespeare's Death [3] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 27 Sep 2004 13:31:35 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 15.1754 Judith's Wedding; Shakespeare's Death [4] From: Dan Decker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 27 Sep 2004 21:44:41 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 15.1754 Judith's Wedding; Shakespeare's Death [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 27 Sep 2004 15:15:54 +0100 Subject: 15.1754 Judith's Wedding; Shakespeare's Death Comment: Re: SHK 15.1754 Judith's Wedding; Shakespeare's Death Sophie Masson wrote: >why, in your opinion, did >Judith and Thomas Quiney marry in Lent and risk excommunication? Presumably because they weren't Roman Catholics. Perish the thought that this might have some bearing on the "Was Shakespeare a Catholic?" question! John Briggs [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 27 Sep 2004 16:13:58 +0100 Subject: 15.1754 Judith's Wedding; Shakespeare's Death Comment: Re: SHK 15.1754 Judith's Wedding; Shakespeare's Death Sophie Masson asks ... >why, in your opinion, did >Judith and Thomas Quiney marry in Lent and risk excommunication? It's something of a mystery. Judith, at 31, might have been considered an old maid. Thomas (27), who ran a pub in Stratford, had already got another woman, Margaret Wheeler, very pregnant. Perhaps the evil Thomas persuaded poor Judith to marry him in a hurry before Margaret went into labour? Perhaps Judith and Thomas were madly in love and knew WS would disapprove of their marriage? WS doesn't seem to like Thomas much: in his will he refers to Susanna's husband, John Hall, by name, but refers to Judith's husband as "such husband ... as she might be married unto". Perhaps, as Catholics, they weren't overly worried about the Anglican excommunication? Who knows. Peter Bridgman [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 27 Sep 2004 13:31:35 -0400 Subject: 15.1754 Judith's Wedding; Shakespeare's Death Comment: Re: SHK 15.1754 Judith's Wedding; Shakespeare's Death I recall reading somewhere that the convoluted language in some of the late plays, particularly the Shakespearean portions of TNK, show signs of tertiary syphilis. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan Decker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 27 Sep 2004 21:44:41 EDT Subject: 15.1754 Judith's Wedding; Shakespeare's Death Comment: Re: SHK 15.1754 Judith's Wedding; Shakespeare's Death >I'm working on something which may or may not turn into a play or a >script, based on the last months of Shakespeare's life. A couple of >questions I'd like to ask other SHAKSPEReans: why, in your opinion, did >Judith and Thomas Quiney marry in Lent and risk excommunication? Would >it have been a more sombre affair than normal? And also--have there been >any sustained interpretations or examinations made as to the nature of >Shakespeare's ill-health, leading to his death? Be sure to see "Herbal Bed," a brilliant play based on the tribulations of WS' other daughter, Susanne, (the 'good' daughter) during the failing months of WS' life. Judith and Quiney may have married in an unusual fashion because it seems Quiney also had another girl in Stratford pregnant at the same time, besides Judith. I'm not aware of any sustained examinations of WS' ill health, but, in my lowly opinion, the sonnets suggest that WS had contracted syphilis in his early twenties. It apparently affected his brain in his final years before it killed him, but not so much that he couldn't change Judith's position in his will at the last minute (for marrying young Quiney? Was Quiney a ne'er-do-well gold digger? Was he just like his ol' man, looking on Will as a meal ticket?) d _______________________________________________________________ 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 15.1764 Tuesday, 28 September 2004 [1] From: Jonathan Hope <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 27 Sep 2004 13:03:15 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 15.1755 Eric Sams / Edward III [2] From: C S Lim <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: 28 Sep 2004 02:36:56 +0800 Subj: SHK 15.1755 Eric Sams / Edward III [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Hope <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 27 Sep 2004 13:03:15 +0100 Subject: 15.1755 Eric Sams / Edward III Comment: Re: SHK 15.1755 Eric Sams / Edward III I think the most accurate way of wording current opinion on Ed3 would be to say that a majority of scholars interested in such things accept that there is Shakespeare in it, but the question of extent is still extant. Eric did much to keep the issue of authorship alive, but I'm afraid his cavalier approach to evidence meant that his work didn't (for me anyway) establish anything. I once had a very genial lunch with him though, so I wish him well as he travels the space ways. Jonathan Hope Strathclyde University, Glasgow [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: C S Lim <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: 28 Sep 2004 02:36:56 +0800 Subject: Eric Sams / Edward III Comment: SHK 15.1755 Eric Sams / Edward III I remember a Renaissance seminar at Merton College, Oxford, where it was certainly not "widely accepted". Professor Emrys Jones was, as I recall, particularly dismissive of the case put by Eric Sams. C. S. Lim University of Malaya _______________________________________________________________ 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 15.1763 Tuesday, 28 September 2004 From: Peter S. Donaldson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 27 Sep 2004 16:30:11 -0400 Subject: DVD Tools for Shakespeare on Film DVD TOOLS FOR SHAKESPEARE ON FILM The MIT Shakespeare Project is asking for brief statements of interest in using its Cross Media Annotation System (XMAS), developed under the MIT-Microsoft iCampus Initiative. XMAS has been in use at MIT for several terms, has worked very well to support online student discussions that include video examples, multimedia essays, in class presentations and online instructor comment on student work. The ability to include precisely defined visual evidence in work on Shakespeare films has transformed my own teaching and we are now planning a two year project to distribute the system to sites outside MIT. XMAS works by allowing users to create video citations rapidly (using "start and stop" buttons), to insert links to video segments so defined into text fields, and to edit both video and text. XMAS does not involve any copying of the DVD video files, since the citations are merely links to the time code. It does require download of software and access to a PC with a DVD drive and multiple copies of the DVDs used in the class. XMAS is server based, and partner institutions can use the MIT server or set up their own. The ideal setting for use would be in Shakespeare or Shakespeare on film classes in a two week or longer period, at colleges and universities that already have or can provide some technical support and student access to PCs. At MIT we've used XMAS in small classes, with some students working on PCs in the language lab and some with laptops (their own or borrowed from MIT). While this is ideal, we are interested in having the system used in different ways by Shakespeare teachers of all levels of technical comfort. In some cases we expect to be able to provide initial workshops at MIT or at partner institutions. This supported distribution phase is planned as a two year project beginning in January 2005, with the possibility of adding participants in successive terms. If you are interested, please let us know as soon as possible. A brief email is fine for now. If you have questions or want to include details about your classes, what terms you might wish to participate, etc. all the better! Please contact Peter S. Donaldson atThis 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.