April
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0839 Friday, 29 April 2005 From: Elliott Stone <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 29 Apr 2005 09:02:01 -0400 Subject: 16.0809 Lady Norton or Henry Wriothesley Comment: Re: SHK 16.0809 Lady Norton or Henry Wriothesley I believe that the true identity of the Cobbe Portrait is "Child Of Venus And Adonis also known as Changeling Child A Lovely Boy Stolen From An Indian King". Best, Elliott H. Stone _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.0838 Friday, 29 April 2005 [1] From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 17:41:38 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0828 Love's Labours Won [2] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 16:44:49 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0828 Love's Labours Won [3] From: Sandra Sparks <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 29 Apr 2005 08:59:13 -0400 Subj: RE: SHK 16.0828 Love's Labours Won [4] From: David Crosby <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 29 Apr 2005 10:17:44 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 16.0755 Love's Labours Lost [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 17:41:38 +0100 Subject: 16.0828 Love's Labours Won Comment: Re: SHK 16.0828 Love's Labours Won Melvyn R. Leventhal wrote: >The critical points made by Lucas Erne (and marginally reinforced by >me) are: a) Much Ado COULD BE another name for LLW and b) therefore, >contrary to the hypothesis of T.W. Baldwin, the Bookseller's List does >not prove that LLW is a lost work by Shakespeare. But if LLW could be another name for 'Much Ado' in the "bookseller's list", then that list loses its value as evidence. This relied upon the "bookseller's list" being a list of actual titles of actual books, and thus providing *independent* corroboration of the list in 'Palladis Tamia'. If the titles of books in the list do not represent actual titles, they could just as easily not represent actual books. They could then represent desiderata (culled from Meres), or orders from customers (who could also have read Meres). Baldwin's hypothesis was not so much that LLW was a lost work by Shakespeare, as that it was the actual title of an actual book. The assumption that it was lost work by Shakespeare followed from the (only other) evidence of Meres in 'Palladis Tamia' that it was the actual title of an actual play (by Shakespeare, as it happens). John Briggs [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 16:44:49 -0400 Subject: 16.0828 Love's Labours Won Comment: Re: SHK 16.0828 Love's Labours Won >Please state the "internal evidence" that a sequel was contemplated for >LLL and that also rules out Much Ado as that sequel. I thought I had done this. The French ladies set amusing tasks for the gentlemen to occupy their time until they resume their acquaintance in a year. Nothing remotely like that occurs in MA/N. And, of course, Basch feels the need to chime in with a risibly erroneous observation: > In each case, as noted in the play, "Jack has got his Jill." Typically, Basch has it bass-ackward. What Berowne says is the opposite: "Our wooing doth not end like an old play:/ Jack hath not Gill." (V.ii.874-75 [Riverside]) [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sandra Sparks <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 29 Apr 2005 08:59:13 -0400 Subject: 16.0828 Love's Labours Won Comment: RE: SHK 16.0828 Love's Labours Won Something to consider: Does anyone think that it could be possible, since it has been thought that Rosaline was based upon WS's own Dark "Lady," that, if the resemblance between Rosaline and, say, Emilia Lanier, had continued into Love's Labours Won, that the messiness of his affairs with both the lord of his love and his mistress and a too, too close resemblance, might have caused him to withdraw LLW from his own canon? Just shooting an arrow in the air here, seeing how it falls... Sandra Sparks Performer Atlanta Shakespeare Company [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Crosby <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 29 Apr 2005 10:17:44 -0500 Subject: 16.0755 Love's Labours Lost Comment: RE: SHK 16.0755 Love's Labours Lost In the midst of all the quibbling about whether and where the apostrophes fall (even a cursory look at a first folio will reveal the near total inconsistency in the way possessives are treated typographically), no one seems to have remarked that the Elizabethan poets tended to speak, if not think, emblematically and allegorically. The "Love" in the title is very likely to refer to a personified figure of Love, either amor, eros, or cupid, and it is his labor that is lost. The labor of Love, traditionally, is the shooting of arrows in all directions, striking humans (and other supernaturals) and leading them to perform all manner of silly and revolting things. This would seem to be more sensible a reading of either title, LLL or LLW. Perhaps someone can even provide an emblem book with a picture of Cupid having lost (or won) his labor? Regards, David Crosby <This 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0837 Friday, 29 April 2005 [1] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 12:37:11 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0825 Martin Green on 'Quondam' [2] From: Gerald E. Downs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 23:09:42 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 16.0811 Martin Green on 'Quondam' [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 12:37:11 -0400 Subject: 16.0825 Martin Green on 'Quondam' Comment: Re: SHK 16.0825 Martin Green on 'Quondam' Volume II of Manchester's biography of Churchill describes an argument between Churchill and the Duke of Windsor when they were both in Monte Carlo. Manchester refers to the Duke as the "quondam king." It gave me a laugh, especially in light of Edward's childlessness (perhaps the only patriotic thing he ever did). [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gerald E. Downs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 23:09:42 EDT Subject: 16.0811 Martin Green on 'Quondam' Comment: Re: SHK 16.0811 Martin Green on 'Quondam' John Briggs: >I thought it was well known that the most likely derivation >of the 18th-century word 'condom' was from the Latin >'condominium,' in the extended sense of 'protection'. William Godshalk: >If this is true (and not a joke), the OED has not picked >up on this likely derivation. I have just checked "condom" >and "condominium," and there is no indication of any link >between the two. Kruck