June
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 21.0242 Sunday, 20 June 2010
From: Larry Weiss <
Date: June 19, 2010 11:48:23 AM EDT
Subject: Middleton and Macbeth
For those who haven't seen it, there is a knock-down debate raging in the pages of
TLS between Brian Vickers and the Oxford Editors over whether or not Middleton had a
hand in Macbeth. Vickers had an article in late May supporting Shakespeare's sole
authorship and taking Gary Taylor to task. The Letters column in the following issue
included letters from Stanley Wells and John Jowett defending Taylor and attacking
Vickers, including on the ground that Vickers himself "deconstructed" Shakespeare in
showing that Shakespeare collaborated in other plays, as if that debarred him from
saying he did not collaborate on Macbeth. Vickers replies in the current issue.
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
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 21.0243 Sunday, 20 June 2010
From: John W Kennedy <
Date: June 12, 2010 10:44:23 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0237 War Stories
Comment: Re: SHK 21.0237 War Stories
From: Matthew Henerson <
>I'm ashamed to say that I can recall only my own indifferent performance in
>the Richard/Judith scene from Hay Fever-I've gone on to do plenty of
>Shakespeare and a good deal of Brecht, but nothing at all by Noel Coward
Coward himself remarked something to the effect that people thought that "Hay Fever" was easy
to perform, when it was, in fact, extraordinarily difficult.
John W Kennedy
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
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 21.0244 Sunday, 20 June 2010
[1] From: Bob Grumman <
Date: June 12, 2010 3:41:43 PM EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 21.0238 Hammond Edition of Double Falsehood
[2] From: John W Kennedy <
Date: June 12, 2010 11:08:33 PM EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 21.0238 Hammond Edition of Double Falsehood
[3] From: Stefanie Peters <
Date: June 14, 2010 1:38:43 PM EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 21.0238 Hammond Edition of Double Falsehood
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Grumman <
Date: June 12, 2010 3:41:43 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0238 Hammond Edition of Double Falsehood
Comment: Re: SHK 21.0238 Hammond Edition of Double Falsehood
Clark J. Hollway says, "If any genuine remnant of Shakespeare's voice can be found in <Double
Falsehood>, I thank the Arden editors for making it available to a modern audience." I thank them
anyway-for giving people like me a chance to form our own opinions on a play which absolutely
has some connection to Shakespeare.
--Bob
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: John W Kennedy <
Date: June 12, 2010 11:08:33 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0238 Hammond Edition of Double Falsehood
Comment: Re: SHK 21.0238 Hammond Edition of Double Falsehood
From: Peter Holland <
>And I, for one, am thoroughly delighted that a major scholarly
>edition of Double Falsehood is now easily available, an
>edition fully up to the high scholarly standards one expects
>of the Arden series.
And I am feeling no small relief, both that my little amateur effort is no longer
bearing the entire weight alone, and that it seems to have passed muster as an
interim edition.
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stefanie Peters <
Date: June 14, 2010 1:38:43 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0238 Hammond Edition of Double Falsehood
Comment: Re: SHK 21.0238 Hammond Edition of Double Falsehood
I have to agree with Peter Holland that the greatest thing about this new edition of Double
Falsehood is that it makes the play easily available to readers. Even just a year ago, when I was
researching Cardenio for my master's degree at University College London, reading Double
Falsehood meant a trip to the British Library, and so few had read it. That was probably a major
reason why so little attention has been paid to it before now, and so I'm glad that the new Arden
edition is fostering this kind of discussion.
In Hammond's introduction, I most enjoyed his discussion of Theobald's relationship with
Alexander Pope and Pope's role in branding the play a forgery from the start, all connected to DF's
place in Theobald's bid to be the next Shakespeare editor (replacing Pope) for the Tonson family. I
don't think the reviews of Hammond's edition have spent enough time considering about all this
new information Hammond presents.
I found than Rosenbaum, in his Slate article, recycled old arguments (cf. Harriet Frazier) without
reconsidering the play in light of Hammond's new evidence. I posted Clark's response on
MadShakespeare.com because I thought it did an excellent job of answering at least in part why
those arguments, in the end, fall apart.
Stefanie Peters
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
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 21.0245 Sunday, 20 June 2010
[1] From: Abigail Quart <
Date: June 12, 2010 5:20:39 PM EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 21.0239 Hamlet's Feminine Endings
[2] From: Abigail Quart <
Date: June 12, 2010 5:20:39 PM EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 21.0239 Hamlet's Feminine Endings
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Abigail Quart <
Date: June 12, 2010 5:20:39 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0239 Hamlet's Feminine Endings
Comment: Re: SHK 21.0239 Hamlet's Feminine Endings
With respect to Mr. Mueller, all the statistical analysis on the planet or the full
body of Stephen Jay Gould's writings on every other topic but Shakespeare will not
alter the effect of reading Sonnet 20. It's a gag. It's a joke. The joke is
emphasized by using FOURTEEN feminine endings FOURTEEN. That's the big fat cue that
something funny is going on. If Shakespeare were using FOURTEEN feminine endings
FOURTEEN without believing they were "feminine" endings or that his friends believed
it as well, there wouldn't be a joke. And one would have to seriously wonder why he
bothered.
