December
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 22.0346 Wednesday, 14 December 2011
From: Joseph Egert <
Date: Tuesday, 13 Dec 2011 10:06:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Ministering to Lady Macbeth, 2011
From the Knowledge Centre Tete-a-Tete series:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_3xUQY3AG0
Enjoy!
Joe Egert
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 22.0345 Tuesday, 13 December 2011
From: Hardy M. Cook <
Date: Tuesday, December 13, 11
Subject: Editor’s Observation
I have received of late several potential postings that I would classify as advocating “pet” theories, which I would define as getting an idea, in these cases, of a literary topic and then going to the work or works and finding evidence for that theory.
When I was an undergraduate, taught principally by professors who were in turn taught and trained by New Critics, the paradigm for publication and, therefore, for instruction was to advance an interpretation then through “close reading” demonstrate that that interpretation was more convincing than those that came before. While I was in graduate school, the paradigm changed. The resulting Post Modern, Post Structuralist approaches tended to eschew the implied certainty of “interpretation,” that is finding ultimate meaning, and instead took a more fluid approach, acknowledging the investigator’s role as a reader with a set of critical/theoretical beliefs and thus offering “readings” from those critical/theoretical positions. These approaches often described themselves as “deconstructive readings.” (Derrida, as we know, did not call his work a theory, instead, advocating that he was offering instead a way of reading.)
I could go on, but I will spare readers.
One of the reasons that I am uncomfortable with what I am describing as “pet” theories is that it seems to me that the underlying procedures are the same as those that result in advancing of this or that person as author of William Shakespeare’s plays and poems. Although I am not currently going to announce a ban on “pet” theories as I did with the so-called authorship question in the mid-1990s, I want to remind subscribers that I do not distribute all submissions and that I want to encourage submitters to recall that since 2006 I have encouraged that postings be interest only to the Shakespearean academic community (See my Borrowers and Lenders essay at http://shaksper.net/documents/doc_download/11-shaksper-academic-list or http://www.borrowers.uga.edu/cocoon/borrowers/request?id=781467).
I ask subscribers to consider this policy when making submissions.
Hardy M. Cook
Editor of SHAKSPER
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 22.0344 Tuesday, 13 December 2011
[1] From: Larry Weiss <
Date: December 11, 2011 7:15:35 PM EST
Subject: Re: SHAKSPER: Bio Son
[2] From: Ian Steere <
Date: December 13, 2011 5:26:42 AM EST
Subject: Biography in the Sonnets
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Weiss <
Date: December 11, 2011 7:15:35 PM EST
Subject: Re: SHAKSPER: Bio Son
The first line in the following post was intended as a quotation of the post I was replying to:
>Economists, of whom I happen to be one, are often sharp with each
>other, but they typically replace offensive language with aggressive
>argument
Does that include Paul Krugman?
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ian Steere <
Date: December 13, 2011 5:26:42 AM EST
Subject: Biography in the Sonnets
Now that input on this topic seems to have ebbed, I thought I should provide some feedback.
I estimate that around 250 members have accessed the article so far - some several times. Many thanks to each one of you for your interest.
A few members have sent me private comments. However, all but one of these were unrealistic and made from standpoints which would not survive in open forum.
Given the volume and quality of readership, I have been pleasantly surprised at the absence of refutation. One member openly objected that it was not falsifiable (and was eloquently countered by WS, himself!). Another said he was unconvinced. Neither demonstrated falsity or offered better explanations, despite the unusual breadth and quantity of challengeable data.
So far as I am aware, there is no other theory of the Sonnets which would stand up so well. For example, there are gaping holes in the constructions of those who opine that Shakespeare was responsible for publication, or that the poems were filched or that they were substantially fiction. However, I remain open to debate on the topic and continue to welcome reasoned comments thereon, public or private.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 22.0343 Tuesday, 13 December 2011
[1] From: Jim Ryan <
Date: December 12, 2011 11:16:18 AM EST
Subject: Re: TN Query
[2] From: Pervez Rizvi <
Date: December 12, 2011 6:08:52 PM EST
Subject: Re: SHAKSPER: SHK 22.0334 TN Query
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Ryan <
Date: December 12, 2011 11:16:18 AM EST
Subject: Re: TN Query
On the switching of scenes in TN Steve Sohmer might be interested in my essay, “Twelfth Night: A Scene Break at 3.4.263?” (Shakespeare Newsletter 50:1, Spring 2000). It suggests a rationale for both scene sequence and scene division in the play. I'd be glad to provide a copy to anyone interested.
Jim Ryan
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pervez Rizvi <
Date: December 12, 2011 6:08:52 PM EST
Subject: Re: SHAKSPER: SHK 22.0334 TN Query
John Briggs writes:
> I would argue that this is a mistake, and that it is just because the
>order is arbitrary (i.e. there was nothing forcing Shakespeare to use
>this particular order) that it represents a conscious authorial decision,
>which should be respected.
