October
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1781 Friday, 21 October 2005 From: Michele Marrapodi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 21 Oct 2005 08:47:25 +0100 Subject: Palermo Conference - Notice of Change of Date Conference Announcement - Notice of Change of Date (with apologies for cross-posting) Fourth International Palermo Conference - _Shakespeare Yearbook_ (2007). THE CONFERENCE HAS HAD TO BE POSTPONED to 22-24 June 2006 Call for Papers Papers are solicited on the theme of "Shakespeare and Renaissance Literary Theory" for the Fourth International Palermo Conference to be held (in association with the General Editor of _Shakespeare Yearbook_) at the Faculty of Arts of the University of Palermo from Thursday 22 June to Saturday 24 June 2006. Topics may deal with early modern Italian and English dramatic theories, the question of genre and decorum, the English response to tragicomedy and Italian dramatic theories, the influence of Italian touring companies and _commedia dell'arte_ types, Shakespeare's reliance on and resistance to classical rules, fixed genres, and dramatic conventions. The deadline is 30 April 2006. Contributors will include Louise George Clubb, Robert Henke, Robin Headlam Wells, Keir Elam, J. H. Halio, and Frances K. Barasch. Proposed contributions should be presented according to the style sheet of _Shakespeare Yearbook_. The length of an article should not exceed 7000 words, including endnotes. The title of papers together with a one-page abstract must be sent to Michele Marrapodi (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ) and to Douglas Brooks (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ) by 31 January 2006. Michele Marrapodi University of Palermo _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.1780 Thursday, 20 October 2005 From: Holger Schott Syme <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 19 Oct 2005 01:40:54 -0400 Subject: 16.1756 Clocks and Bells Comment: RE: SHK 16.1756 Clocks and Bells I realize this discussion might be more than a little dull to most members of the list, but in the hope that it doesn't seem entirely irrelevant, could I ask Michael Egan to respond properly to my arguments? He might consider my objections to his theories about the staging of _1 R2_/_Woodstock_ "obvious," but he is mistaken, I think, in his belief that he has already answered them on his website. In any case, I'd be interested to hear his response to the broader implications of the points I made apropos his specific propositions; in particular I'd like to find out if he has reconsidered his understanding of _Macbeth_ as a play written for a particular performance venue. Another protracted discussion of _1 R2_/_Woodstock_ might indeed not be welcome here, but I take it that the larger issue under debate in this thread is of considerable theatre historical significance and hence worthy of further discussion. Apologies to Hardy if I'm altogether wrong -- Holger [Editor's Note: I believe that this thread is approaching its end and would appreciate it if anyone with anything further to say on the subject would do so before I close it down.] _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.1779 Thursday, 20 October 2005 [1] From: Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 18 Oct 2005 23:40:43 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 16.1767 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice? [2] From: Kenneth Chan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 19 Oct 2005 08:42:56 +0800 Subj: Re: SHK 16.1767 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice? [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 18 Oct 2005 23:40:43 +0000 Subject: 16.1767 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice? Comment: Re: SHK 16.1767 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice? David Bishop believes "Shakespeare has not approved of taking revenge on the word of a ghost." Exactly. I feel the discussion is too narrowly focused on the crime of Claudius while overlooking the wider historical context within the play that Shakespeare emphasizes. To paraphrase Billy Joel, the fire didn't start with Claudius. Let me mount my hobby-horse one more time. Old Fortinbras is the Pompey of this drama, whose vengeful yet immortal spirit leaves his slaughtered body at the moment of death to infuse the newborn body of Prince Hamlet. Competing with this spirit is the Holy Christian Spirit of forgiveness and Providential acceptance entering that same body at baptism. This Holy Spirit is later buttressed by Hamlet's Wittenberg conscience. These two contending spirits comprise the young Prince's agonizing psychomachia, ending in the eradication of the Danish royal family and in the restoration of the Fortinbras line. All that's missing is the Old Ghost in his true identity of Old Fortinbras gloating over the dead at Elsinore. Regards, Joe Egert [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Chan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 19 Oct 2005 08:42:56 +0800 Subject: 16.1767 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice? Comment: Re: SHK 16.1767 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice? David