I am also convinced along with Ms. Tarlinskaya that, due to the amazing and
brilliant work of so very many scholars, nobody in the 21st century does believe
that unstressed endings have anything to do with femininity. Dangling flaccid dicks,
more like.
Shakespeare, however, lived, worked, and studied in a different century. And he had
a rollicking good time with what so many are so eager to deny.
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: William Sutton <
Date: June 13, 2010 7:17:19 AM EDT
Subject: 21.0239 Hamlet's Feminine Endings
Comment: Re: SHK 21.0239 Hamlet's Feminine Endings
Hi,
I was hoping a renowned verse expert such as Marina Tarlinskaja would join the discussion.
Simultaneously disappointed at being pointed to difficult to access scholarly journals for further
enlightenment. (is there a rhetorical term for this hope/disappointment)?
The central argument here I thought was if there was a correspondence between feminine lines
and femininity in the 16/17thC. A metrically naive assumption apparently in the 21stC .
I did find Karel van der Mander's definition in his lives of Northern European Artists and indeed
he notes that it derives from French poetry and attaches no gender bias.
I do have Shakespeare's verse so I will re-read and search for the relevant passages therein for
enlightenment.
Prosodically yours,
William Sutton
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
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 21.0246 Tuesday, 22 June 2010
[1] From: John Briggs <
Date: June 20, 2010 1:00:17 PM EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 21.0242 Middleton and Macbeth
[2] From: Hugh Grady <
Date: June 20, 2010 5:37:10 PM EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 21.0242 Middleton and Macbeth
[3] From: William Godshalk <
Date: June 20, 2010 8:06:31 PM EDT
Subj: RE: SHK 21.0242 Middleton and Macbeth
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Briggs <
Date: June 20, 2010 1:00:17 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0242 Middleton and Macbeth
Comment: Re: SHK 21.0242 Middleton and Macbeth
Larry Weiss wrote:
> Vickers replies in the current issue.
Larry Weiss is a week behind: the issue in question is that dated June 11, 2010. The
current issue is devoid of this controversy!
John Briggs
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hugh Grady <
Date: June 20, 2010 5:37:10 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0242 Middleton and Macbeth
Comment: Re: SHK 21.0242 Middleton and Macbeth
In re the attack on Gary Taylor by Brian Vickers in the recent TLS, I submitted the
following post, which in the event was not published. It might be of interest to
some SHAKSPER members:
Sir--Shakespeare scholar Brian Vickers seems to be engaging in precisely the kind of
assertion of cultural authority he accuses Gary Taylor of in his unseemly ad hominem
attack on Taylor's theory of Thomas Middleton's hand in the version of Macbeth that
came down to us via the First Folio (May 28, 2010). Certainly there is plenty to
argue about in what is a highly speculative exercise on both sides, but Vickers'
attempt to discredit Taylor by accusing him of reviving the views of the Victorian
disintegrators is highly ironic, since Vickers himself long since joined their ranks
in his published views in Shakespeare, Co-Author (OUP, 2002). His (quite plausible)
arguments there that five plays of the accepted Shakespearean canon--Titus
Andronicus, Timon of Athens, Pericles, Henry VIII, and Two Noble Kinsmen--had second
authors is quite along the lines (albeit employing much more sophisticated evidence-
-Fleay relied exclusively on his own scansions) argued by several disintegrators,
including in part F. G. Fleay himself. Fleay and Vickers are in substantial
agreement on four of the five plays which Vickers, like Fleay before him, concluded
in his book to have had co-authors. They differ in this question only on Titus,
which Fleay considered entirely non-Shakespearean. The disintegrators had been
discredited by the Modernist generation of Shakespeare scholars from the 1920s to
the 1970s, who fervently believed in a stable text and single authorship for the
Shakespeare canon. But in the wake of the last few decades of a new kind of
disintegrative scholarship which has called into question the dream of a single
definitive text for every play and single authorship for several of them as well,
they seem much less wrong-headed than they once did, as Vickers should recognize.
Hugh Grady
Dept. of English, Communications, and Theatre Arts
Arcadia University
Glenside, Pennsylvania
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: William Godshalk <
Date: June 20, 2010 8:06:31 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0242 Middleton and Macbeth
Comment: RE: SHK 21.0242 Middleton and Macbeth
Larry, you might also have mentioned with praise Lukas Erne's review of Hugh Craig
and Arthur Kinney, ed. Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship in TLS
June 4, 2010. Erne writes: "As long no scholarly consensus is emerging, we may have
no better option than to rely in our own readerly judgement."
W. L. Godshalk
Department of English
University of Cincinnati
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
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.