October
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0547 Thursday, 29 October 2009 [1] From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 2009 23:18:34 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 20.0538 Anagrams [2] From: Arlynda Boyer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 2009 17:26:28 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 20.0517 Wriothesley Anagrams in the Sonnets? [3] From: JD Markel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 2009 17:22:54 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 20.0538 Anagrams [1] ----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 2009 23:18:34 +0000 Subject: 20.0538 Anagrams Comment: Re: SHK 20.0538 Anagrams Steve Sohmer wrote: >This is Shakespeare's jibe at the great flaw in Pope Gregory's calendar. >Because, as you'll remember, in 1582 Gregory corrected the calendar by >removing ten days. Which returned the calendar NOT to the way it was >when Jesus was born ... but to the way it was when Bishop Eusebius and >the church fathers settled the date of the Vernal Equinox on 21 March. Well, yes and no. What the Council of Nicaea did what fix a formula for determining the date of Easter -- the Vernal Equinox had moved to 21 March independently of them and was to move backwards regardless of the their efforts. (They only assumed that the date of the Vernal Equinox was fixed.) It was Julius Caesar (remember him?) who had set the calendar on its course (although the Roman calendar only really came into line with the Julian calendar in 1 BC/1 AD), and whose efforts that Pope Gregory was correcting. There was a logic to returning the calendar to 325 AD: everyone accepted the Council of Nicaea, and there would be paradoxical effects to returning the calendar to 1 BC or 33 AD (the latter date -- or something similar -- being more relevant to the date of Easter.) On the wider question of Steve Sohmer's solutions to various nonsense words, he may be correct as to their origin but wrong about their significance (if any.) If Shakespeare did indeed generate the words in this way (taking anagrams of Latin words derived from any text to hand), it may just mean that his imagination needed a mechanical technique to generate nonsense. This would be surprising, but not impossible: he was perhaps using anagrams as a "lorem ipsum" generator. I have mentioned before my surprise at having invented a "Shakespeare Our Contemporary" who was a postmodernist (in postmodernism allusions which would have meaning in modernism have not meaning beyond themselves.) There may also be no significance to Shakespeare having taken characters' names in the play from the liturgical calendar for the period from Advent to Lent (an insight of Steve Sohmer's, I believe) or from John Florio's Italian dictionary (Keir Elam.) Keir Elam's not wholly satisfactory Arden 3 edition of "Twelfth Night" is unusually sound on the question of anagrams in the play: "Despite the unenviable fate of the steward, and despite the unflattering image of interpretation that the episode presents, the fustian riddle has proved an equally fatal attraction to the comedy's spectators and commentators, who, affected by a sort of mimetic syndrome, are tempted to 'become' Malvolio in the endeavour to unscramble the letters. Over the years interpretative speculation on the riddle has reached improbable heights of ingenuity." John Briggs [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Arlynda Boyer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 2009 17:26:28 -0400 Subject: 20.0517 Wriothesley Anagrams in the Sonnets? Comment: Re: SHK 20.0517 Wriothesley Anagrams in the Sonnets? It seems to me that neither writer was attempting to sneak in coding as scholarship. On the contrary, they seemed to be asking, "if we are intellectually rigorous enough to reject the anti-stratfordians' silly word games, are we also intellectually rigorous enough to reject such games when the answers affirm traditional scholarship?" Happily, the answer turned out to be yes. I think this incident only proves again the honesty and rigor of this listserv. Best, Arlynda Boyer [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: JD Markel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 2009 17:22:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 20.0538 Anagrams Comment: Re: SHK 20.0538 Anagrams Regarding Steve Sohmer's very interesting observations about the wordplay at TN 2.3.26-27. It strikes me Phoebus works here for "Queubus." Such would not be the first mangling of the name, see Bottom's "Phibbus" at MND 1.2.30. _______________________________________________________________ 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 20.0546 Thursday, 29 October 2009 From: Arnie Perlstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 28 Oct 2009 17:43:33 -0400 Subject: AYL: Rosalind and Orlando 4.1 "There appears to be some coherent design to Rosalind's lesson in Act IV, scene I. We notice a back-and-forth play between the shrewish, stand-offish woman and the playfully flirty woman, which may be meant to mark the progression of a courtship." I went to see the Troilus & Cressida production at the Globe this summer just past, and it was in watching it that I realized the strong resonance between the oscillating Rosalind in AYL 4.1 and the oscillating Cressida in T&C 3.2, in particular the following lines spoken by Cressida, which was acted amazingly and schizophrenically well by the actress who played her, channeling Steve Martin from All of You (or maybe Steve Martin was channeling Cressida?). Surely this is not an accidental resonance, but Shakespeare meant those who know both plays to see it and think about what it means: CRESSIDA Hard to seem won: but I was won, my lord, With the first glance that ever -- pardon me -- If I confess much, you will play the tyrant. I love you now; but not, till now, so much But I might master it: in faith, I lie; My thoughts were like unbridled children, grown Too headstrong for their mother. See, we fools! Why have I blabb'd? who shall be true to us, When we are so unsecret to ourselves? But, though I loved you well, I woo'd you not; And yet, good faith, I wish'd myself a man, Or that we women had men's privilege Of speaking first. Sweet, bid me hold