========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 14:00:38 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0001 New Year's Greetings and More Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0001. Thursday, 2 January 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, January 2, 1996 Subject: New Year's Greetings and More Dear SHAKSPEReans, I would like to offer my best wishes to all of you for a healthy and prosperous New Year and ask for your indulgence in a very long posting of my own. SHAKSPER was founded on July 16, 1990, by Ken Steele and a group of thirteen or so interested Shakespeareans (including myself), many of whom had met at the 1990 Annual Meeting of the Shakespeare Association of America in Philadelphia. I became SHAKSPER's co-editor in February 1992 and editor in June of 1992. Despite the July founding date, our digest numbers follow the calendar year, so we are now entering our eighth year with approximately 1,250 members from thirty-one countries. If you will allow me a few moments, I would like to describe my work in bringing SHAKSPER to you and then to ask for your assistance on my upcoming Shakespeare Association of America seminar paper. I am currently a Professor of English and Interim Chair of the Department of English and Modern Languages at Bowie State University. Founded in 1865, Bowie State, an historically black institution, is a member of the University of Maryland System. It is a regional comprehensive university of more than 5,000 students, offering 20 undergraduate majors and 13 graduate programs with a graduate program in English that is under girded by Humanities Computing in its final stages of approval. Faculty at UMS regional comprehensives have a four course per semester teaching load; chairs have a fifty percent reduction. So I currently teach two courses per semester, chair the largest department in the School of Arts and Sciences, continue to prepare my edition of Shakespeare's *Poems* for the Internet Shakespeare Editions, produce four Table of Contents columns and the Summer Festivals List for *The Shakespeare Newsletter*, serve on a number of boards, and spend approximately one hour a day working on SHAKSPER. I also DO have a family, which includes my wife and teenage and three-year-old daughters. Most of my work for SHAKSPER involves preparing the digests, into which I group related messages. Each digest has a header and a table of contents. The table of contents includes the name and e-mail address of the person making the submission, the date of the submission, and the subject of the submission. I also lightly edit the submissions principally to keep a consistent look and feel. This light editing includes occasionally correcting typos, deleting emoticons and Internet-speak abbreviations, reducing signatures to the barest essentials, and so on. Many SHAKSPER files require regular updating: some daily, some weekly, some monthly, and other when needed. This updating of files is just one of the tasks of maintaining the SHAKSPER file server. SHAKSPER is not open to automatic subscription and prospective members are requested to supply brief autobiographies of themselves. Thus, another part of my work for SHAKSPER includes adding and deleting members and maintaining the biography and membership files. I also respond to personal inquires and attend to technical problems associated with running a listserv. One might reasonable ask why I spend so much time on these tasks. The easy answer is that I normally enjoy what I do; however, there is also the issue that the work is important to me because I have such low tolerance for unmoderated discussion groups and I am concerned with the product itself. My moderation brings to the membership organized digests with a consistent format, yet approximately once a year someone complains of the quality of some of the submissions. One such complaint arrived a few weeks ago and I will post it as the next digest of this year, but I want to add that naive questions from non-academics have provoked some of our most memorable threads. This meta-issue about the nature of the Conference poses a dilemma for me - the works of Shakespeare are appealing in ways that perhaps no other body of literature is. Thus, as much as I want SHAKSPER to be an exclusively academic list, many non-academics compose its membership. One way that I responded to my dilemma was to announce on Friday, April 26, 1996, my intention of forming a SHAKSPER Advisory Board (SHK 7.0320). At that time, I wrote the following: >I have been slow in making any changes in the manner in which SHAKSPER >operates, but circumstances are such that I now feel a change is in order. >I have encouraged diversity and inclusiveness; nevertheless, SHAKSPER was >founded as an "academic" conference and I still view it as such. Our current >membership of 1250 includes many Shakespearean textual scholars and >bibliographers, editors and critics, but it also includes professors and high >school teachers, undergraduate and graduate students, actors, poets, >playwrights, theatre professionals, librarians, computer scientists, and >interested bystanders. The variety of SHAKSPEReans has led to wide-ranging >discussion, but many have lamented the recent infrequency of the engaging >scholarly exchange that SHAKSPER was intended to cultivate. >I want SHAKSPER principally to be a forum for serious academic discussion >(especially since electronic alternatives exist) and to that end I intend to >establish a SHAKSPER Advisory Board. This board will be composed of from four >to six Shakespearean scholars from within its membership. >The purpose of the SHAKSPER Advisory Board will be to advise the editor > 1) On matters of policy affecting the entire conference, > 2) On resolving complaints, and > 3) On determining the appropriateness of certain posting. >A LISTSERV discussion group of its nature is different from a journal >(electronic or traditional) and peer-reviewed posting is not possible or >desirable; however, I do need advice from peers regarding issues that affect >the conference and particular posting that are questionable. On Tuesday, May 14, 1996, I announced the membership of the Board: Michael Best, Thomas Bishop, Edna Boris, Ralph Alan Cohen, Kurt Daw, Roy Flannagan, Phyllis Gorfain, Terence Hawkes, Dale Lyles, Cary Mazer, Michael Mullin, David Schalkwyk, and Raymond G. Siemens (SHK 7.0370). I have consulted with the Board on a number of occasions and have found the advise of the members extremely useful. What I would like to do now is to use the meta-issue - what is SHAKSPER for? - as an opportunity to gather information for my upcoming SAA seminar paper. I will be a participant this year in the "Politics of Electronic Texts" seminar. My abstract for my intended paper follows: >"The Politics of an Academic Discussion Group" >As the owner/editor/moderator of SHAKSPER: The Global Electronic >Shakespeare Conference, I am interesting in exploring some issues I have >faced in the past few years in my labors with SHAKSPER and their larger >implications. SHAKSPER is not open to automatic subscription, but I >generally do not turn requests for membership down. SHAKSPER is >moderated, but there are only a few topics that I have ruled off limits. >SHAKSPER digests are formatted and lightly edited, but I often wonder if >there are limits I should put on myself - in other words, is any editing an >intrusion on the medium itself. These and other issues are all related to >the larger issue I wish to explore: what academic currency does a >listserv such as SHAKSPER have - what place do the conversations in >an informal medium like a listserv have in the greater academic world? In terms of "academic currency," I know that many have used SHAKSPER discussions in teaching, in planning performances, and in scholarly papers. At last year's World Congress, the session on Characters was in some part inspired by SHAKSPER discussions and our discussions have also led many of us to recognize our critical diversity, especially our differing cross-Atlantic orientations. However, I would like to learn more by posing four questions and encouraging members to respond either through the list or personally to me (if you wish your response to be personal, please indicate so). What part if any has SHAKSPER had in any of your scholarly publications? What part if any has SHAKSPER had in your teaching? What part if any has SHAKSPER had in other areas of your professional life? What other parts has SHAKSPER played? I am genuinely not interested in "fan" mail, but I would like to hear from members and use those responses in preparing my paper for the SAA. Thanks so much for putting up with such a long post, and once again Happy New Year. Hardy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 14:04:07 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0002 Re: Last Lines of Lear Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0002. Thursday, 2 January 1997. From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 17 Dec 1996 17:36:26 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 7.0952 Re: Last Lines of Lear I know I risk causing great offence, but... Porter Jamison comments > I once read that Albany was assigned the lines [at the end of > King Lear] by some editors because he was > the character onstage with the highest rank-- so many of Shakespeare's plays, > and all of the other tragedies (as per my memory anyway) follow this general > convention. There is a complex editorial situation concerning the multiple early texts of the King Lear plays. Some on this list (eg Steve Urkowitz) have researched and published on this subject. Others, clearly, have only an amateur interest. Are we really still a viable conversing community? Michael Saenger raised this a while ago, and was lambasted for doing so. My comments at the time resulted in one list member attempting to engage me in off-list communication even after I made it clear this was not welcome. (S/he sent increasingly unpleasant comments after I declined the offer to converse off-list). I don't accept the argument that I can DELete messages I don't want, since I have to read them first. A really crude filter would be to have my email reader trash anything not from academic sites (ie *.edu or *.ac.*) but that would lose stuff from academics who also have private accounts. Shakespeare Newsletter Spring 1996 announces the SHAKSPER Advisory Board which has, amongst its stated purposes, "determining the appropriateness of certain postings". Is the posting I quoted appropriate to this list? If it is, I shall quietly leave since SHAKSPER is no longer the list I joined. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 14:26:09 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0003 Re: Film Suggestions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0003. Thursday, 2 January 1997. (1) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Tuesday, 31 Dec 1996 01:46:42 -0500 Subj: Re: Film Suggestions (2) From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Tuesday, 31 Dec 1996 12:07:17 -0500 Subj: Film Suggestions (3) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Tuesday, 31 Dec 1996 18:49:06 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 7.0982 Re: Film Suggestions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Tuesday, 31 Dec 1996 01:46:42 -0500 Subject: Re: Film Suggestions Not strictly a film suggestion, but the idea of a rewrite of ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA in which Antony is John Lennon and Caesar is Paul McCartney and Yoko is Cleopatra, circa 1969--the basic psychomachia is the same and maybe one could get one of those many Lennon actor imitators (the guy in "Backbeat") as an actor......chris stroffolino (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Tuesday, 31 Dec 1996 12:07:17 -0500 Subject: Film Suggestions I've always seen Johnny Weissmuller as King Lear. T. Hawkes (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Tuesday, 31 Dec 1996 18:49:06 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0982 Re: Film Suggestions Dear James Schaeffer, But Woody has too big of a libido to be Jaques---maybe he's better as Touchstone? (of course, I haven't kept up with his latest films--so maybe he's less sex-oriented than he had been and now more interested in cleansing the world than in being a sensuous as the brutish sting etc......cs ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 14:28:23 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0004 Branagh's Hamlet: A Report Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0004. Thursday, 2 January 1997. From: Norm Holland Date: Tuesday, 31 Dec 96 10:44:42 EST Subject: Branagh's Hamlet: A Report My wife and I were briefly in New York over Xmas. After buying a ticket a day ahead and standing in line, in the cold, for forty-five minutes just to get a seat, I was able to see the four-hour Branagh Hamlet. (A tip to those of you headed for the Paris Theater: run to the balcony.) As a reader- response critic, I'd like to report--in a purely personal vein. I thought it one of the best filmed Shakespeares I've seen, perhaps the best. I had thought no one could outdo Olivier's Hamlet, but this one seemed to achieve just that, even though it is far less elegant than Olivier's spare and stagy treatment. As always, I heard some old lines in new ways and found new intricacies to the play. I was moved as if I were seeing the play for the first time. The rest of the audience was hushed throughout, with small laughs at appropriate places. They gave spontaneous ovations at intermission and at the end. There were many parent-child combinations in the audience and some highschool kids on their own. The exit remarks I heard were all favorable and surprisingly intellectual. It is is, to be sure, very much a Hamlet of the 1990s, baroque, operatic, flamboyant, expensive. The setting is Blenheim Palace, roughly just before WWI, although the Ghost is in armor. Both the palace and the period seem to me to fit this overripe quality of the film, and, of course, they suit the language as well. The invasion by Fortinbras at the end is a full military coup and carries on Branagh's anti-militarist stance from his Henry V. The swordplay is Douglas Fairbanks-like, complete with chandelier. Yes, there are box- office stars in small parts, Billy Crystal, Robin Williams, Gerard Depardieu, but I thought they were directed with discretion, indeed, following Hamlet's recommendations for clowns. (I laughed with delight at Depardieu's Reynaldo.) The handling of the Ghost owes much to Don Giovanni. I spotted filmic hommages to Olivier's Hamlet, the famous still of Gielgud staring at Yorick's skull, Eisenstein's Ten Days That Shook the World. I spotted very few cuts, some rephrasings, and some of those based, I thought in the quickness of the moment, on variant readings. I felt the film techniques, even though very big, even overblown, did not fight with the language. Yes, there are surprising flashbacks, like Hamlet in bed with Ophelia, shots of Hamlet Sr., Gertrude, and Hamlet Jr. en famille, Old Norway chiding Fortinbras, Priam and Hecuba. Nevertheless, Branagh did not fall into what I feel is the usual pattern in filmed Shakespeare, for example, his own Much Ado, in which the camera is busy, then stops and language takes over, then the camera steps in again. Rather than alternating visual and verbal, Branagh has them working simultaneously. I felt the visual effects, even the flashbacks, gave the visual imagination something to work on while the verbal imagination was dealing with the language. Indeed, they would give a mind less familiar with the lines than a professional Shakespearean a way of reading them. Similarly, the close-up acting required in film never seemed to me to fight with the language for attention. I thought cinematographer and director were absolutely in tune. Faults? Of course. I did think the Fortinbras entrance was oddly read. In this version, his military invasion is cross-cut with the fencing, and I found that distracting. He is not a parallel to Hamlet, but a cold, militaristic brute, excessively so, in my opinion. I don't think it's necessary to say Hamlet slept with Ophelia (although Bill Godshalk's recent remarks on SHAKSPER about her abortifacient herbs give me pause). Jack Lemmon is very weak in his part. The final swordplay seemed excessive. I was not crazy about Kate Winslett's heavily permed Ophelia. Why is Osric killed? Should Polonius be shown whoring? To me these are minor faults, though, compared with the cinematography and what I found to be the superb acting of the principals. Branagh in particular is felicitously made up and cast. He does the great soliloquies with wonderful understanding and feeling. I was moved to tears--but then I always am. Jacobi's Claudius is a match for him, as is Christie's Gertrude. In sum, I think it is a staggering achievement, and I want to see it again and again, even if I have to stand in line another forty-five minutes. I won't say, in the current idiom, two thumbs up (up what?), but as I used to say when I was reviewing movies long ago for WGBH-TV, four stars. I would give it, as we did then, an Anatomy Reward for Best Picture, but, of course, most of the credit for that goes to the script. Best wishes for 1977! Norm Holland ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 14:36:00 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0005 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: WSBCD REVIEW Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0005. Thursday, 2 January 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, January 2, 1996 Subject: New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: WSBCD REVIEW As of today, SHAKSPEReans may retrieve my review of "The World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM." (WSBCD REVIEW) from the SHAKSPER Fileserver. This review appeared in the *Shakespeare Newsletter* (46.2, Summer 1996, 33-34) with some minor revisions. To retrieve this review, send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET WSBCD REVIEW". Should you have difficulty receiving this or any of the files on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, please contact the editor at . ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 15:48:04 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0006 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: NEH/Folger Institute Files Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0006. Thursday, 2 January 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, January 2, 1996 Subject: New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: NEH/Folger Institute Files As of today, SHAKSPEReans may retrieve a series of files produced in association with "The 1995-96 NEH/Folger Institute Teaching Shakespeare Through Performance" from the SHAKSPER Fileserver. "Teaching Shakespeare Through Performance" -------------------------------------------------------------------- These files are the product of the 1995-96 NEH/Folger Institute on Teaching Shakespeare Through Performance. PREINTRO TEACHING Preface and Introduction to this NEH/Folger Institute. MINUTES TEACHING Minutes of NEH/Folger Institute's sessions. RECIPES TEACHING Teaching Exercises. PROJECTS TEACHING Projects. To retrieve all of these files, send the following list to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu: GET PREINTRO TEACHING GET MINUTES TEACHING GET RECIPES TEACHING GET PROJECTS TEACHING Should you have difficulty receiving this or any of the files on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, please contact the editor at . ******************************************************************************* Preface: "The 1995-96 NEH/Folger Institute on Teaching Shakespeare Through Performance" During the 1995-96 academic year a group of sixteen college teachers participated in the National Endowment for the Humanities Institute at the Folger Library on "Shakespeare Examined Through Performance." Directors of the institute were Alan Dessen (University of North Carolina--Chapel Hill) and Audrey Stanley (University of California, Santa Cruz). It was organized by Lena Orlin (Executive Director of the Folger Institute at the Folger Shakespeare Library and now Executive Director of the Shakespeare Association of America). The institute met at the Folger Library one weekend each month for nine months. The program was funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities and by the Folger Institute. These rigorously scheduled weekends gave participants the opportunity to meet and work with a variety of distinguished visitors--teachers, scholars, actors, directors, and dramaturgs. The group also worked on individual and group projects and attended at least one performance each session. Records of this institute are now available from SHAKSPER. (Hardy Cook will issue instructions for retrieving them.) A public version of the records is available at the following website: http://www.tamut.edu/english/folgerhp/folgerhp.htm The website offers direct access all the information posted on SHAKSPER, and a few added extras. On behalf of the institute participants and leaders, I am pleased to invite you to visit the website or download our files from SHAKESPER. I am maintaining the website, so please address any comments or suggestions you have to me. Tom Gandy tom.gandy@tamut.edu. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 10:24:57 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0007 Q: Richard III, Lover Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0007. Friday, 3 January 1997. From: James Jung Date: Thursday, 02 Jan 1997 15:40 Subject: Richard III, Lover I recently saw "Looking for Richard" and you can add my name to the crowd of admirers. I suspect (and hope) it eventually finds its way into classrooms. The film does much to sweep away the intimidation of dealing with Shakespeare. I got a big laugh out of watching several scholars and actors describe iambic pentameter (De-dah, de-dah,de-dah, de-dah, de-dah) A question occurred to me, and I'm sure someone else has thought about it before, so I was hoping the list could add some perspective for me. At the very opening of the play, Richard attributes part of his evil planning to the idea that he is not made to play the lover: "But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks, Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass; I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty To strut before a wanton ambling nymph; ... And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover, To entertain these fair well-spoken days, I am determined to prove a villain And hate the idle pleasures of these days." However, one scene later he proves to be quite a lover with Lady Anne: "Was ever woman in this humour woo'd? Was ever woman in this humour won?" Has anyone ever considered this discrepancy or do we just write it off as necessary to keep the play moving? Thanks, jimmy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 10:46:14 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0008 The Annual Meta-Discussion Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0008. Friday, 3 January 1997. (1) From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, January 3, 1996 Subj: New Year's Greeting and More (2) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 2 Jan 1997 18:02:40 -0500 (EST) Subj: Mr. Egan's Remarks (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 02 Jan 1997 17:12:05 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0002 Re: A Community? (4) From: Rick Jones Date: Thursday, 2 Jan 1997 17:01:01 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0002 (5) From: Matthew Bibb Date: Thursday, 02 Jan 97 18:06:37 PST Subj: Re: Who gets in? (was Last Lines of Lear) (6) From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 02 Jan 1997 21:07 ET Subj: SHK 8.0002 Re: Last Lines of Le (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, January 3, 1996 Subject: New Year's Greeting and More Dear SHAKSPEReans, Thanks to all who have responded so far to my questions regarding SHAKSPER. I have decided not to share them with the list, except as they appear in my paper. The remarks have been very thoughtful and useful. Thanks again and keep them coming. Hardy (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 2 Jan 1997 18:02:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: Mr. Egan's Remarks I certainly hope Mr. Egan does not log off of this network; however much I may disagree with him on some points, he has a lot to offer. With regard to the quality of questions that come up on the network, it occurs to me that even in a purely academic setting, the degrees of knowledge and breadth of knowledge on a given subject shouldn't be assumed. The' last lines of Lear' is a case in point. The research done on the subject is on my bookshelf, but I have been frankly too busy with other scholarly and professional pursuits to read it. The other talking group I subscribe to, concerning stage combat, is a similar mixture of experts and performing artists, with a predictable mix in terms of knowledge. The results are very uneven, with questions sometimes being more basic or less stimulating than I would prefer. But when those threads of conversation emerge, I simply delete them pass on to the next, more interesting topic. Cheers, and Happy New Year Andy White Urbana, IL (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 02 Jan 1997 17:12:05 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0002 Re: A Community? Gabriel Egan raises an interesting question. If we are not all at the same level of preparation and learning, are we still a "community"? Do we all have to have the same knowledge in order for us to talk about Shakespeare--and our many other concerns? Are generalist not welcome in this discussion group? I assume that generalists might not have read Steve's book on the two texts of Lear and indeed may not have read both versions in the complete Oxford edition--or elsewhere. But back to "community." Do we really talk only to people who have attained our level of expertise? Aren't communities often made up of people who have varying levels of knowledge and many different interests? If we all knew and believed the same things, we certainly would have no questions to answer or issues to debate. And so we can all got quiet to bed. Yours, Bill Godshalk (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Thursday, 2 Jan 1997 17:01:01 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0002 This is not the first time I've scratched my head over one of Gabriel Egan's postings, but this time I'm truly baffled. The post he cites as evidence of the dumbing-down of the list (my term, not his) was, to my mind, far less "amateur" than many I've seen: to my mind, at least. And isn't that the key? We all have strengths (and weaknesses!) in different areas: some of us are primarily textual critics, others are theatre historians, others are actors or directors or designers. I once acted in a production of _As You Like It_ for a director who insisted that anyone who had not directed, designed, or acted in Shakespeare was by definition an amateur Shakespearean at best. Others might insist on publications in scholarly journals as evidence of "professionalism." Few of us could call ourselves "professionals" by all definitions. Nor am I convinced that those who know less about a subject than I necessarily have nothing to teach me. Moreover, virtually everyone who posts on the list with any regularity has, on occasion, been rude or petulant or vapid or opaque. I have, Mr. Egan has, at least a few members of the advisory board have. So? I would hesitate to describe myself as a Shakespeare scholar, but I have been a member of this list for several years at three different e-addresses. Mostly, I lurk. Occasionally, I participate more actively. Often, I delete messages without more than (or even as much as!) a cursory reading. Mr. Egan has contributed much to this list. I would be saddened to have him depart because he believes the list is not now as it once was. But I would also be saddened to feel that, as a non-specialist, I was no longer welcome to contribute to the discussion. If I am one of those whom Mr. Egan would prefer to exclude from the conversation, I am apologetic but unrepentant. I should stress that whoever continued to pester Mr. Egan with off-list messages after he made it clear he did not want to engage in a private discussion acted inappropriately. Finally, it is time once again for all of us to repeat our thanks to Hardy Cook, whose efforts remain impressive and largely under-appreciated. Happy '97 to all, Rick Jones rjones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Bibb Date: Thursday, 02 Jan 97 18:06:37 PST Subject: Re: Who gets in? (was Last Lines of Lear) On 1/2, Gabriel Egan wrote: >I know I risk causing great offence, but... Uh-oh.... Well, here's an interesting situation. Mr. Egan's comments, while potentially inflammatory, raise an interesting point. Who is Shakespeare for? I think (at least, one can only hope) that we would all be in favor of Shakespeare being exposed to as broad an audience as possible, the kind that would find the word "exposed" funny. (Huh-huh, settle down Beavis.) As someone who is not a scholar (although I have a degree, a small one) but an actor and director, I feel that I can both learn from and contribute to the discussions on the list. I may or may not have insights into performance and production of Shakespeare that purely textual researchers wouldn't, but I like the thought of having the opportunity nevertheless. On the other hand, Mr. Egan has a point. (yes, yes straddling the fence as always, bear with me) If the list is intended for scholarly inquiry only, then one should possess certain qualifications prior to admittance, and Mr. Cook's presence as moderator seems to support the argument that this is a moderated group that may refuse entry to anyone it damn well pleases. But Mr. Cook has said that he rarely refuses admittance, and one has to wonder where the line is drawn. I have a BA in English from a relatively respected institution, but not only do I not know who has the last lines of Lear, I don't give a rat's ass (The argument boils down to director's prerogative anyway). By Mr. Egan's standards, it would seem I should not be admitted to the group. (Thanks, Mr. Cook!) But despite this lack of knowledge, I may have insight into theatrical issues that could be useful to subscribers, and it seems certain that once you start cutting off voices, however uneducated, intellectual stagnation cannot be far behind. Besides, somebody might say something interesting someday (out of the mouths of babes and all that). I don't mean to flame Mr. Egan because I find his remarks interesting and certainly well-phrased. I just don't agree, partly for intellectual reasons and partly because I'd hate to get kicked out if Mr. Cook changed his policy. My $0.02.... Matt Bibb UCLA Shakespeare Reading and Performance Group (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 02 Jan 1997 21:07 ET Subject: SHK 8.0002 Re: Last Lines of Le Gabriel Egan and I disagree on a good many things, but I find his participation in the list stimulating, and I hope he won't pick up his bat and slouch off just because Hardy's advisors (who have, after all raised the threshold enough lately to fend off the more egregiously sophomoric inquiries and comments) agree that well-meant if relatively unsophisticated posts should be broadcast with the rest. I wonder at this in particular from a professed leveller (raiser?) like Egan: are some modes of elitism acceptable and others not? Should we as teachers not seize any and all opportunities to do our work in cases where our pupils have been only normally indolent and inattentive? Is our time so valuable that we can't afford 60 seconds a couple of days a week to identify and erase weak posts? Mellowly, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 10:50:17 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0009 Re: Film Suggestions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0009. Friday, 3 January 1997. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 02 Jan 1997 17:18:39 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0003 Re: Film Suggestions (2) From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 02 Jan 1997 17:21:07 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0003 Re: Film Suggestions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 02 Jan 1997 17:18:39 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0003 Re: Film Suggestions Terence Hawke writes: >I've always seen Johnny Weissmuller as King Lear. On my walk around the reflecting pool in Eden Park today, I decided that I want to see John Goodman as King Lear. I think Goodman would be able to show us the pathetic comedy of this play. Weissmuller would certainly have been good as Lear on the heath with "Boy" as the Fool. Would "Jane" be Cordelia? Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 02 Jan 1997 17:21:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0003 Re: Film Suggestions But Chris: That's the reason. I thought about Touchstone first, but it was too obvious -- and too removed from the central action. I'd like to see Woody cast against type, but in a role where he still tries to run everyone else's lives, while screwing his own up -- as usual. Jim Schaefer ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 10:53:31 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0010 Ideology Once Again Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0010. Friday, 3 January 1997. From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 02 Jan 1997 21:16:41 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0002 Ideology Once Again In our last discussion of "ideology," I suggested that we might wish to define what we (individually) mean by the word. Today I ran across a discussion of the word by James Kavanagh in Critical Terms for Literary Study, 2nd. edition, ed. Frank Lentricchia and Thomas McLaughlin (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1995). Kavanagh begins: "'Ideology' . . . embodies all the problems associated with the cultural complexity of language: it has a rich history, during which it has taken on various, sometimes contradictory, meanings" (306). He gives a brief historical sketch, and concludes with this definition: "'ideology' designates the indispensable practice--including the 'systems of representation' that are its products and support--through which individuals of different class, race, and sex are worked into a particular 'lived relation' to a sociohistorical project." To which I say, "Wow!" But isn't there a little problem of agency here? Who does the "practicing," and who gets "worked into" the "project"? And who determines who shall be the practicer and who the worked upon? Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 10:55:31 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0011 Re: Hamlet and Ophelia Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0011. Friday, 3 January 1997. From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Thursday, 2 Jan 1997 23:31:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Hamlet and Ophelia Recently someone commented on the abortifacient herbs named by Ophelia. I was reminded of the Guthrie Theatre production of _Hamlet_ years ago (in the early 1960s) when a pregnant Zoe Caldwell played Ophelia as pregnant. Sara van den Berg University of Washington ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 10:57:50 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0012 Re: Film Suggestions for Shakespeare Magazine Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0012. Saturday, 4 January 1997. (1) From: Jimmy Jung Date: Friday, 03 Jan 1997 11:51 Subj: Film Suggestions for Shakespeare Magazine (2) From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Friday, 3 Jan 1997 12:51:12 -0500 Subj: Film Suggestions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jimmy Jung Date: Friday, 03 Jan 1997 11:51 Subject: Film Suggestions for Shakespeare Magazine I'm in agreement with Gilad Shapira's suggestion that Titus Andronicus be made as a film; however, I'd like to see it in the hands of Wes Craven or John Carpenter, someone with "slasher-flick" instincts. jimmy "just-call-me-jason" jung (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Friday, 3 Jan 1997 12:51:12 -0500 Subject: Film Suggestions Dear Bill Godshalk. For Cordelia, Rock Hudson. T. Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 11:03:59 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0013 Re: Richard III, Lover Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0013. Saturday, 4 January 1997. (1) From: Mason West Date: Friday, 3 Jan 1997 09:59:41 -0200 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0007 Q: Richard III, Lover (2) From: Roy Flannagan 614 593-2829 Date: Friday, 03 Jan 1997 11:07:32 -0500 (EST) Subj: RE: SHK 8.0007 Q: Richard III, Lover (3) From: Carol Light Date: Friday, 3 Jan 1997 13:16:39 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0007 Q: Richard III, Lover (4) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Friday, 3 Jan 1997 17:44:18 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0007 Q: Richard III, Lover (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mason West Date: Friday, 3 Jan 1997 09:59:41 -0200 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0007 Q: Richard III, Lover James Jung wrote: At the very opening of [Richard III], Richard attributes part of his evil planning to the idea that he is not made to play the lover . . . However, one scene later he proves to be quite a lover with Lady Anne . . . Has anyone ever considered this discrepancy or do we just write it off as necessary to keep the play moving? I always considered Richard III's suit of Lady Anne a machiavellian step toward the consolidation of his political power. His rejection of wooing in general followed by a pointed courtship ironically underlines his sordid pursuit. -- Mason West mason@pobox.com (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roy Flannagan 614 593-2829 Date: Friday, 03 Jan 1997 11:07:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: SHK 8.0007 Q: Richard III, Lover Richard as lover He is a jolly wooer, and he is good at the rhetoric of it. Lady Anne is quite a challenge, following the coffin of her dead husband, whom Richard has had murdered. Richard is a competitive Cambridge debater, on the one hand, saying Give me any topic and I will score. And on the other hand he is a Satanic Machiavel who views love as a foolish weakness to be played with. Most women (not Margaret) are just pushovers to Richard, but then again most men like Clarence are as well. Richard uses the void in Anne's life to insert himself, and he is so powerful that there is no denying him. As a rhetorician he offers her a false dilemma, take up the sword or take up me, and she cannot bring herself to commit murder. Her feeble "To take is not to give" is one of the lamest excuses for giving in. That scene almost always works, even though it is outrageous. Roy Flannagan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carol Light Date: Friday, 3 Jan 1997 13:16:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0007 Q: Richard III, Lover I'm not sure there is a discrepancy -- who but a villian indeed would approach, pursue, and most likely overwhelm, a woman newly widowed? This seems to me an astute perception of the human condition: Richard woos Anne because it is indeed an outrageous thing to do; Anne responds because it is a weak, but understandable thing to find refuge from great sadness in flattery and safety from great danger in the attraction of a powerful man. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Friday, 3 Jan 1997 17:44:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0007 Q: Richard III, Lover James Jung's question is an interesting one; the best explanation I have found for the 'seduction' scene, if it can be called that, comes from Vanessa Redgrave. She points out that the political reality of the situation ensures that Richard's intended has no choice but to say yes. In her opinion, the scene is extremely difficult to play convincingly. If it is done well, as in Ian McKellan's version, Richard doesn't really win her over, but merely exhausts her defenses, and plays deliberately on her hatred of bloodshed. It is, in that sense, a psychological rape rather than a courting scene, in which she is forced to admit that she can't bear to kill him, and therefore is forced into consenting to his wishes. Richard's remarks afterwards can be read to say 'this isn't courtship, we all know it, but it works nonetheless, and that's enough for me'. If played in this way, it proves his earlier point about not being a lover in spades, and suits his brutal nature quite nicely. Andy White URbana, IL ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 11:09:29 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0014 Re: Branagh's Hamlet Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0014. Saturday, 4 January 1997. From: Cleveland Lee Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:32:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0004 Branagh's Hamlet: A Report Can anyone inform me whether a website is available for Branagh's Hamlet film? [Editor's Note: On Monday, December 23, 1996 (SHK 7.0969), Christine Mack Gordon identified the *Hamlet* site . I've been there a few times, and it is worth the trip. HMC] ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 11:12:05 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0015 Re: Tone of "Madam" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0015. Saturday, 4 January 1997. From: Jenny Lowood-Livingston Date: Friday, 3 Jan 1997 11:59:49 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 7.0942 Re: Tone of "Madam" While it seems clear that Hamlet would have referred to his mother appropriately as "Madam," this doesn't seem to me to preclude the sneering undertone. Anyone with children over twelve knows that they use polite terms dripping with sarcasm to demonstrate their contempt. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 11:23:31 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0016 The Annual Meta-Discussion Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0016. Saturday, 4 January 1997. (1) From: Mike Field Date: Friday, 3 Jan 1997 17:46:29 -0500 Subj: on-list discussion (2) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Friday, 03 Jan 97 21:56:29 EST Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 30 Dec 1996 to 2 Jan 1997 (3) From: Steve Neville Date: Saturday, 4 Jan 1997 08:48:22 -0500 Subj: Re: Gabriel Egan (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Field Date: Friday, 3 Jan 1997 17:46:29 -0500 Subject: on-list discussion I would like to suggest to Gabriel Egan and others frustrated by the level of discourse that perhaps the LISTSERVE medium is simply inappropriate for the model he desires. Rather than a journal-like discussion among peers, I think SHAKSPER is (and ought to be) a sort of giant classroom, team-taught by an amphorous pool of specialists. Hardy points out that the SHAKSPER membership is over 1,200. If the means of easy statistical analysis were available, it would be interesting to see who's talking and who's listening. My guess is that it pretty much follows a typical class: the majority never talk; of those who do, a substantial number talk only once or twice per year; of those who talk regularly (i.e. more than twice a year) the majority are the accredited professionals Gabriel Egan seeks, plus some outstanding students with less formal knowledge but ready intellect and keen insight. Like any class, there are some who have to have their say, even if we wish they didn't. And like any class, a lot of what's said is of little lasting value. I suspect a real-life transcript of Socrates' classroom had a lot more klunkers than Plato let on. Like any classroom, if the people who are doing the talking bore you or have nothing else to give, it's probably time to move on. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Friday, 03 Jan 97 21:56:29 EST Subject: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 30 Dec 1996 to 2 Jan 1997 "Shut up," he reasoned. Gabriel Egan suggests that amateurs disqualify themselves for our conversations 'cause they aren't up to speed. Well, lots of communities function that way, always have. Some of us may always have been slick, hip, _au courant_, and some may have fought or studied to get there. But as a dweller in the margins, practically since the first moments I can remember, I'm here to cheer for the amateurs, the newbies, and the naive. When I came into the thorny world of the textual bibliographers, my naive efforts were hooted at by the grumps. "W.W.Greg solved this problem in 1922 or 1936 ." But I kept talking, kept asking, and gained acceptance not from the "authorities" in the field (who still assail my work as self-deluded enthusiasm) but from the responsible amateurs, the non-bibliographers whose interests and readings led them to follow into neighborhoods of common experience. Many authorities have been immensely generous. G.Blakemore Evans for example encouraged and supported my work. David Bevington coaxed me along for years. I owe much to them, and to the community. Civil conversation with the enthusiasts, with the naive, with even the untutored, pays back part of that debt. Hey, didn't that Stratford guy, what's-his-face, come into the playground without an old-school-tie and with a crummy lunchbox? (Psssst! Let's not talk to him. He's not c-o-o-l.) Ever, Steve Uncoolowitz, SURCC@CUNYVM.CUNY.edu ps: The great innovation of the Shakespeare Association of America annual meetings has been the seminar system that allowed for the first time the "unconnected" folk to enter into the conversation of the discipline. Lots of sludge gets circulated, and a surprising amount of good stuff grows. That medium, as the e-mail extravagance as well, has enabled lots of folk to dance into the light. And if you want to not listen, don't. Not a big deal. But don't sneer at our dancing; Tybalt turns the festive world sour for so little gain. Come. Dance a little. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Neville Date: Saturday, 4 Jan 1997 08:48:22 -0500 Subject: Re: Gabriel Egan Gabriel Egan writes: >I don't accept the argument that I can DELete messages I don't want, since I >have to read them first. The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Sunday Times are the three English broadsheet newspapers which I read on a regular basis. The Telegraph carries a weekly column by Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber. He recently threatened to leave the country if the socialists win the next election. This may send me to the polling booth for the first time in over twenty years. The Guardian used to feature a column by David Mellor MP, whose rather sleazy lifestyle was exposed a few years ago. It now has a column written by Alexander Chancellor, whose views I also cannot abide. The Sunday Times carries a restaurant review column by Michael Winner, a film director who thinks that the best restaurants are those that accept his rather boorish behaviour, and woe betide any that fail to do so. The first point that I am seeking to make here is a relatively simple one. By Mr. Egan's argument, I should simply stop reading these newspapers, if I find so much to object to. Why don't I ? Because there is so much more in these papers that I either like, or is of some use to me. My solution is that I simply do not read those writers who I find so annoying. The second point is that there are, though I find it difficult to believe, people who actually like, and agree with, the above mentioned writers. The newspaper is not written simply for my benefit. Finally, why did Mr Egan not simply write in and challenge what Porter Jamison stated? I am an undergraduate student whose knowledge of Shakespeare is limited. I do not know which of the two are correct. If there is no debate, how am I to find out? I recently had an assertation of mine challenged on another list. I was shown to be wrong. I was quite happy about that, I learnt something from it. Mr. Egan, I hope you stay and contribute. But I hope you would show tolerance to those not as advanced as yourself. Steve Neville sjnevil@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:21:07 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0017 Re: Richard III, Lover Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0017. Monday, 6 January 1997. (1) From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Saturday, 4 Jan 1997 10:57:48 -0500 Subj: Re: 8.0007 Q: Richard III, Lover (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Sunday, 5 Jan 1997 02:55:57 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0013 Re: Richard III, Lover (3) From: Kathleen Brookfield Date: Sunday, 05 Jan 97 12:44:00 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0007 Q: Richar (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Saturday, 4 Jan 1997 10:57:48 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0007 Q: Richard III, Lover I don't think Richard "wood" Anne in the sense of sexual desire and romantic love but rather as a power ploy both emotionally and politically.Also even though he vocalizes that he is not made for womanizing I am not sure (typical male) that he REALLY believes it. I also loved "Looking" and took an Acting Shakespeare class to see it on the big screen. Pacino has always supported the tecahing of Shakespeare and has done much through his CHAL Productions (Out of Conn) to encourage it. Have you heard anything about a public showing of the 1912 R3? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Sunday, 5 Jan 1997 02:55:57 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0013 Re: Richard III, Lover Carol Light asks "who but a villain would approach....[etc.], a woman newly widowed?" Well, of course, the obvious link is Hamlet---Hamlet too, in his own way, asks "was woman ever in this humour won?"