March
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0541 Wednesday, 23 March 2005 From: Michael Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 22 Mar 2005 08:30:55 -1000 Subject: 16.0534 Date of King John Comment: Re: SHK 16.0534 Date of King John This discussion has become painfully banal. Clearly there are different kinds of proof, and historical proof, which vary according to the nature of the question and the context of the discipline. Isotope decay, dendrochronology and glottochronology, for instance, produce distinct but valuable data that may intersect and confirm one another in determining the archaeology of a particular site or civilization. These issues are well explored by Jared Diamond in two recent books, Collapse and Guns, Germs, and Steel. The latter incidentally concludes with a masterly discussion of precisely these issues (what is evidence?) which all contributors to the current thread could read with benefit. When it comes to attribution studies a variety of tests and procedures may prove useful, some more, some less subjective. For his own reasons Vickers, who is certainly aware of this debate, declines to speak up in his own defense, but skeptics obviously need to apply their eyes to his telescope. Even then they may refuse to acknowledge what they see because it doesn't match their paradigm-the notion that King John preceded The Troublesome Reign is a (or the) case in point. I'm reminded of the gentleman who encountered a giraffe for the first time and declared, 'There ain't no such animal!' --Michael Egan _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.0540 Wednesday, 23 March 2005 [1] From: William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 22 Mar 2005 20:13:10 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0527 Words Ending in eth/th [2] From: Ros King <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 23 Mar 2005 14:23:50 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0527 Words Ending in eth/th [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 22 Mar 2005 20:13:10 -0500 Subject: 16.0527 Words Ending in eth/th Comment: Re: SHK 16.0527 Words Ending in eth/th I got this response from Randy McLeod offline: In Arnold's "The Hayswater Boat", he says "moves" and "moveth" in the same line, and unless you pronounce the first as a mono-syllable and the second as a disyllable, the meter won't work. I opined that in Eliz times, the spelling may not have specified the number of syllables, but I don't think I had a specific example. I would have said all this in my article "Spellbound" which appeared in an old-spelling conference volume edited by Shady and Shand-and also in Renaissance and Reformation. Quoting Randy, I remain, Bill Godshalk [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ros King <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 23 Mar 2005 14:23:50 +0000 Subject: 16.0527 Words Ending in eth/th Comment: Re: SHK 16.0527 Words Ending in eth/th William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > >Some years ago while reading an essay by Randall McLeod I found that >Randy had found some evidence that words ending in eth/th were >pronounced in the seventeenth century (if not before) as if they ended >in s. For example, hath was pronounced has. To make a long story short, >I didn't write the reference down, and now I can't find it. Does anyone >have this information to hand? > >I have been looking for Randy's email address, to no avail. I guess I >could always use the telephone. > >Bill I don't have Randy's reference but I came to the same conclusion when I was editing the Works of Richard Edwards (MUP, 2001) and modernised accordingly. Best, Ros _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.0539 Wednesday, 23 March 2005 From: Marcia Eppich-Harris <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 22 Mar 2005 12:35:56 -0600 Subject: MND Animated Cartoon For those of you who are interested in internet cartoons, below is the URL for a Flash animated cartoon of Midsummer Night's Dream. It's only five or so minutes, and to someone who didn't know the plot it would probably be more confusing than anything, but it's a nice looking little cartoon. http://www.littleloud.com/ac/shakespeare/animation.html Enjoy, Marcia Eppich-Harris _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.0538 Tuesday, 22 March 2005 [1] From: Bruce Young <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 21 Mar 2005 13:08:22 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 16.0500 Othello's Name [2] From: David Basch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 21 Mar 2005 16:58:47 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0526 Othello's Name [3] From: William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 21 Mar 2005 17:26:52 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0526 Othello's Name [4] From: Lysbeth Benkert-Rasmussen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 22 Mar 2005 09:07:54 -0600 Subj: RE: SHK 16.0526 Othello's Name [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Young <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 21 Mar 2005 13:08:22 -0700 Subject: 16.0500 Othello's Name Comment: RE: SHK 16.0500 Othello's Name Ed Kranz asks, "I wonder how David knows this i.e. that Othello is a convert." Possibly the answer is in these lines: And then for her To win the Moor, were't to renounce his baptism, All seals and symbols of redeemed sin, ... (2.3.342-44) But those lines could refer either to conversion or baptism after birth into a Christian family. Many assume conversion, I would guess, because Othello is a Moor, an outsider, Moors being generally non-Christian. Also, "renounce" suggests, though it does not prove, a profession of faith made at baptism as an adult. Bruce Young [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Basch <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 21 Mar 2005 16:58:47 -0500 Subject: 16.0526 Othello's Name Comment: Re: SHK 16.0526 Othello's Name In the extended discussion of Othello's name, Larry Weiss comments in an undiscerning way concerning the Bible's ceremonial ordeal for cases where husbands take a notion that