my tongue, For in this rapture I shall surely speak The thing I shall repent. See, see, your silence, Cunning in dumbness, from my weakness draws My very soul of counsel! stop my mouth. TROILUS And shall, albeit sweet music issues thence. PANDARUS Pretty, i' faith. CRESSIDA My lord, I do beseech you, pardon me; 'Twas not my purpose, thus to beg a kiss: I am ashamed. O heavens! what have I done? For this time will I take my leave, my lord. TROILUS Your leave, sweet Cressid! PANDARUS Leave! an you take leave till to-morrow morning, -- CRESSIDA Pray you, content you. TROILUS What offends you, lady? CRESSIDA Sir, mine own company. TROILUS You cannot shun Yourself. CRESSIDA Let me go and try: I have a kind of self resides with you; But an unkind self, that itself will leave, To be another's fool. I would be gone: Where is my wit? I know not what I speak. Just in case we miss the strong resonance between AYL 4.1 and T&C 3.2, I just realized that Shakespeare made sure to underline the connection when Rosalind's virtually first words to Orlando are: The poor world is almost six thousand years old, and in all this time there was not any man died in his own person, videlicit, in a love-cause. Troilus had his brains dashed out with a Grecian club; yet he did what he could to die before, and he is one of the patterns of love." So we are being signaled here very explicitly that Rosalind is going to be channeling the love-schizo Cressida from there on in, and sure enough, Shakespeare delivers. ARNIE _______________________________________________________________ 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 20.0545 Thursday, 29 October 2009 From: David Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 2009 00:54:48 -0500 Subject: 20.0536 Gibert Shakespeare Comment: Re: SHK 20.0536 Gibert Shakespeare William Sutton wrote: >I have recently been searching for the truth behind this idea that >Shakespeare's brother Gilbert was a haberdasher. My next step is to >try and verify from the early records of the Haberdasher's company. > >Now Halliwell-Phillips searched the Coram Rege rolls of 1597 and >found a reference to Gilbert standing bail for a clockmaker of >Stratford, describing him as a haberdasher in St Bride's parish, >London. > >Then I read CC Stopes Shakespeare's Family who claimed that >Halliwell Phillips had erred and read Gilbert Shepherd's name in >place of Gilbert Shakespeare Stopes searched the Haberdasher Company >records and registers in St Bridget's and St Bride's as well as the >subsidy rolls. Then I find in Schoenbaum that Stopes is in error and >not a very good archivist and that a record does exist! Only he >gives no footnote or source for it. > >The Worshipful haberdasher company's archivist informs me that the >early records covering Bindings are incomplete (possibly due to the >great fire in 1666) eg bindings for the period aug 1596-nov 1602 are >missing. and in the case of the freedom registers these have >complete (less detailed) records, but its index is unreliable. I'm pretty familiar with the records of the various livery companies in the Guildhall Library, and have spent a fair amount of time with the Haberdashers' records there. The freedom register the archivist mentioned to you is Guildhall Library MS 15857/1, and covers the years 1526 to 1642. It was apparently compiled from another source, now lost. It is a chronological list of the men who became freemen of the Haberdashers during those years, with the date of each man's freedom and the name of his master (if he became free by apprenticeship). In the front there is an index that lists all the men alphabetically by first name (not last name), and chronologically within each first name. I looked for Gilbert Shakespeare in there a few years ago and didn't find him. However, that index is far from perfect -- in at least one case I'm aware of, it includes the name of someone who is not included in the chronological list of freemen, and I'm fairly certain that not all the names in the chronological list are in the index. The earliest surviving volume of apprentice bindings (Guildhall Library 15860/1) starts in 1583, and is not indexed at all. A few years ago, I spent a few hours looking through all the apprentice bindings from 1583 and 1584; I was mainly looking for apprentices bound by Richard Tarlton, but I was also keeping an eye out for Gilbert Shakespeare, and didn't find his name. If you really wanted to, you could look through those apprentice bindings for Gilbert Shakespeare's name (as a master), but it would be a long slog. The surviving Minutes of the Haberdashers' Court of Assistants also survive from 1583, the earliest volume being Guildhall Library MS 15842/1; it is also not indexed, so you would need to read through it looking for Gilbert's name. Guildhall Library MS 15868 contains the Haberdashers' yeomanry wardens' accounts from 1601 to 1661, which includes the last 11 years of Gilbert's life, but I haven't looked at that and don't know how extensive it is. Dave KathmanThis 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 20.0544 Thursday, 29 October 2009 From: Christopher Baker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 2009 16:59:58 -0400 Subject: Shakespeare for children? I have a friend who would like to introduce her 8-year-old to Shakespeare and is seeking advice on filmed versions of the plays that might be appropriate. Any suggestions? Thanks, Chris Baker _______________________________________________________________ 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 20.0543 Thursday, 29 October 2009 From: Will Sharpe <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 2009 16:14:19 +0000 Subject: New Jacobean Play [Editor's Note: Will sent me a post about a discovery he saw reported on the BBC, but after some investigation withdrew it until he could find more information. Martin Wiggins of the Shakespeare Institute expressed reservations to Will about the story as it was reported. I lost some of files, but here is a reconstruction. Hardy] From BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/8328899.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/mid_/8325759.stm A rare Jacobean manuscript of a play about women's liberation, which was found in a trunk at a castle, is expected to fetch