Bishop writes: "The ghost calls Hamlet to revenge with the story of his murder. As far as there's any doubt about the truth of this story, it is dispelled, for Hamlet, Horatio and the audience, by the play scene. However, since no one else suspects a murder, since the Mousetrap is only a play, and since Hamlet's behavior plausibly explains the king's choler, no one else suspects Claudius of anything. The truth is now objective, but not public. For revenge, Hamlet only needs to kill Claudius. For justice, he needs public proof." The problem with this is that Hamlet actually does set out to kill Claudius after the play scene. He does not wait for public proof. When he encounters the King praying, Hamlet refrains from killing him because he is afraid the act of praying may save him from hell, as Hamlet clearly says in the text. It is not because of the problem of public proof. Later, Hamlet actually does carry out the act of killing, only he kills the wrong man. When he thrusts his rapier through the arras, Hamlet's intention is clearly to kill the King. He does not wait for public proof. Kenneth Chan _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.1778 Thursday, 20 October 2005 [1] From: Robert Projansky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 19 Oct 2005 06:47:54 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 16.1758 Sonnet 76 [2] From: Dan Decker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 19 Oct 2005 12:59:26 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 16.1766 Sonnet 76 [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Projansky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 19 Oct 2005 06:47:54 -0700 Subject: 16.1758 Sonnet 76 Comment: Re: SHK 16.1758 Sonnet 76 >Ben Alexander asks what does Sonnet 76 mean at line 7: > >"That euery word doth almost fel my name," Why does everybody seem to believe that's "tell"? In the online 1609 facsimile at http://www.shu.ac.uk/emls/Sonnets/e4v.jpg it looks pretty clearly to me to be "sel my name". "Sell" doesn't make much sense to me there, but from the four-line sentence in which it is embedded, I would guess that's a typo that was meant to read: Why write I still all one, ever the same And keep invention in a noted weed That every word doth almost spel my name, Shewing their birth, and where they did proceed? I think that's a better fit than "tell". Of course, I have no way to support my supposition except to say that "spell" there just seems more Shakespearean to me than "tell", I guess because "spell" is a verb more intimately involved with the act of writing, the purported subject of the poem so far, than "tell". In literal terms, I think "every word" has to be busier and cleverer to somehow "spell" the poet's name than simply to "tell" it. Also, I don't think WS wants the connotation of counting here, which "tell" brings with it. And I suppose (without being able to say why) a compositor's dropped-letter typo would be more likely than a substituted-letter typo. Now, if the error originated with WS or a scrivener rather than in the printshop, I think a dropped "p" hugely more likely than the erroneous substitution of an "s" for a "t". On the other hand, Benjamin Franklin, in his autobiography, says that when he was a printer's apprentice it was his job to fetch drink for the printers, that they said because it was heavy work for strong men they needed strong drink. I suppose it's miraculous that anything they printed ever made sense. And, of course, the t's and s's would have been right next to each other in the tray, so any sweaty compositor with his thirst well-quenched could easily have set an s for a t. Best wishes, Bob Projansky [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan Decker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 19 Oct 2005 12:59:26 EDT Subject: 16.1766 Sonnet 76 Comment: Re: SHK 16.1766 Sonnet 76 I believe it was Helen Vendler who suggested that 76 reads as though it is in response to something said to the poet (presumably by the person who has received the most sonnets (presumably the Fair Youth (presumably Henry Rosely <wink>))), along the lines of, "Why is it everything you write me is always the same? Sonnets, sonnets, sonnets! That's all I ever get from you." To which the poet wrote 76, basically dismissing the rag for his inability to understand just what the sonnets were. _______________________________________________________________ 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 16.1777 Thursday, 20 October 2005 From: David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 18 Oct 2005 19:24:34 -0400 Subject: 16.1763 Octogenarian Lear Comment: Re: SHK 16.1763 Octogenarian Lear I can't pretend that the Actors' Shakespeare Company is "mine," as Geralyn Horton suggests; as the name suggests, it belongs to the wonderful actors who make it work. I am happy to say to those in reach of Boston that the show has been extended for one further weekend, Nov. 4, 5, and 6, and that if you go to TheaterMania.com right away you might get a ticket. David Evett _______________________________________________________________ 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.