their wives have been unfaithful. He writes: To suggest that it would have been better all around if Desdemona had been put to the ordeal rather than convicted (albeit erroneously) based on circumstantial evidence and false testimony about a confession speaks volumes about those who put their faith in scriptures. I think Larry misunderstands the thrust of what is behind the Bible's ordeal for dealing with an irrational, jealous husband. There is much wisdom behind this ceremony, designed to take the wind out of the sails of a man driven mad from irrational, jealous rage. The Bible in its undertstanding anticipates that there will be men who have queer and dangerous notions popping into their head, just as there are persons who go into unreasoning rage over Jews, and designs a ceremony that is imbued with sufficient awe to which verdict a jealous husband must submit. After all, the wife knows she is innocent so the ordeal is a cake walk for her and, if it cools her husband's rage, it is worth its weight in gold. If Tolstoy thought that such irrational rages don't come upon certain men, then he was truly lacking in experience of the world. Shakespeare, like the Bible, knew better and he gave us a play portraying the psychology of such a rageful man who has exalted the feeling of his own holiness so that he decides to be all in one, judge, jury, and executioner of his wife. This makes Florence Amit's insight most pertinent on Othello's name in Hebrew, which means, "his sign of (or from) God," since this describes Othello's character as a self anointing kind that makes him capable of murdering his wife as an expression of some kind of religious act. Apparently, Larry missed the point that Othello's unreasoning, jealous rage is indeed a human possibility and that, had there been a religious law to compel the placing of such suspicions of a wife before a third party review, Othello's horrible deed would have been averted. It seems that scripture and Shakespeare knew a lot more about human nature than Tolstoy. Concerning the issue of Othello's religion, Todd Pettigrew has given pertinent information on this in the play, that Othello reveals himself in his statement, "Are we turned Turks?" and in Iago's comment about Othello as being capable "to renounce his baptism,..." This pretty much tells he is a Christian. That he is also a "Moor" indicates that he must have been converted since Moors were Muslim and circumcised. Here again, Othello's name would confirm this since, as Florence Amit has noted, the name means in Hebrew "his sign of God," a "sign" which scripture identifies circumcision (a sign in the flesh). This name link to circumcision is clearly pertinent since Othello's circumcision plays a central part in the words Othello uses in his final speech before thrusting his sword into himself, "I took the circumcised dog and smote him THUS." The irony of the line is heightened maximally by this reference, a real Shakespearean touch, since it culminates all the parallels between Othello and the "malignant Turk" that Othello mentions. Both the Turk and Othello were "malignant," both "beat a Venetian," and, third, both are "circumcised." Note that Shakespeare has Othello use the term "malignant Turk" to describe the Turk from Aleppo, separating that Turk from decent Turks. Othello, the convert to Christianity, associates himself with that "malignant Turk" in the commonality of their "malignant" behavior in beating a Venetian and in their being circumcised, heightening Othello's identification with the "dog" that must be killed in the name of justice. He therefore smites the "circumcised dog" in himself, redeeming himself as a Christian, dissociated from the evil part of himself. David Basch [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 21 Mar 2005 17:26:52 -0500 Subject: 16.0526 Othello's Name Comment: Re: SHK 16.0526 Othello's Name Did Shakespeare know that Africa was, had been (and still is) a bastion of Christianity? If Othello (as constructed by Shakespeare) is from Africa -- and this is not perfectly clear from the text -- he might very well have been born and reared a Christian and thus not circumcised. Othello is labeled a Moor, but he mentions nothing specific about Africa -- does he? Bill [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lysbeth Benkert-Rasmussen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 22 Mar 2005 09:07:54 -0600 Subject: 16.0526 Othello's Name Comment: RE: SHK 16.0526 Othello's Name John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >argued that: "On the contrary, the "circumcised dog" is someone else: ...in Aleppo once, Where a malignant, and a Turbond-Turke Beate a Venetian, and traduc'd the State, I tooke by th'throat the circumcised Dogge...." I would argue instead that Othello sees himself as both the "malignant and a Turbond-Turke" and the soldier who "took [him] by th' throat." Right after he says these lines, doesn't he take himself "by the throat" and kill himself? Othello is caught between these two self-identities, desiring acceptance from the Venetian society and being refused that acceptance by a prejudiced society. It seems to me that his reaction to his (perceived) rejection by Desdemona is so violent because that rejection represents a rejection by all that he sees as bright and honorable in Venice, everything that he had hoped to become a part of. That sense of rejection leads Othello to embrace a self-identity represented by all of Venice's worst stereotypes (as represented both by Iago's animalistic epithets and Brabatio's superstitious accusations). In a sense, he thumbs his nose at Venice and declares through his actions that "if that's what they think I am, well, then, that's what I will become." After his faith in Desdemona is restored, he also realizes his own self-contradictory position in relation to Venetian society. Othello is stuck between worlds, neither wholly "savage" (as the Venetians would see him) nor wholly Christian. He is in No Man's Land. _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.0537 Tuesday, 22 March 2005 [1] From: John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 21 Mar 2005 11:13:51 