--but he casts Claudius rather than himself into the role. IS Claudius a villain? Well, yes-- but he's also a "product" of H's obsession (which itself may be to some extent to be the product of plays like "the murder of gonzago"). In other words Shakespeare in both plays asks the same question Carol Light does but in Hamlet he also asks "who but a villain would ASK whether one has to be a villain to woo a woman right after being widowed?" chris stroffolino (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Brookfield Date: Sunday, 05 Jan 97 12:44:00 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0007 Q: Richar I hope I am not going to regret jumping in on the message about Richard III as a lover, but the subject intrigues me so much, I cannot resist putting in my two cents. >Has anyone ever considered this discrepancy or do we just write it off as >necessary to keep the play moving? I have never thought of Richard's proposal to Ann as a discrepancy in his characterization. Neither is it proof of Richard's skills as a dissembler to "clothe" his "naked villainy". Nobody, except Ann, believes Richard is sincere and penitent. His speeches, before he proposes to Ann and after she leaves him, leave us in no doubt about his single-minded goal to wear the crown of England and to destroy all who might prevent him. The line, "I'll have her but not keep her long", kills all misconceptions that this is going to be a play about love and marriage. Richard is not the tragic hero of Aristotle, but Shakespeare's own tragic villain who constructs his own fate. However, there is evidence that the women also construct their own tragic fates. Ann seals her fate when she falls for his flattery. Richard's role as a lover is the first of many of his deceptions in using outward appearance and smooth words to hide his intentions. The play progresses through a series of Richard's deceptive roles: the lover, the unjustly slandered loyal subject, the saint, and eventually the good king. In every role he plays, Richard betrays those who give him trust, loyalty, or love. So the scene where he woos Ann initiates this series of deceptive roles to disguise increasingly horrendous thoughts and actions. Ann's belief in Richard, against her better judgments, is the biggest problem, for me. I have never thought of this scene as support for Richard's skills as a lover. The scene is more a questioning of Ann's lack of trust in her own convictions. Her acceptance of Richard, based on his flattery about her beauty and her belief that he is sincerely penitent, characterize her weaknesses more than they dramatize Richard's skills as a successful lover. Ann might be compared with with the aged Queen Margaret. The two queens seem to be at opposite ends of the active and passive pole. Shakespeare seems to have been intrigued with the character and role of Queen Margaret in these four history plays, so it is not out of order to see her character in terms of the series of events leading to The Tragedy of King Richard III. Margaret, when she was younger, was active in wars and as ambitious, greedy for power, and as cruel as Richard. Ann seems less inclined to action and is portrayed in a constant state of weeping and regret. When we compare the two queens in similar situations, we see that in the transition from the feudal Plantagenet times to the rise of the Tudor monarchy, royal women have lost what little power they might have had and become more passive in male power games. Ann accepts the role as a marriage pawn with less protest than Margaret did in an earlier time and place. Another reason for seeing Richard's proposal to Ann scene as more than something to move the plot. The "wailing queens" scene, later in the play, supports the idea that the women feel powerless in the wake of the unfolding tragic events. But Margaret's cynical speeches seem to imply that they have constructed their own fates. She is a reminder to the audience that revenge is no solution as the tragedies are only repeated in the next generation. Margaret's speech to Ann "Thou hadst a Clarence too,.."(IV.iv. 46) lists their similar tragedies. Neither Margaret's active part in war nor Ann's passive role in accepting Richard's words of love at face value help in averting tragedy, but Margaret's earlier attempts to do something about her fate contrasts with Ann's response to a similar situation. I loved that image, in the latest film of Richard III, showing Queen Margaret boarding a jet for France. Her final exit, not hiding in a hole to die, is in character with her life as portrayed in the earlier plays. She is strong character who seems to realize, in her old age, that she helped construct her own tragedies. So, in my view, this scene with Richard and Ann is much more than just an attempt to "move the plot" along. I have yet to see "Looking at Richard", so thanks for the reviews. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:25:27 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0018 The Annual Meta-Discussion Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0018. Monday, 6 January 1997. (1) From: Pat Dunlay Date: Saturday, 04 Jan 1997 10:13:59 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0008 The Annual Meta-Discussion (2) From: Porter Jamison Date: Saturday, 4 Jan 1997 09:07:34 -0800 Subj: Re: The Annual Meta-Discussion (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pat Dunlay Date: Saturday, 04 Jan 1997 10:13:59 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0008 The Annual Meta-Discussion At great risk of being lumped with the non-elite referred to in Mr. Egan's post. I take the plunge anyway. Actually, I read only the replies to Mr. Egan and deduced the original. I'd like to enter a query to anyone who has seen the production of Antony and Cleopatra at The Shakespeare Theatre in Washington. I was not happy with the portrayal of Antony as a near crazed paranoid, though the text can support such an interpretation - Enobarbus' description of "a diminution in our captain's brain," and " an old one [lion] dying. To empha- size that interpretation of Antony's end minimized the power of his love for Cleopatra to me. (Yes, I'm an aging Romantic!) It does support my theory that Cleopatra is really the hero of the play, but semms to assign that role by default. I think Shakespeare meant to do so more definitively. Cleopatra was also played with an emphasis on her fickle, almost silly in this production, nature. Helen Carey managed at the end to portray the power and elegance of her death, but rather than a growth in character, it seemed too abrupt. Any other opinions about this out there. My thanks to Hardy Cook for his hard work on this list. Happy New Year! Pat Dunlay (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Porter Jamison Date: Saturday, 4 Jan 1997 09:07:34 -0800 Subject: Re: The Annual Meta-Discussion While my comparatively inane question started Meta-Discussion '97, I'd like to state that it wouldn't've bothered me if my post had been rejected based on the academic level the discussion had achieved at the time of my submission. If I had replied immediately to the initial question ("Is this a mistake or a variant?"), my generalist reply would've likely gone unremarked. One of the great joys of SHAKSPER is its variety of levels and viewpoints, with threads about textual variants coexisting with those about acting philosophy (subtext) and others cataloguing students' reactions to ROMEO+JULIET. I would hate to see any of it go. I urge Mr. Egan to continue with SHAKSPER. In his desire to make the list stronger and more useful, he has my respect (if not my vote). Regards, P. Jamison ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:30:09 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0019 Re: Film Suggestions for Shakespeare Magazine Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0019. Monday, 6 January 1997. (1) From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Saturday, 4 Jan 1997 14:05:28 -0500 Subj: Film Suggestions (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 04 Jan 1997 12:17:21 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0012 Re: Film Suggestions for Shakespeare Magazine (3) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Sunday, 5 Jan 1997 02:45:18 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0009 Re: Film Suggestions (4) From: Rinda Frye Date: Sunday, 5 Jan 97 19:39:21 EST Subj: Weissmuller's Lear (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Saturday, 4 Jan 1997 14:05:28 -0500 Subject: Film Suggestions Sylvester Stallone as Jacques. Or Gabriel Egan. T. Hawkes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 04 Jan 1997 12:17:21 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0012 Re: Film Suggestions for Shakespeare Magazine Terence Hawkes suggests: >For Cordelia, Rock Hudson. And I say, a good Renaissance suggestion. Rock sure did look good in a dress, a masterly mistress. Yours, in the silly season, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Sunday, 5 Jan 1997 02:45:18 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0009 Re: Film Suggestions Dear Jim (Schaefer)--- I have not yet seen Godard's KING LEAR in which woody plays "the fool"----(allegedly a very cameo). Have you? (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rinda Frye Date: Sunday, 5 Jan 97 19:39:21 EST Subject: Weissmuller's Lear What a grand idea--Johnny Weissmuller as Lear. But I think Maureen O'Sullivan should be Cordelia, with Boy and Cheetah acting out their sibling rivalry as Goneril and Regan (not to mention the thrill of cross-gender casting). And the and the rest of the cast could be filled out from the teaming hords of anonymous natives and elephants on their ways to lost graveyards. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:32:08 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0020 Re: Ideology Once Again Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0020. Monday, 6 January 1997. From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 04 Jan 1997 22:47:11 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0010 Ideology Once Again Bill Godshalk writes >[Kavanagh] gives a brief historical sketch, and concludes with this definition: >"'ideology' designates the indispensable practice--including the 'systems of >representation' that are its products and support--through which individuals of >different class, race, and sex are worked into a particular 'lived relation' to >a sociohistorical project." > >To which I say, "Wow!" But isn't there a little problem of agency here? Who >does the "practicing," and who gets "worked into" the "project"? And who >determines who shall be the practicer and who the worked upon? Everybody does the "practicing". Nobody get "worked into" the "project" but rather everybody get "worked into" the "'lived relation'" to the "project" (as Kavanagh wrote). As for who determines the boundaries of the sets "practicers" and "worked upons", these are not determined by any person but rather by the definition. If you find a collection of individuals in a given lived relation to a given sociohistorical project, Kavanagh's definition tells you that the practices, including systems of representation, which are indispensable to them being in that given lived relation should be called ideology. If I write that "speaking is a practice through which individuals are worked into a 'lived relation' to a language", would you also have to ask who gets worked into, who determines the practicer, and who determines the worked upon? You might not like Kavanagh's definition, but its components are no more complex than my sample definition of speaking. (I don't think I'd defend either definition--but they are clear.) Gabriel Egan========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 13:32:32 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0021 Q: Kenny Meadows and Illustrated Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0021. Wednesday, 8 January 1997. From: Laurie Osborne Date: Monday, 6 Jan 1997 09:06:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Kenny Meadows and Illustrated Shakespeare Since the inquiry about Charles Knight's Pictorial edition yielded such interesting and useful responses, I thought I would ask if anyone knows of any criticism or analysis of the large illustrated Works of Shakspeare, illustrated by Kenny Meadows &c.&c. from roughly the same period. My interest in this edition and Knight's edition stems from work I am doing to expand a web essay written for last year's SAA. That essay on Hypertext criticism of Shakespeare (http://www.colby.edu/personal/leosborn/open.html) includes a section on illustrated texts which I would like to expand. Many thanks, Laurie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 13:41:49 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0022 Re: Ideology Once Again Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0022. Wednesday, 8 January 1997. From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 06 Jan 1997 11:47:16 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0020 Re: Ideology Once Again Gabriel Egan clarifies: >If I write that "speaking is a practice through which individuals are worked >into a 'lived relation' to a language", would you also have to ask who gets >worked into, who determines the practicer, and who determines the worked upon? > >You might not like Kavanagh's definition, but its components are no more >complex than my sample definition of speaking. (I don't think I'd defend >either definition--but they are clear.) Thanks for clarifying that point for me. I have a habit of separating "practicer" from the person or persons practiced upon. But what you are saying, for example, is that the practice of living links those who practice living to the project of living. As far as ideology is concerned, there is no way to separate the dancer from the dance. But how would you, Gabriel, define ideology? You tantalize us. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 13:44:45 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0023 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0023. Wednesday, 8 January 1997. From: Andrew Walker White Date: Monday, 6 Jan 1997 12:10:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Anecdote I was talking to a friend who attended one of the seminars conducted by Kenneth Branagh and Sir Derek Jacobi, when they had their preview showing in Washington, D.C. Mr. Jacobi (or is it Sir Derek? We colonials have no clue about these things ...) recounted that while filming the play-within-the-play scene, Branagh went through around 8 takes on his reactions alone: "do it angry", "do it bored", "do it mystified", etc. When Jacobi asked Branagh which take he would use, he got 'I'm the Director here, I'll decide which one to use', something to that effect. Since the film won't be opening officially for another few weeks, I'd rather hear what Branagh's final choice was. But I thought this amusing little story would serve as a good springboard for discussion. Pennington in his new book argues that Claudius' reaction to the play should be a blank, showing no guilt or awareness of guilt whatsoever. This argument is not new to me, but I have real problems with it. I'll withhold my arguments for now, but was wondering what sorts of reactions seem justified, given the text, in our member's opinions? (My only comment being that I felt Alan Bates' interpretation was by far the best). Cheers, Happy Twelfth Night Andy White URbana, IL ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 14:05:50 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0024 Re: Richard III, Lover Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0024. Wednesday, 8 January 1997. (1) From: Kezia Vanmeter Sproat Date: Monday, 6 Jan 1997 15:46:48 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0017 Re: Richard III, Lover (2) From: Christine Jacobson Date: Monday, 6 Jan 1997 14:39:52 -0700 Subj: Jimmy - January 3rd - Looking for Richard III (3) From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Tuesday, 7 Jan 1997 13:46:44 +1100 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0013 Re: Richard III, Lover (4) From: Laura Blanchard Date: Tuesday, 7 Jan 1997 09:04:11 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0017 Re: Richard III, Lover (5) From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Tuesday, 7 Jan 1997 12:55:42 -0500 Subj: Richard 111 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kezia Vanmeter Sproat Date: Monday, 6 Jan 1997 15:46:48 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0017 Re: Richard III, Lover A Voice from Naive Land: Kathleen Brookfield's comment on RIII wooing scene can also usefully be read in the light of the fact that the female monarch on the throne when the play was written was NONE OF THESE, but militantly unmarried. Thus the scene, besides being excellent theatrically, may have served in real life to validate Elizabeth's refusal to marry. Here again is Brookfield: << When we compare the two queens in similar situations, we see that in the transition from the feudal Plantagenet times to the rise of the Tudor monarchy, royal women have lost what little power they might have had and become more passive in male power games. [Here a contrast to Elizabeth I may have been intended and surely easy to perceive for contemporary audience. ] Ann accepts the role as a marriage pawn with less protest than Margaret did in an earlier time and place. [Here contrast Eliz I ] Another reason for seeing Richard's proposal to Ann scene as more than something to move the plot. [Yes, Absolutely!!!] The "wailing queens" scene, later in the play, supports the idea that the women feel powerless in the wake of the unfolding tragic events. But Margaret's cynical speeches seem to imply that they have constructed their own fates. >> Restraining myself from going on, but in general, the tragedies show weak women and the comedies strong ones, and it's no accident that most comic heroines start out with no fathers, or fathers exiled in the forest, or fathers who say, "Kate will choose her own husband." Small observation re. Lear: It's probably been noted that, a couple of centuries before Shakespeare, Francis of Assissi took his clothes off (according to a contemporary book of saints that fell into my hands yesterday) in public, as does Lear, in an effort to achieve honesty. Possible influence? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Jacobson Date: Monday, 6 Jan 1997 14:39:52 -0700 Subject: Jimmy - January 3rd - Looking for Richard III I noticed your query regarding what you perceived as a discrepancy between Richard III's statement that he was one too "rudely stamped" to play at love, or, at least, to be a lover and his later statement of amasement at winning over Lady Anne with his wooing. As far as I can discern from these comments by Richard III, Richard believed he had to play a game of life different from his contemporaries, because he saw himself and indeed I believe was perceived as, "unnatural". He didn't love Lady Anne, did he? He just conned her, as his statement of amazement reveals. Richard's wooing of Lady Anne was just a part of his "game" plan. Do you agree? Happy New Year to all members of SHAKSPER! Christine Jacobson (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Tuesday, 7 Jan 1997 13:46:44 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0013 Re: Richard III, Lover Discrepancy? What discrepancy? Richard says he is not shaped for sportive tricks nor made to court an amorous looking glass and cannot prove a lover in I,1. When his subsequent wooing of Anne (all the world to nothing) is successful he appears surprised, and insists on the improbability of what has happened. He then somewhat changes his tune about his appearance-- "I do mistake my person all this while: Upon my life she finds, although I cannot, myself to be a marvellous proper man..." and plans to buy the (amorous?) looking glass he has previously said he was not made to court. So no necessary inconsistency, merely some character development when something happens to him that has never happened before. Of course, a production may well choose to order these things differently. Adrian Kiernander University of New England (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laura Blanchard Date: Tuesday, 7 Jan 1997 09:04:11 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0017 Re: Richard III, Lover Al Pacino's commitment to increasing Shakespeare's accessibility is reflected in a viewer's guide and lesson plan to accompany _Looking for Richard_ developed by Youth Media International in cooperation with Fox Searchlight Pictures. The guide was mailed to members of the National Council of Teachers of English prior to a screening of the film and a presentation by Pacino and Hague at the organization's November 1996 conference in Chicago. Fox Searchlight and YMI have allowed the lesson plan to be adapted for the web and it can be viewed at the Richard III Society's web site section on the Pacino play. The direct URL for the lesson plan is http://www.webcom.com/blanchrd/lesson1.html This plan may not be to the taste of all SHAKSPEReans, but some teachers, especially at the secondary level, may find it a useful teaching tool. Regards, Laura Blanchard lblanchard@aol.com (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Tuesday, 7 Jan 1997 12:55:42 -0500 Subject: Richard 111 Virginia M. Byrne writes of Richard 111 'I am not sure (typical male) that he REALLY believes it'. Smashing! Now: does Lady Macbeth (typical female) REALLY faint? T. Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 14:12:49 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0025 Henry VIII at Stratford-upon-Avon Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0025. Wednesday, 8 January 1997. From: Michael Sharpston <105567.3210@compuserve.com> Date: Tuesday, 7 Jan 1997 17:36:56 -0500 Subject: Henry VIII at Stratford-upon-Avon For those interested in the outliers of the Shakespeare canon, the current production of "Henry VIII" is a must. It is rather rarely performed, and one is unlikely to see a better performance than the current one. The production opens with an Ooh!-inspiring recall of the Cloth of Gold and the famous painting. Henry VIII is the best drawn character, extremely well acted: warm, likeable, animal, horrifying. Anyone who feels they have suffered from corporate politics and downsizing must also feel somewhat humbled at the realization that court politics of that epoch was a game where people quite literally were for the chop. Equally, anyone who believes that "spin-doctors" are something unique to the 'new media' or even Americana has only to observe the way the play treats Ms. Boleyn (which does of course require a little care because she is mother to Queen Elizabeth). Cardinal Wolsey is a villain, perhaps with less interest and complexity than a great Shakespearean villain would have, but exceptionally well acted. I got a bit tired of Katherine being such a good queen and so forbearing, but in all likelihood the acting was first class, and there was no scope to do much else with the part. She was excellent about being unforgiving of Wolsey near the end. Overall, it is a splendidly tabloid period of English history, and fun to watch a portrayal of it with an excellent production and acting. There are the classic Shakespeare types of scene (although with no sub-plot, at least in this version, and no jester). But neither the language nor the ideas soar: no feeling of sequins tossed into the air to shimmer in front of the dazzled and delighted spectator. I'd definitely opt for it over Funeral Elegy though. An interesting option to see something not often available, and an entertaining evening. Michael Sharpston ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 12:02:47 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0026 Re: Film Suggestion; Fainting Lady Macbeth; Richard III Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0026. Thursday, 9 January 1997. (1) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Wednesday, 08 Jan 97 08:46:01 EST Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 4 Jan 1997 to 6 Jan 1997 (2) From: Satia B. Testman Date: Wednesday, 8 Jan 1997 15:58:49 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0024 Re: Fainting Lady Macbeth (3) From: Laura Blanchard Date: Wednesday, 8 Jan 1997 20:08:36 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0024 Re: Richard III, Lover (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Wednesday, 08 Jan 97 08:46:01 EST Subject: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 4 Jan 1997 to 6 Jan 1997 Film Suggestion: Eddie Murphy as Edgar the shape-changer in LEAR. (I'm thinking back to the Beverly Hill Cop movies where without electronic help he morphs from macho to fey to _dignitas_ in a moment.) Steve Urkowitz (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Satia B. Testman Date: Wednesday, 8 Jan 1997 15:58:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0024 Re: Fainting Lady Macbeth > Virginia M. Byrne writes of Richard 111 'I am not sure (typical male) that he > REALLY believes it'. Smashing! Now: does Lady Macbeth (typical female) REALLY > faint? > > T. Hawkes Of course Lady Macbeth really fainted. Her husband had just killed several men, not just the king. That wasn't a part of the plan. How shocking to discover the ease with which the man you love can kill. Of course she didn't really faint. She knew the Pandora's box she was opening. Her husband was still too weak to disseminate as well as she. Fainting is a temporary diversion designed to distract the others from her husbands guilt. After all, isn't this what makes drama so much fun? Interpretations. Layers of meaning. Director's vision. Actor's interpretation. Author's voice. Satia R. Testman stestman@pigseye.kennesaw.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laura Blanchard Date: Wednesday, 8 Jan 1997 20:08:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0024 Re: Richard III, Lover Apologies...the correct URL for the Pacino lesson plan is http://www.webcom.com/blanchrd/pacino/lesson1.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 12:28:02 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0027 Re: Multiple Takes, Branagh's *Hamlet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0027. Thursday, 9 January 1997. (1) From: John Cox Date: Wednesday, 08 Jan 1997 16:16:37 -0500 (EST) Subj: Multiple Takes in Shakespeare Films (2) From: Satia B. Testman Date: Wednesday, 8 Jan 1997 15:27:34 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0023 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* (3) From: Framji Minwalla Date: Wednesday, 8 Jan 1997 15:44:25 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0023 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cox Date: Wednesday, 08 Jan 1997 16:16:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Multiple Takes in Shakespeare Films I was interested to read Andy White's comment that Derek Jacobi reports up to eight takes on a single scene from Branagh's *Hamlet*. It reminded me of Ian McKellen's conversation with the audience after his movie of *Richard III* premiered at the Cambridge Arts Cinema last spring. Someone asked him how many takes were made of a typical scene in his movie and how much the final film therefore depends on the actors, as opposed to the director and the film editor. His reply was that very few scenes involved more than one take, because the film was on such a strict budget. He remembered that the very long scene where Richard, Anne, and Buckingham watch movies of Richard's coronation was shot twice, because the director was afraid of committing so much film without a back up. In the end, however, they used the first take uncut. For those who know the film, this reply is a stunning tribute to the quality of its acting. It was McKellen's first cinematic acting (as opposed to movies for television or videorecording), and he added (more modestly than my description can capture) that for an actor who only ever had one chance to do it right on stage, doing it right for the movies was no challenge. Cheers, John Cox (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Satia B. Testman Date: Wednesday, 8 Jan 1997 15:27:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0023 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* Dear Andy In my humble opinion, arrogance would be the response called for. I mean how arrogant can you get murdering a man then marrying his widow, etc. Of course he would recognize what the play's about, he is no fool. But he would choose to ignore it, seeth in silence, plot his revenge even as he toasts, etc. But then I may be completely off base on this one. Satia R. Testman (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Framji Minwalla Date: Wednesday, 8 Jan 1997 15:44:25 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0023 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* As Peter W. Ferran argued in a paper delivered many, many years ago at small Shakespeare conference, Claudius understands what Hamlet's up to immediately after the "dumb show." Many productions either cut this section or have Claudius distracted to make sense of his responses after "The Mousetrap." But there's no reason to think his cries represent a recognition at that point. What if he spent much of this time figuring out "how" to respond. This certainly makes the scene, and Claudius' subsequent confession, more interesting. It should be obvious that Claudius is by far the better plotter, and that Hamlet's attempts "to catch the conscience of the king" are clumsy at best. Framji Minwalla ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 12:33:32 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0028 Q: Line Length List Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0028. Thursday, 9 January 1997. From: Chris Stroffilino Date: Wednesday, 8 Jan 1997 16:03:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: Question---Line Length List One of the things I hear alluded to a lot, but that I've never been able to find in my years of interest in Shakespeare studies is the existence of a list of which characters have the most lines. For instance, I was told that the top three characters are Hamlet, Richard III, and Iago (tho maybe not in that order) and that Rosalind has the most lines of any female role--more than Cleopatra but less than Lear...but little else. Does anybody know of the whereabouts of such a list if one exists. Thanks, Chris Stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 12:35:29 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0029 Re: Ideology Once Again Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0029. Thursday, 9 January 1997. From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 9 Jan 97 01:55:52 GMT Subject: Re: Ideology Once Again Bill Godshalk asks for my definition of ideology which isn't the same as Kavanagh's, quoted by Godshalk as: "the indispensable practice--including the 'systems of representation' that are its products and support--through which individuals of different class, race, and sex are worked into a particular 'lived relation' to a sociohistorical project." The problem, which Godshalk's query about agency highlights, is deciding whether ideology is inside or outside each of us. Althusser's model is, for many people, too greatly concerned with the outside and, in particular, fails to acknowledge that ideology is constantly generated out of struggle rather than being a fixed force of determination. My parallel with language was not gratuitous. Language too is both inside and outside each of us: it operates through us. The 'lived relation' referred to by Kavanagh has a specific meaning which might not be obvious. The peculiar effect of western capitalist ideology is to present the world to me in the form of a subject, a person if you will, who addresses me as though my existence were indispensable. And, reciprocally, this 'world-subject' makes itself intelligible to me. I suppose that Kavanagh's definition might be defended as the general case: the ideology of slavery invokes a different 'lived relation' for the slave (one of utter dispensability). Likewise, "sociohistorical project" could be a generalization for what I call simply a mode of production. I'd always start with late industrial capitalism and then extrapolate from there, since the generalizations tend to lose people on the way. So, in brief, I'd rephrase Kavanagh's definition into this: "the practices--including the 'systems of representation' that are its products and support--through which persons of different class, race, and sex are made to brought into a 'lived relation' of subjectivity, intelligibility, and individuality with the late industrial capitalist mode of production." I substitute 'persons' for 'individuals' in the definition of the group operated upon, and add 'individuality' to the list of effects, because making me feel like an 'individual' is one of achievements of ideology. (It's not that I'm mistaken about my existence, but rather that my sense of self-worth is socially generated) Better, or worse? Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 07:47:18 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0030 Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap; Branagh's *Hamlet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0030. Friday, 10 January 1997. (1) From: Mark Mann Date: Thursday, 9 Jan 1997 13:04:29 -0500 (EST) Subj: Claudius and the Mousetrap (2) From: Norm Holland Date: Thursday, 09 Jan 97 12:40:51 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0023 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* (3) From: Ivan Fuller Date: Thursday, 9 Jan 1997 13:21:42 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0023 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Mann Date: Thursday, 9 Jan 1997 13:04:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: Claudius and the Mousetrap Many productions of Hamlet have Claudius rising in exteme agitation as the player King is poisoned, which sends the other attendees into chaos...Claudius shouts " Give me some light!" and sweeps off, sending Hamlet reeling across the stage in manic glee... The BBC production makes the moment much more powerful and focused. Claudius ( Patrick Stewart) rises, the play stops, he crosses to Hamlet in silence, in control, and they stand in front of each other for what seems an eternity, and the point is driven home that they have just looked into each other's hearts and both found true danger there. Claudius reaches back and quietly, without taking his eyes off Hamlet, says " Give me some light", a torch is handed to him, and he exits, still masking his private fears before the public. A much more powerful, tho admittedly cinematic, framing of the moment the " line in the sand" was drawn between them. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Thursday, 09 Jan 97 12:40:51 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0023 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* Re: Branagh's and Jacobi's remarks at a showing of the new _Hamlet_-- 1) It's Sir Derek, and well-deserved, IMHO. 2) My recollection is that Claudius is at first indifferent to the performance of the play-within; he is flirting with Gertrude, drinking, but as he catches on he gets angrier and angrier. Branagh did cutaways to the court audience to show how perplexed and nervous they were getting--they were evidently being told something, but what? Something very dangerous to think or know. I've always felt that Hamlet's speech, interrupting the play, destroyed any chance of an "objective" test of the Ghost's veracity or the King's guilt, and I thought that was particularly true in Branagh's film, where he delivered the speech, to my eye, as an out-and-out accusation. 