If arbitrary, then the scene order in the received text may just be incidental rather than intentional, and therefore nothing turns on the order in which we perform the scenes. But I agree with you because I think the order is not arbitrary. If we perform 1.2 first then 1.1 does nothing to advance the plot; this is because 1.2 has already told us what 1.1 tells us, that Orsino is in unrequited love with Olivia, who is mourning for her dead brother. But if we perform 1.1 first, then, although 1.2 repeats what we already know, it also introduces a new plot line, about Viola's lost twin brother, tells us how Shakespeare will bring the two plot lines together (by having Viola serve at Orsino's court) and therefore increases our appetite for what's to come. Shakespeare understood better than his modern interpreters.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 22.0342 Tuesday, 13 December 2011
From: Mark Alcamo <
Date: December 11, 2011 8:43:19 PM EST
Subject: Once More . . . Ironic Henry V
Earlier I asked if anyone knew of any references to the ‘male masturbatory’ language underneath and throughout the Henry V ‘Once more unto the breach’ speech. There weren’t any responses and I honestly hadn’t expected any because I believed myself to have done sufficient due diligence in my research of the Henry V commentary, while allowing as should be evident to all of us, no one can possibly read and digest it all. But more importantly, I believed if it had been spotted earlier, scholarship would have latched onto the significance of it. On my website, I term the speech ‘The Smoking Gun’ because not only has the King been caught red-handed, but because I suggest it should remove any doubt about whether Shakespeare is being ironic in Henry V; I believe with this revelation Humpty Dumpty has had a great fall. And as my thesis shows, the speech sets the tone and tenor for READING the entire play, where the ‘poetics’ underneath is unconscious to an ephemeral viewing audience - which is exactly both Shakespeare’s intent and point: ‘Stage’ (appearance) is one thing, (his judgment of) reality another. Few commentators would suggest Shakespeare ‘liked’ war, and most would agree he disliked it, but in Henry V we may experience he has quite intentionally become didactic in holding the mirror up to man's 'To Be-ing' nature latched to celebrating patriotic war (heightened patriotic and godly rhetoric), while he is being quite stunningly and profoundly ironic underneath with his oblique poetic comments. The very Genius of the Breach Speech becomes near-imponderable: the King is compelling his men to jump into this blood-spilling breach while Shakespeare has him simultaneously (covertly) spilling his own seed; not the sort of image we put on ‘Support Our Troops’ posters and bumper stickers. For those who haven’t checked on the validity of my observation on the Breach Speech, I have prepared a simple teaching aid, (attached). Simply print, fold at the line, and consider the rest of the explicit description and poetic imagery throughout the remainder of the speech. Much less to do with the eye of the tiger than the self-loving Act spelled out. And then Read him, again and again: And monarchs to BEHOLD the SWELLING SCENE ...
And regardless of people’s opinion of Shakespeare’s opinion of war, I also believe the Speech should take the appreciation of ‘Shakespeare’s words’ to a challenging new height. He has gone incredibly bawdy (filthy), without the usual sexual euphemisms, but simply (covertly) describes the act poetically; very much akin to Sylvia Platt’s ‘Metaphors’, but much, much more undeniably explicit. Additionally, you really have to give him the nod in how seamlessly he has intentionally misled his auditors, drawn the audience off his scent with the red herring ‘imitate the action of the Tyger:’ In this speech, he has clearly furrowed new ground with his poetic powers.
For those wanting to muse a bit more about the ramifications of such an interesting discovery in Henry V, I would like to pose a speculation. I have much more evidence in support of this hypothesis, but I believe this speech, and the play in general, are considerably beyond Censorable Material in Shakespeare’s time - to suggest a monarch's personal involvement in the battle is 'mirrorly' for such graphic self-gratification would have been entirely unthinkable, in the heads will roll sort of way. I am convinced this play was intentionally ‘hid away’ in the First Folio with the belief it would be uncovered at some later date - (unfortunately) a sort of hoax, regardless that all of us have heard enough about that aspect of the Mysterious William Shakespeare . . .
Happy Holidays,
Mark Alcamo
King. Once more vnto the Breach,
Deare friends, once more;
Or close the Wall vp with our English dead:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
In Peace, there's nothing so becomes a man,
As modest stillnesse, and humilitie:
But when the blast of Warre blowes in our eares,
Then imitate the action of the Tyger:
Stiffen the sinewes, commune vp the blood,
Disguise faire Nature with hard-fauour'd Rage:
Then lend the Eye a terrible aspect:
Let it pry through the portage of the Head,
Like the Brasse Cannon: let the Brow o'rewhelme it,
As fearefully, as doth a galled Rocke
O're-hang and iutty his confounded Base,
Swill'd with the wild and wastfull Ocean.
Now set the Teeth, and stretch the Nosthrill wide,
Hold hard the Breath, and bend vp euery Spirit
To his full height. On, on, you Noblish English …
Whose blood is fet from Fathers of Warre-proofe:
Fathers, that like so many Alexanders,
Haue in these parts from Morne till Euen fought,
And sheath'd their Swords, for lack of argument.
Dishonour not your Mothers: now attest,
That those whom you call'd Fathers, did beget you.
Be Coppy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to Warre. And you good Yeomen,
Whose Lyms were made in England; shew vs here
The mettell of your Pasture: let vs sweare,
That you are worth your breeding: which I doubt not:
For there is none of you so meane and base,
That hath not Noble luster in your eyes.
I see you stand like Grey-hounds in the slips,
Straying vpon the Start. The Game's afoot:
Follow your Spirit; and vpon this Charge,
Cry, God for Harry, England, and S[aint]. George.
[ Alarum, and Chambers goe off.]
(http://ironichenryv.com)