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0521 A Claudius Question [2] From: Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 21 Mar 2005 08:14:11 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 16.0521 A Claudius Question [3] From: Stephen C. Rose <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 21 Mar 2005 08:58:52 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 16.0521 A Claudius Question [4] From: D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 21 Mar 2005 13:55:32 -0600 Subj: RE: SHK 16.0521 A Claudius Question [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 21 Mar 2005 11:13:51 -0500 Subject: 16.0521 A Claudius Question Comment: Re: SHK 16.0521 A Claudius Question Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > >Bill Arnold asks Abigail Quart, "[H]ow can you possibly downplay the >central theme of the play, and that is that the kingship has changed >hands in violation of 'Thou shalt not kill!'" > >There's a hole in Bill's argument that you could drive a sixteen-wheeler >through. If this commandment is the rock-bed of the play, then Hamlet is >clearly guilty of murder and damned, just as Claudius is. Hamlet kills >Claudius and the kingship changes hands. QED. Hamlet, as the rightful king (for Claudius's murder of King Hamlet has debarred him from rightful succession), has not only the right but the duty to punish murderers. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 21 Mar 2005 08:14:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: 16.0521 A Claudius Question Comment: Re: SHK 16.0521 A Claudius Question Edmund Taft writes, "Bill Arnold asks Abigail Quart, "[H]ow can you possibly downplay the central theme of the play, and that is that the kingship has changed hands in violation of 'Thou shalt not kill!'" "There's a hole in Bill's argument that you could drive a sixteen-wheeler through. If this commandment is the rock-bed of the play, then Hamlet is clearly guilty of murder and damned, just as Claudius is. Hamlet kills Claudius and the kingship changes hands. QED." Not really. First of all, I find it hard to imagine you driving a semi anywhere, let alone on Shakespeare's stage in front of Shakespeare's audience. So, motive means nothing in your scenario, right? You divorce yourself from Shakespeare and his play, totally? You reject the spirit and his message in ACT ONE, while you blithely wheel around the stage leaving tire tracks of your own undoing. Whatever happened to the FACTS of the play, the dialogue, the actions of the characters, the rising and falling action of the drama, and the resolution of the opening scene? You seem to ignore the "something is rotten in Denmark" theme and refuse to attach that smell to its rightful heir, and that was the false usurper Claudius who killed the lawful King Hamlet, coveted his wife, and violated ALL TEN COMMANDMENTS in doing so. And now you wish to deny the protagonist his attempts to right that wrong placed in front of the audience by Shakespeare? Do you really believe that audience shared your sentiments, your viewpoint, and your semi-truck muck? You should stop losing sight of Shakespeare in your quest to metaphorize a play with your own wild interpretation sans motive. Look up the word tragedy in a dictionary. It's still there, last time I looked. Bill Arnold http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen C. Rose <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 21 Mar 2005 08:58:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: 16.0521 A Claudius Question Comment: Re: SHK 16.0521 A Claudius Question Ed Taft writes: "There's a hole in Bill's argument that you could drive a sixteen-wheeler through. If this commandment is the rock-bed of the play, then Hamlet is clearly guilty of murder and damned, just as Claudius is. Hamlet kills Claudius and the kingship changes hands. QED." Whether damned or not, H is culpable and one could view the entire play as a commentary on the hopelessness of existence under the seal of violence and revenge, no matter how we may feel about the those who violate the commandment. Best, S [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: D Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 21 Mar 2005 13:55:32 -0600 Subject: 16.0521 A Claudius Question Comment: RE: SHK 16.0521 A Claudius Question Edmund Taft writes: "Bill Arnold asks Abigail Quart, "[H]ow can you possibly downplay the central theme of the play, and that is that the kingship has changed hands in violation of 'Thou shalt not kill!'" "There's a hole in Bill's argument that you could drive a sixteen-wheeler through. If this commandment is the rock-bed of the play, then Hamlet is clearly guilty of murder and damned, just as Claudius is. Hamlet kills Claudius and the kingship changes hands. QED." I'm not so sure of this hole no matter how many wheels you have on your truck. On the one hand, I'm not positive that the fact that Hamlet may be guilty of murder, and thus damned, constitutes a "hole" in the idea that the central issue of the play is the moral complexity of homicide. On the other hand, he may, in fact, not be guilty of murder, even though he kills Laertes and Claudius and causes the death of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. In the first instance, Hamlet's advocate could easily claim self-defense for his client. Laertes and Claudius were clearly trying to murder him, and in fact succeeded in doing so. That his deadly response would be considered unforgivable (and thus damning) in the Upstairs Court is by no means so clear to me as claimed. The killing of the hapless pair is more problematic, as Horatio notes. But again the advocate might suggest that Hamlet figured that R&G knew of the murderous intent of their mission and thus he was justified in striking back. Was he? You may assume not, but are you positive that the Judge agrees with you? Even if Hamlet were real we could have no certainty how God would judge him. And since he is fictional, only Shakespeare could (or rather would) make such a judgment, and he leaves the question open. Cheers, don _______________________________________________________________ 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.