gives the etymological investigation of 'condom' a thorough study, citing even Playboy's 'conundrum'; without mentioning 'condominium'-which is in any case unlikely. In 1905 'condus' was proposed, "that which secures, preserves, guards (something)." However, as I reported earlier, the definition hardly fits a nonce-word whose third surviving form (ending its use and beginning its study) is found in "The Explanation of Obsolete Words," from about 500 AD. My impression is that those who care are stumped. Those who don't care-are surely content to allow others their interests. The OED declined mention of 'condom' in its first edition and in the 1933 re-issue and its supplement; but acknowledged it in 1972. The editors seemingly shared the values of James Dixon, a contributor in 1888: I have marked my envelope 'private,' because I am writing on a very obscene subject. . . . It is a contrivance used by fornicators, to save themselves from a well-deserved clap . . . . Everything obscene comes from France . . . Bruce Richman: >My original editions of the OED and Skeat's Etymological >Dictionary of the English Language both discreetly omit >"condom" entirely. My Latin-English Dictionary (David McKay >Publishers, NY, 1938), cites Latin "condo" as "sheathe" and >"to thrust into". The first dictionary to list 'cundum' was that of Captain Grose (d. 1791), _A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue_(1785). The definition apparently omitted its function and the word was dropped in later editions. The second listing (1889) described it as a "French letter." Kruck notes that "The device itself was banned in a papal bull of 1826" (reported in German as "diese Erfindung [invention] verdammte . . . ") In 1928 _Bilder-Lexicon_ reports "many authors" explaining the word as 'condere gladium' (to keep the sword; 'scabbard' or 'sheath'). Kruck found none of the "many authors" nor any such reference to the French letter. Modern references before Kruck obviously conflated sources for convenient retelling. Martin Green: >This appearance of the word "quondam," used as a noun, >to designate a former member of a monastic order . . . >may provide the solution to the mystery I reread this note in _Wriothesley's Roses_ before raising the issue here. 'Quondam' seems always to refer to some 'former' state, even as a noun. There is no evidence that the term was transferred to the clothing of 'quondams', clerical or otherwise. Because this step is speculative, the odds for a solution are lessened. In contrast, 'condum' is defined as 'cup' by 1594, when speculation needs only to accommodate the metaphor. Martin Green's larger argument does not rely on the quondam/ condom pun; his discussion is an aside devoted rather to an interesting and ongoing etymological question. Yet I would not disagree with him on any issue without suggesting that the worth of his books on the sonnets should be generally better acknowledged. Objection is made to the Q/C pun because 'quondam' is an adjective and 'condom' is a noun. Most sexually related and punned-on terms in Shakespeare are nouns. Yet the deciding factor for a double-entendre is sound, not the part of speech. 'Quondam' is further restricted by its meaning (former). Still, the lines noted by Green are fitted to these conditions with little trouble. As Green further relates, difficulty in imposing complete sense to bawdy word-play is as much a sign of the intent as evidence against it. Gerald E. Downs _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.0836 Friday, 29 April 2005 [1] From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 15:49:30 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0826 How to Play Henry V act 1 scene 2 [2] From: Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 14:32:55 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 16.0826 How to Play Henry V act 1 scene 2 [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 15:49:30 +0100 Subject: 16.0826 How to Play Henry V act 1 scene 2 Comment: Re: SHK 16.0826 How to Play Henry V act 1 scene 2 HR Greenberg wrote: >My other question -- which may or may not have been asked -- is: when >and if was the play performed, presumably at court, before Elizabeth >and or James I. "Henry V" was performed at Court, at Whitehall, on 7th January 1604/05. Ben Jonson's "Masque of Blackness" had been performed at the previous day, on Twelfth Night, 6th January 1604/05, and I would suggest that the Banqueting or Masquing House was thus not available. I suggest that the performance of "Henry V" could have been in the Whitehall Cockpit, and that it held the vasty fields of France. John Briggs [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Colin Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 14:32:55 -0700 Subject: 16.0826 How to Play Henry V act 1 scene 2 Comment: Re: SHK 16.0826 How to Play Henry V act 1 scene 2 >My other question -- which may or may not have been asked -- is: when >and if was the play performed, presumably at court, before Elizabeth and >or James I. The first recorded performance of Henry V at court is as part of the Christmas Revels on January 7th, 1605. Colin Cox _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.0835 Friday, 29 April 2005 [1] From: Alan Dessen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 10:42:29 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 16.0823 Noted Weed [2] From: JD Markel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 12:24:51 -0700 (PDT) Suct: Re: SHK 16.0823 Noted Weed [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Dessen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 10:42:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 16.0823 Noted Weed Comment: Re: SHK 16.0823 Noted Weed I've seen a production of *The Winter's Tale* in which Florizel waved a joint when delivering his speech to Perdita that begins "These your unusual weeds." Alan Dessen [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: JD Markel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 12:24:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 16.0823 Noted Weed Comment: Re: SHK 16.0823 Noted Weed Rastafarian? I think you're on to something. KJV's Psalm 137 is scored no better than to a reggae beat. (By the waters of Babylon...). Rastas do not merely "borrow lyrics" form KJV, they resurect and authenticate the music which inspired Shakespeare. And in KH4p2- "I speak of Africa and golden joys." Typical Rastafarian romanticization of the home continent. _______________________________________________________________ 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.