3) Branagh's directorial tactic of having Jacobi "do it bored," "do it angry," etc., then selecting what he wanted on the editing table-- that seems to me excellent film technique. It's a classic illustration of the director's power over interpretation and theme, the _auteur_ theory if you will. I remember a film (was it _Revolution_?) about the making of a Revolutionary War movie in which the onscreen director bragged that he would change the outcome of the battle in the editing. The Kuleshov effect is relevant here, too. How we read Jacobi's face will depend, not just on Jacobi's acting, but on what shots the director splices next to that acting. --Best, Norm Holland (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Fuller Date: Thursday, 9 Jan 1997 13:21:42 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0023 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* Interesting directorial approach on Branagh's part, telling Jacobi to "do it angry," "do it bored," "do it mystified." It seems to me that if Jacobi and Branagh had thoroughly discussed the role, then Jacobi as King would simply have to "act naturally"...to do what anyone would do feeling the way he did, knowing what he knew and witnessing what was happening in front of him. To tell an actor to play emotions quite often leads to shallow, watercolor characters who don't really seem to know why they're doing what they're doing. I haven't seen the film yet, but from past Branagh films that I've seen, I am not surprised to hear that he tells his actors to play the scene using different emotions and then refuses to tell them which version he wants. Branagh and his co-stars often strike me as being surface-level performers who simply rely on technique, beautiful as that technique may be to watch. Ivan Fuller, Chair Communication & Theatre Dept. Augustana College ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 07:57:52 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0031 Re: Line Length List Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0031. Friday, 10 January 1997. (1) From: Don Rowan Date: Thursday, 9 Jan 1997 14:13:07 GMT-400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0028 Q: Line Length List (2) From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Thursday, 9 Jan 1997 14:19:51 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0028 Q: Line Length List (3) From: Rick Jones Date: Thursday, 9 Jan 1997 15:47:31 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0028 Q: Line Length List (4) From: Christine Jacobson Date: Thursday, 9 Jan 1997 16:30:32 -0700 Subj: Jan.9, 1997 posting - Character Lines List (5) From: David J. Kathman Date: Thursday, 9 Jan 1997 22:28:58 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0028 Q: Line Length List (6) From: John Velz Date: Friday, 10 Jan 1997 01:26:26 +0200 Subj: Length of Roles (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Rowan Date: Thursday, 9 Jan 1997 14:13:07 GMT-400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0028 Q: Line Length List Page 31 of the Complete Pelican Shakespeare (1969) should give you a start. Happy New Year! Don Rowan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Thursday, 9 Jan 1997 14:19:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0028 Q: Line Length List There are probably a number of places to look, but one that I've used is Spevack, M. *A Complete and Systematic Concordance to the Works of Shakespeare*. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1968. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Thursday, 9 Jan 1997 15:47:31 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0028 Q: Line Length List Chris Stroffolino asks about who has the most lines in Shakespeare. One problem, of course, is that no two counts will agree: someone will use Folio, someone else Quarto. And various folks will have various opinions about how to count prose lines vs. verse lines. That said, there is a "comparative analysis" in my old Pelican Shakespeare which lists the three largest roles in each play, with a line count for those over 500 lines. I have no idea by what means whoever created the list did so. In any case, by their count, those over 500 lines include: Hamlet 1422 Richard III 1124 Iago (Oth) 1097 Henry V 1025 Othello 860 Vincentio (MM) 820 Coriolanus 809 Timon of Athens 795 Antony (AC) 766 Richard II 753 Brutus (JC) 701 King Lear 697 Titus Andronicus 687 Macbeth 681 Rosalind (AYLI) 668 Leontes (WT) 648 Cleopatra (AC) 622 Prospero (Temp) 603 Falstaff (2H4) 593 Pericles (PPT) 592 Berowne (LLL) 591 Romeo 591 Falstaff (1H4) 585 Portia (MV) 565 Petruchio (TS) 549 Hotspur (1H4) 545 Claudius (Ham) 540 Hal (1H4) 535 Imogen (Cym) 522 Faulconbridge (KJ) 520 Juliet 509 Of course, these divisions are by individual play, not total. Hal and Falstaff would probably have the most lines if we were to look at the entire corpus at once. Rick Jones (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Jacobson Date: Thursday, 9 Jan 1997 16:30:32 -0700 Subject: Jan.9, 1997 posting - Character Lines List Try Penguin Classics "The Complete Shakespeare" or McDonald's "The Bedford Companion To Shakespere". There is a chart included in these text books indicating number of prose lines vs. rhyming verse and iambic verse Shakespeare usually uses. Pardon my terminology here, I'm a little foggy today and I don't have the text with me. Also included in the chart is a listing of the two char- acters in each play with the most lines and the number of lines they have. Salut! Christine Jacobson. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David J. Kathman Date: Thursday, 9 Jan 1997 22:28:58 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0028 Q: Line Length List Chris Stroffolino asked: >One of the things I hear alluded to a lot, but that I've never been able to >find in my years of interest in Shakespeare studies is the existence of a list >of which characters have the most lines. For instance, I was told that the top >three characters are Hamlet, Richard III, and Iago (tho maybe not in that >order) and that Rosalind has the most lines of any female role--more than >Cleopatra but less than Lear...but little else. > >Does anybody know of the whereabouts of such a list if one exists. The Spevack Concordance gives the number of lines spoken by each character (based on the Riverside edition), and I believe he even breaks it down into verse vs. prose lines. This info is given for each play, but I don't remember if there's a master list for all the plays taken together. Anyway, that's where I would look first. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Friday, 10 Jan 1997 01:26:26 +0200 Subject: Length of Roles A convenient place to see the longer roles in Shakespeare tabulated is in the Pelican Shakespeare frontmatter, 1969. I think other editions have similar tables. Pelican gives all characters who have more than 500 lines. It turns out that Portia has more than 500, more than 1/5 of the lines in *Merchant of Venice*. It is "her" play, not Shylock's, or even Antonio's. I remember once being offered the role of Duke Vincentio in *Measure for Measure* and turning it down after looking in the table in Pelican and seeing that it was (if memory serves--my Pelican is otherwhere at the moment) more than 800 lines, the fifth or sixth longest role in Shak. I was teaching three Shakespeare courses at the time and had a couple of dissertations cooking. I had to step (way) down to play Escalus, who does not get mentioned in these tables, but who was fun to play. The Duke has more lines than you would think likely for a character who is "out of town." Best wishes, Chris, John Velz ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 08:00:35 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0032 Re: Richard III, Lover Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0032. Friday, 10 January 1997. From: Christine Jacobson Date: Thursday, 9 Jan 1997 16:00:19 -0700 Subject: Looking for Richard III - Jimmy This is further to the January 8th postings on this topic - a topic which I must say, fascinates me. One question that comes to mind when looking over David Bevington's "Shakespeare" is the classifing this play as a Tragedy instead of a History Play. This play is listed as "The Tragedy of Richard III". In any case, this whole question regarding this scene of the wooing of Lady Anne and Richard III's perception of his own lack of appropriateness for loving and looking-glass looking is central to the classification of this play as a "Tragedy". Richard III, perceiving himself as "unnatural" takes himself out of the candicacy for normal human relationships and receiver of natural love. Psychologically, he is really, in fact, protecting himself from hurt, from emotional injury, is he not? He woos Anne so successfully, yet he does not really appreciate the strength of his verbal ability. He does not then recognize his own self as a real wooer and a real human being. This relates back to his statement about the looking glass. He really doesn't look at him self and appreciate his true power of persuasion, his ability to really make people love him and follow him. He really doesn't need most of his treachery to be successful. He doesn't have to play this game without reaping the benefit of love and devotion. This is profoundly ironic. At the end of the play his is spoken of as a brave and true warrior, fighting with courage and capable of our admiration. This is a hint of what really is underneath his ugly exterior and his ugly shaping of his own self. This motif of the "unloveable and unloving" figure is seen again in a later play, "King Lear" when Edmund has a transformation and change of heart and makes a somewhat redeeming attempt at saving Cordelia's life. He does this after seeing that Goneril and Regean's death has occured over the love of him. He states that he is finally loved, or at least knows that he has been loved. Perhaps because he has been loved, he can be loving. This is where I relate this motif to Richard III's psychological predicament and the resulting demise of his victims. The most recent Richard III film has a very sensuous interpretation of Richard's wooing scene of Lady Anne. In particular he takes his ring off of his finger with his mouth and places the wet ring on Anne's finger. OOO! Wow! I find an interesting parallel between Shakespeare's characterization of Richard III and the Canadian author, Mordecai Richler's character, Duddy Kravitz in the book of the same name. He is major "conner" who misses the point of his great charisma as it realates to possible gain in human relation-ships and subsequently, a happier kind of power. I'm sure most of you could explain this irony in Richard III with greater poignancy, but I hope you find the ideas here of some interest. Christine Jacobson @MHC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 08:02:59 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0033 Re: Shakespeare and Popular Culture Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0033. Friday, 10 January 1997. From: Christine Jacobson Date: Thursday, 9 Jan 1997 16:59:00 -0700 Subject: Shakespeare and Popular Culture - Patrick's Comments. The book I quoted this "neat fact" (thank you) from is a wonderful text on the subject of literature for children. Possibly one good topic for continuing discussion would be the interpretations for children of the works of Shakespeareand their appropriateness or inappropriateness. I think this has been brought up before on Shaksper, but as I am taking a children's lit. course, it would be of interest to me to start it again. However, I am obliged to relinguish this Shaksper account through this college (Medicine Hat College) in the next few days so I cannot pariciparte in further discussions. Thank you for your kind words and the poetry. (I don't recognize the passage and can't look it up as my text is not with me.) I believe the illustrator of one recent children's collection of Shakespeare stories is Keeping who also did the Beowolf illustrations for Sutcliff. I don't know the source for the Henry V pose Sendack uses in "Where the Wild Things Are". Salut! (Any children's stories that a mother would recognize off hand?) Christine Jacobson. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 08:05:13 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0034 Re: Ideology Once Again Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0034. Friday, 10 January 1997. From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 09 Jan 1997 22:03:36 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0029 Re: Ideology Once Again Gabriel Egan rephrases Kavanagh: >"the practices--including the 'systems of representation' that are its products >and support--through which persons of different class, race, and sex are [made >to] brought into a 'lived relation' of subjectivity, intelligibility, and >individuality with the late industrial capitalist mode of production." I put brackets around "made to" since something seems to be amiss here. Has something dropped out? Or should "made to" have been deleted? I certainly find this discussion helpful, and I hope I don't come across as tedious if I ask Gabriel to unpack a bit more his conception of "systems of representation." Thanks. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 14:43:00 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0035 Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap; Branagh's *Hamlet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0035. Saturday, 11 January 1997. (1) From: Harry Hill Date: Friday, 10 Jan 1997 09:17:46 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap; Branagh's *Hamlet* (2) From: Ed Bonahue Date: Friday, 10 Jan 1997 11:29:39 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap; Branagh's *Hamlet* (3) From: Timothy Reed Date: Friday, 10 Jan 1997 09:42:02 -0700 Subj: Branagh's HAMLET (4) From: Joe Shea Date: Friday, 10 Jan 1997 20:04:03 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0023 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* (5) From: Stanley D. McKenzie Date: Saturday, 11 Jan 1997 12:34:44 -0500 (EST) Subj: 8.0030 Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap; Branagh's *Hamlet* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Friday, 10 Jan 1997 09:17:46 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap; Branagh's *Hamlet* It does not lead to "shallow acting" when the movie director does several takes of different reactions in different moods. Film acting, as every actor knows, is augmented, altered, highlighted, focussed, backgrounded, etc., by director, editor, music, camera angle, lighting and other variable influences, rendering the art thoroughly a director's medium. Further, any actor worth his salt --and Sir Derek is worth many kilograms of it--can produce any "emotion" at any given time or ought not to be in the movies. As old Stanislavski said, "The chief secret of our art is to produce the desired emotion at the advertised hour." Further and perhaps most importantly, the multifarious facial and bodily responses invited of Claudius by Kenneth Branagh in his director's role are tiny and subtle. Sir Derek most likely did not have to move many of his muscles at all, but mainly put himself in the emotional state of guilt, surprise, or whatever, and camera and audience does the rest. If there ever were a medium in which un-performing encourages the interpretative skills of the audience, it is film. I think that most objections to Andy White's anecdote are based on the conventions of stage acting instead. A particularly delicious piece of Danish Blue such as *The Mousetrap* surely solicits a finely varied lot of reactions from Claudius, who has probably seen better plays anyway. Harry Hill Montreal (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Bonahue Date: Friday, 10 Jan 1997 11:29:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap; Branagh's *Hamlet* Regarding Claudius' reactions to the Mousetrap and why he sits there so long before interrupting the performance: There is a relevant convention in revenge tragedy by which the monarch, who is usually at the root of the revenger's woes, is the last to recognize the plot being hatched against him. The obvious examples include the kings in Kyd's _Spanish Tragedy_ and Tourneur's _Revenger's Tragedy_, both of whom are oblivious to the action taking place around them. The Mousetrap is different, of course, because it is a test of the Ghost's reliability and the king's guilt rather than a means to revenge. And Claudius, though he sits silently through the dumb show, finally does recognize Hamlet's purpose. But there are certainly revenge-play parallels for royal silence/inactivity/confusion, however temporary Claudius' may be. Ed Bonahue University of Florida (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Timothy Reed Date: Friday, 10 Jan 1997 09:42:02 -0700 Subject: Branagh's HAMLET For those in the conference unfamiliar with all aspects of the Internet, there is a public message base called USENET on which thousands of topics are discussed in different forums. Many forums deal with popular culture, especially television and movies. It is considered polite when discussing a film or show to include a SPOILER warning if the text of the article would give away a major surprise or the ending. So imagine my bemusement upon running across the following subject line Subject: Ending Of Branagh's HAMLET - SPOILER!! but as I pondered the humor, I realized there *are* some people who will see this film not knowing what the ending will be. We of the inner circles of Shakespearean knowledge often automatically assume that yes, of course everyone knows how "Hamlet" ends, and it is refreshing to step back and remember our excitement the first time we saw or read the play. So go and find someone who doesn't know "Hamlet" and treat them to an evening at the movies. (Or better yet, a live performance if one is in the area. This would be a perfect time to plug The Upstart Crow Theatre Company's upcoming performances of "Hamlet" in an uncut text...First Folio with First Quarto emendations...opening Feb. 28th in Boulder, Colorado. Info on the Web at http://www.serve.com/upstart) Timothy Reed The Upstart Crow Theatre Company Boulder, Colorado (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Shea Date: Friday, 10 Jan 1997 20:04:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0023 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* We are in need of an intelligent but accessible review of Branagh's "Hamlet." Any takers? Write to me for Copy Guidelines. Best, Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter joeshea@netcom.com http://www.newshare.com:9999 (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stanley D. McKenzie Date: Saturday, 11 Jan 1997 12:34:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: 8.0030 Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap; Branagh's *Hamlet* As usual, Norm Holland (my first professor of Shakespeare back in the early 60's) is right on target! By editing clips from Jacobi's different takes between the cutaways, Branagh creates a performance which Jacobi never actually gave as an actor. Stan McKenzie RIT ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 14:49:34 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0036 Re: Line Length List Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0036. Saturday, 11 January 1997. (1) From: Tom Clayton Date: Friday, 10 Jan 1997 08:51:48 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0031 Re: Line Length List (2) From: Jeff Myers Date: Friday, 10 Jan 1997 14:19:45 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0031 Re: Line Length List (3) From: C. David Frankel Date: Friday, 10 Jan 1997 12:16:22 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0031 Re: Line Length List (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Clayton Date: Friday, 10 Jan 1997 08:51:48 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0031 Re: Line Length List The problems of multiple-authoritative-text plays with their varying number of lines (and of course words) in modern editions set aside, word count is a more accurate reflection of the quantity of a character's dialogue than line length is. the multi-volume Spevack gives word counts for each character as well as line count. Cheers, Tom Clayton (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Friday, 10 Jan 1997 14:19:45 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0031 Re: Line Length List >Hamlet 1422 >Richard III 1124 >Iago (Oth) 1097 >Henry V 1025 >Othello 860 >Vincentio (MM) 820 >Coriolanus 809 >Timon of Athens 795 >Antony (AC) 766 >Richard II 753 >Brutus (JC) 701 >King Lear 697 >Titus Andronicus 687 >Macbeth 681 >Rosalind (AYLI) 668 >Leontes (WT) 648 >Cleopatra (AC) 622 >Prospero (Temp) 603 >Falstaff (2H4) 593 >Pericles (PPT) 592 >Berowne (LLL) 591 >Romeo 591 >Falstaff (1H4) 585 >Portia (MV) 565 >Petruchio (TS) 549 >Hotspur (1H4) 545 >Claudius (Ham) 540 >Hal (1H4) 535 >Imogen (Cym) 522 >Faulconbridge (KJ) 520 >Juliet 509 > >Of course, these divisions are by individual play, not total. Hal and Falstaff >would probably have the most lines if we were to look at the entire corpus at >once. Another complication is the problem of doubling. E.g., Posthumus from _Cymbeline_ doesn't appear on the list, but if you consider that this part is almost certainly doubled with Cloten, the combined number of lines is greater than Imogen's, who does appear on the list. I'm sure there must be many other examples. Jeff Myers (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Friday, 10 Jan 1997 12:16:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0031 Re: Line Length List Others, I think, have made this point at other times, but number of lines does not automatically equate to the part's prominence in the play as a whole. In MND, for instance, Theseus has the most lines, followed by Helena. But I think most audiences remember the lovers as a group but even more think of Puck or Bottom as the most prominent players. Silent characters may also make their mark, depending on how a scene is staged. So, in MND again, Hippolyta's role in the first scene may be quite a bit larger than her single speech indicates. cdf ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 14:55:47 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0037 Re: Ideology Once Again Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0037. Saturday, 11 January 1997. (1) From: David Evett Date: Friday, 10 Jan 97 12:10:28 EST Subj: Ideology (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 11 Jan 97 06:44:11 GMT Subj: Re: Ideology Once Again (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 10 Jan 97 12:10:28 EST Subject: Ideology >As for who determines the boundaries of the sets "practicers" >and "worked upons", these are not determined by any person but rather by the >definition. If you find a collection of individuals in a given lived relation >to a given sociohistorical project, Kavanagh's definition tells you that the >practices, including systems of representation, which are indispensable to them >being in that given lived relation should be called ideology. Gabriel Egan's explanation of Joseph Kavanagh's definition reaffirms the implication of Kavanagh's carefully chosen passives: ideology, in the Althusserian sense that dominates much theoretically oriented recent discourse, is a purely linguistic phenomenon, and as such the practically unconscious production of the participants in a particular language community. No American speakers or writers in particular are the agents who by their own willed acts are causing most other American speakers and writers to abandon the former Standard English distinction between the personal relative pronoun _who/whom_ and the impersonal relative _that_ in favor of an indiscriminate general _that_. It's just happening, despite the efforts of other American speakers and writers (like me) who are _trying_ to be the agents who by their willed acts (urging their students to hang on to the distinction) will reverse the flow. But the Althusserian view is based on an understanding of language that other thinkers have challenged (e.g. E. P. Taylor, Richard Rorty, Lars Engle): Bill Gottshalk's search for agency is an apparently unsophisticated expression of the same discomfort. My own unsophisticated view sees this problem. It is as it were Heisenbergian: at the moment somebody _recognizes_ an ideology, calls it that, maybe gives it a name, _de facto_ steps in from some place of linguistic Otherness and begins to participate, the ideology becomes susceptible to change. I like the analogy with the Real Ale campaign. A couple of very particular students at Cambridge, noticing that the all the big British brewers had begun standardizing and pasteurizing and Americanizing and otherwise denaturing their beers, began circulating mimeographed lists of pubs where you could still find cask-conditioned ale, mostly produced by smallish local breweries. The lists got copied and recopied, and eventually published, and ever more widely circulated, and pretty soon sales at those pubs went up, and the small breweries got bigger, and the bigger breweries took notice and went back to brewing and distributing at least some Real Ale, to the point where as far as I know nobody bothers to make and print the lists anymore because Real Ale is more or less ubiquitous. Eventually, in fact, the idea even reached this benighted country (USA), so that I don't have to brew my own beer anymore because I can buy good beer at an acceptable price in just about any bar or corner store. The issue, it seems to me, arises at the point where individual practicers become conscious of _choices_ among ideologies--Real Ale or Bud Light, _whom_ or _that_. Were those particular students who behaved in a way that seems full of agency merely as it were symptoms of some immense unconscious "sociohistorical project"? Or did they, nameless as they now mostly are (they deserve a place on the Honors List at least as much as Paulie, I opine), make a difference? When Hubert, in _King John_, chooses to honor the ideology of Christian Service rather than the ideology of Courtly Service, by disobeying the command of his king and patron and sparing his young prisoner Prince Arthur, is the choice a real one? Is he an agent as he makes it? Is it that at that point the chooser is only the creature of two or more ideologies rather than one? Of an ideology that values the appearance (but not the reality, which would contradict the theory) of choosing? Does Kavanaugh have an answer for this? Does Egan, who professes himself less than fully satisfied with Kavanaugh's definition, but has not so far offered one of his own? Ideoillogically, Dave Evett (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 11 Jan 97 06:44:11 GMT Subject: Re: Ideology Once Again Bill Godshalk emends >> "the practices--including the 'systems of representation' that >> are its products and support--through which persons of >> different class, race, and sex are [made to] brought into a >> 'lived relation' of subjectivity, intelligibility, and >> individuality with the late industrial capitalist mode of production." > I put brackets around "made to" since something seems to be amiss > here. Has something dropped out? Or should "made to" have been deleted? Yes, deleted. Thanks. > I hope I don't come across as tedious if I ask Gabriel to unpack > a bit more his conception of "systems of representation." Well, it's Kavanagh's term and I took it to mean language and mimesis. The English language, for example, both reflects and sustains the gender oppression necessary for modern capitalism. News media bring to me chopped and shaped pieces of information about the world beyond my everyday experience, and interpret them for me. Returning to the list-topic, Shakespearian texts are processed and fed to school-children in the (easily disrupted) belief that he's good for you and helps the formation of strong character, moral rectitude, and taste. Shakespeare's status as the pinnacle of Western culture is nothing to do with innate worth and everything to do with the articulation of ideas about self and society which are necessary to the capitalist mode of production. (It's not a question of 'are the texts inherently progressive or conservative?' but of the use-value of dramatic representations. The assertion that use-value is all, that texts have no innate worth, is the key to this kind of cultural materialist thinking.) You've teased enough out of me...what's your killer retort, Bill? I know you don't buy all this leftie stuff. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 15:00:38 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0038 Re: Shakespeare and Popular Culture (Children) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0038. Saturday, 11 January 1997. (1) From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Friday, 10 Jan 97 13:39:00 GMT Subj: Shakespeare as Character (2) From: Ron Dwelle Date: Friday, 10 Jan 1997 10:42:33 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0033 Re: Shakespeare and Popular Culture (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Friday, 10 Jan 97 13:39:00 GMT Subject: Shakespeare as Character The cartoon series _Transylvania Pet Shop_ (my four year old son's current favourite) has a villainous actor /director called William Waggledagger, who wears doublet and hose. He competes with the hero, Dr Zitbag, for the love of the twin Exorsisters. Lisa Hopkins Sheffield Hallam University L.M.Hopkins@shu.ac.uk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Dwelle Date: Friday, 10 Jan 1997 10:42:33 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0033 Re: Shakespeare and Popular Culture Regarding kids' stories, my children (ages 9 & 11) love a PBS afternoon show named _Wishbone_. Wishbone is a talking dog who takes part in re-creations of famous stories (like Tom Sawyer, Three Musketeers). I'm not tuned into it, but I've overheard Romeo and Juliet and the Tempest on the show. In the Tempest, the dog plays Ariel. I'm not sure who the dog plays in R&J. These shows are 30 minutes long and usually involve some "framing" action, so the portions of Shakespeare are obviously truncated--all of the Tempest in 22 minutes or so! ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 15:03:01 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0039 Re: Richard III, Lover Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0039. Saturday, 11 January 1997. From: S. Mulder <00ssmulder@bsuvc.bsu.edu> Date: Friday, 10 Jan 1997 10:39:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0032 Re: Richard III, Lover Avast! Bravo to Christine Jacobson, not only for knowing anything about Mordecai Richler but also for finding the parallel! Have you by chance read Richler's _St. Urbain's Horseman_, in which Duddy appears again, not at all as the main protagonist but having undergone a dramatic change in "life's direction," so to speak? S. Mulder Ball State University ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 15:05:14 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0040 Update to "Mr. William Shakespeare" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0040. Saturday, 11 January 1997. From: Terry Gray Date: Friday, 10 Jan 1997 10:34:04 -0800 Subject: Update to "Mr. William Shakespeare" I would like to announce a significant update to the web site: "Mr. William Shakespeare and the Internet". It now contains a new, html edition of _Tales From Shakespeare_, by Charles and Mary Lamb, and I have also expanded the criticism resources to include many new documents, including cross referencing to the scholarly and bibliographic works from the SHAKSPER archive (maintained by EMLS) and references to _Barron's Book Notes_ as well. The Lamb edition is at: < http://www.palomar.edu/Library/lambale/ >. The site's main page is at: < http://www.palomar.edu/Library/shake.htm >. The quickest way to find out what has been added is to visit the What's New page. If you have any suggestions for the pages, you may write me by using the email links provided, or by sending me mail off-list at: tgray@palomar.edu. Terry Gray Palomar College Library ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 11:03:17 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0041 Q: The earth has music Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0041. Monday, 13 January 1997. From: Ian Doescher Date: Saturday, 11 Jan 1997 16:50:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Q: The earth has music A friend of mine attributed the quote "The Earth has music for those who will listen" to Shakespeare, but does not know which of his works it comes from. Is she quoting him correctly, and if so, where is this quote from? Thanks in advance, Ian Doescher ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 11:19:19 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0042 Various Announcements Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0042. Monday, 13 January 1997. (1) From: Martin Elsky Date: Saturday, 11 Jan 1997 16:59:03 -0500 (EST) Subj: CUNY Renaissance Studies Conference (2) From: Daniel Meyer-Dinkgrafe Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 11:02:40 +0000 Subj: Call for Abstracts 1 (3) From: Daniel Meyer-Dinkgrafe Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 11:18:57 +0000 Subj: Call for Abstract 2 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Elsky Date: Saturday, 11 Jan 1997 16:59:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: CUNY Renaissance Studies Conference Dear Colleagues, I would like to announce a conference that may be of interest to Shakespeareans. The 1997 CUNY Renaissance Studies Program at the CUNY Graduate School is sponsoring a conference, "Early Modern Trans-Atlantic Encounters: England, Spain, and the Americas." The program is on our website, http://web.cuny.edu/dept/renai/conf/. By February we will have texts of papers and abstracts. (The format you will now see is being redesigned.) There will be an opportunity to post comments. The conference itself will be held in NY on March 6-7 at the CUNY Graduate School, The Spanish Institute, and the New-York Historical Society. It is being coordinated with events at the Renaissance Society of America Conference (Vancouver), the John Carter Brown Library (Providence), the Folger Institute (Wash DC), and the Hispanic Society of America (NY). Major speakers are Anthony Pagden (Hopkins), Sabine MacCormack (Michigan), and Sacvan Bercovitch (Harvard). Admission is free and the conference is open to the public. All are welcome. I would welcome suggestions about other listservs whose participants might be interested in this conference. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Meyer-Dinkgrafe Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 11:02:40 +0000 Subject: Call for Abstracts 1 The editors of Studies in the Literary Imagination have indicated interest in a special issue on *Consciousness and World Drama* They have asked me to provide a detailed proposal for such an issue. I am, therefore, now inviting abstracts for papers, which I would then include in my proposal. Publication might be as late as fall 2000, because the journal is scheduled through fall 1999. Papers collected in the issue would relate consciousness in its various aspect (ordinary and altered or higher states) to drama (as opposed to performance). Papers could focus on consciousness as portrayed in drama, as experienced by dramatic characters, dramatic techniques employed by dramatists in causing specific consciousness-related effects in readers/spectators. Different models of consciousness (Freud, Jung, neurophysiological, computer-based, Indian, etc.) could provide different answers to questions such as: what happens in the mind of the dramatist when he/she writes a play? what happens in the mind of the reader when reading a play (spectator watching a play)? Deadline for abstracts: 1 March 1997 I will prepare the proposal to the journal by March 15, and contact each potential contributor as soon as I have heard from the editors of the journal. All communication to Dr. Daniel Meyer-Dinkgrafe Department of Theatre, Film and Television Studies University of Wales Aberystwyth 1 Laura Place, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 2AU Wales, UK Fax ++44 1970 622831 email: dam@aber.ac.uk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Meyer-Dinkgrafe Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 11:18:57 +0000 Subject: Call for Abstract 2 The International Society for the Study of European Ideas, ISSEI, will hold its 8th International Conference at the University of Haifa, Israel, August 16 to 21, 1998. At this conference, I will chair a workshop entitled *Theatre and Consciousness: The Psychology of Performance* Some of the questions that might be discussed at the workshop include: What happens in the minds of actors while performing? Do they get involved emotionally? Do they identify with the characters they play? Do/can they experience altered states of consciousness, such as translumination? How do they wind down after a performance? What happens in the minds of spectators while watching a play? Do they identify with the character, or with the actor, or not at all? What is involved in catharsis, and who experiences it, first actor and then spectator, or only the spectator by whatever the actors do on stage? How do Western and non- Western approaches to one or more of these issues differ? What can be gained from an intercultural approach? 1 January 1998 Deadline for 1-page abstracts. 1 February 1998 my response to all those who submitted an abstract 1 June 1998 Deadline for completed papers, maximum 3000 words 50% of all conference papers will be published in the journal of the ISSEI, *The European Legacy*. For further details about ISSEI, see Internet page http://www- mitpress.mit.edu/jrnls-catalog/euro-legacy.html All communication to Dr. Daniel Meyer-Dinkgrafe Department of Theatre, Film and Television Studies University of Wales Aberystwyth 1 Laura Place, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 2AU Wales, UK Fax ++44 1970 622831 email: dam@aber.ac.uk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 11:24:48 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0043 Question about Resources Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0043. Monday, 13 January 1997. From: Susan Mather Date: Saturday, 11 Jan 1997 16:59:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Question about Resources I need help. I am trying to look up information about love in the renaissance--specifically between fathers and daughters, but parents and children will suffice. Everytime I've tried so far--I come up with books on women in the renaissance or erotic love, sexuality, etc. If anyone knows how I can go about finding this material or knows of any material out there on this subject--let me know--Please! Thank you in advance--smather@kent.edu--Susan [Editor's Note: There have been a number of requests recently regarding how to locate information from logs of past digests. I have been putting off responding because I am trying to get some information from L-Soft, the company that makes LISTSERV. Last year, a fall 1996 update of the Unix version of LISTSERV promised the porting in of the Database function and several of the other functions that are available on the "mainframe" version of LISTSERV. As soon as I get a response, I will answer those questions and announce any changes to the Conference. --HMC] ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 11:29:09 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0044 Re: Ideology Once Again Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0044. Monday, 13 January 1997. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 11 Jan 1997 18:09:45 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0037 Re: Ideology Once Again (2) From: Dale Lyles Date: Saturday, 11 Jan 1997 18:19:46 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0037 Re: Ideology Once Again (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 11 Jan 1997 18:09:45 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0037 Re: Ideology Once Again Gabriel Egan writes: >You've teased enough out of me...what's your killer retort, Bill? I know you >don't buy all this leftie stuff. Thursday night in class, one of my students told me that I have an open mind and actually ask questions without knowing the answers, i.e., without having a fixed answer in mind. He told me that I encourage open discussions among my students. So I decided to bring some of that liberal imagination to discussions on this list! I don't have any killer retort. I also do not believe in innate values. Everything is innately meaningless. We humans, however, apparently love to impose meanings and assert values. Each of us--and I've never met anyone who isn't--is a meaning-and-value maker. And, sure, Shakespeare's play scripts are given value and meaning when they are read and/or acted by humans. Otherwise they have no value or meaning. They do not lie on the shelves exuding cultural power and spontaneously "doing cultural work." And to call human cultural practices ideology is to impose meaning and value on these innately meaningless and valueless practices. They are basically random and without coherence. Let me give you an example: Last year, a young Indian Shakespeare scholar gave me her representation of what happened to her at the Frankfurt Airport. A German policeman had been cruel to her--in an unspecified manner--because she is an Indian woman. She told me that this story illustrates the dark currents of ideology. She gave this occurrence a value and meaning. Who knows why the German policeman did what he or she did? I too have been questioned and searched at the Frankfurt Airport. I did not describe (represent) that incident as ideological. And so I admit that I have a difficult time creating and imposing ideological values and meaning. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Saturday, 11 Jan 1997 18:19:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0037 Re: Ideology Once Again This is one of those naif responses from which Mr. Egan has so recently cringed, but I have a question: He says: "Returning to the list-topic, Shakespearian texts are processed and fed to school-children in the (easily disrupted) belief that he's good for you and helps the formation of strong character, moral rectitude, and taste." Am I correct in interpreting his stance as meaning that my refusal to use Shakespeare in this way, either at school or in my theatre, is an exercise in self-delusion, that the language itself will subvert my intentions to its own Satan-spawned imperialist agenda? Or is it his point that we must be on alert against the nature of the language and wrest it to our own purposes? Or is none of this pertinent to the discussion? This is not one of Bill Godshalk's sly Socratic questions; I am genuinely hopelessly out of my depth, which is exactly Mr. Egan's complaint. However, I just had a strange thought: if, as Egan claims, Shakespeare's worth derives only from his value to the sustaining of the capitalist mode of production, then would it not follow that alternative modes of production would have produced an equally "valuable" playwright? Again, I'm a provincial, but are there playwrights from socialist modes of production who have transcended that boundary across the globe in the way that Shakespeare has? True, socialist playwrights have been disdained by capitalist society, but that's my point: all societies seem to have found Shakespeare valuable, despite his lack of "innate worth." I keep trying to follow the "inherent capitalism" argument to its logical conclusion, and while it is obvious that we cannot help but be products/prisoners of our own language, at some point I lose the point. The extension of the argument does not hold for me. I am willing to listen to correction. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 11:35:36 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0045 Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap; Branagh's *Hamlet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0045. Monday, 13 January 1997. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 11 Jan 1997 21:18:07 -0500 Subj: Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap; Branagh's *Hamlet* (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 11 Jan 1997 22:30:57 -0500 Subj: Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap; Branagh's *Hamlet* (3) From: Dave Worster Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 09:03:00 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap; Branagh's *Hamlet* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 11 Jan 1997 21:18:07 -0500 Subject: Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap; Branagh's *Hamlet* Mark Mann writes: >The BBC production makes the moment much more powerful and focused. Claudius (Patrick Stewart) rises, the play stops, he crosses to Hamlet in silence, in control, and they stand in front of each other for what seems an eternity, andthe point is driven home that they have just looked into each other's hearts and both found true danger there. Claudius reaches back and quietly, without taking his eyes off Hamlet, says " Give me some light", a torch is handed to him, and he exits, still masking his private fears before the public. As I recall this scene, Claudius says, "Give me some light," before he walks over to Hamlet. He uses the torch he has been handed to examine Hamlet's face, then says, "Away," and walks out. Do I remember incorrectly, or is there more than one version of this scene? As I recall, there is at least two versions of the BBC Merchant. In one version, in Act 4, Shylock is forcibly baptized--his face pushed into the water--and then a huge cross is placed around his neck and he is pushed out of the court. In another version, this baptism is cut. Am I correct in this remembrance? Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 11 Jan 1997 22:30:57 -0500 Subject: Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap; Branagh's *Hamlet* Of course, the Mousetrap does not follow the ghost's story exactly. The murderer is the nephew--a fact not lost on many commentators. If Claudius is on his toes, that fact should not evade him either. As Harry Levin noted long ago, the Mousetrap is a threat directed at Claudius by young Hamlet. The fact that Hamlet has to intrude his own comments into the Mousetrap in order to get Claudius to move is again puzzling--if Claudius is watching a reenactment of his crime. Obviously, Claudius admits, in the next scene, that he "done it." But, as some commentators have asked, did Claudius do it the way old King Hamlet says he "done it"? Is the old king hiding the manner in which he was really murdered? Of course, there are no good answers to those questions. You can answer, "Nonsense!" But that doesn't make the questions go away. We don't know what is (hypothetically) going on in Claudius's head as he watches the Mousetrap. And we can't be sure that old King Hamlet is a truth teller. But we can argue that the Mousetrap doesn't prove Claudius's guilt--enough though we learn that he is guilty. Claudius may rise and leave because of Hamlet's implied threat. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Worster Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 09:03:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap; Branagh's *Hamlet* Harry Hill's comment regarding the distinction between stage acting and movie acting is right on target. As we discovered during an MLA session on performance criticism in December (three great papers given by WB Worthen, Clare-Marie Wall, and Miranda Johnson-Haddad), it is very easy for a conversation about *theatrical* performances to "bleed over" into one about cinematic performances (or vice-versa). But the two kinds of performances must be kept distinct; they are two very different kinds of animal. Stan McKenzie's comment that Branagh created a performance Jacobi never gave as an actor illustrates the dangers of applying the standards and conventions of stage performance to movies. If one applies a definition of stage performance to a movie performance, then NO movie actor has ever given one . Dave Worster UNC-Chapel Hill ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 11:37:47 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0046 Q: Winter's Tale Productions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0046. Monday, 13 January 1997. From: Jay T. Louden Date: Sunday, 12 Jan 1997 20:01:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Winter's Tale Productions Hello Shakespeareans, I am directing a production of The Winter's Tale for my thesis production at UC Irvine in March and am also involved in research for my thesis paper on the history of the play in production with particular focus on twentieth century productions. Does any one out there know a resource for articles or reviews of productions? Or have you seen any interesting productions in recent years? I am particularly interested in productions which highlight the spiritual nature of the play. My production will have a female 'goddess' figure who also plays the bear and Time. Feedback and information is very welcome. Thanks, Jay Louden jtlouden@uci.edu========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 08:53:53 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0047 Re: The Mousetrap Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0047. Tuesday, 14 January 1997. (1) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 11:44:02 -0500 (EST) Subj: Mousetrap (2) From: Jeff Myers Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 17:47:27 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0045 Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap (3) From: Thomas Bishop Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 12:35:49 -0500 Subj: Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap; Branagh's *Hamlet* (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 11:44:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Mousetrap Having been too busy packing for a move back east, I've let the conversation go on a bit before I could respond. Here goes: There is a tendency to deny that Claudius admits his guilt in this scene, and a lot of weight is given to Horatio's brief responses after Claudius departs. I find this conclusion strange and out of character with the rest of the play. These characters say what they mean, and vice versa. Horatio is clearly Hamlet's conscience, who questions him openly (on behalf of the audience) about his actions. If Claudius had not unkenneled his guilt in that play, Horatio would have been asking questions like crazy every time he and Hamlet talked together. Instead, we have Horatio expressing astonishment at the killing of R&G, and no questions at all about CLaudius' guilt or Hamlet's plan to revenge his father's murder. When Hamlet asks him, in the last scene, 'isn't it perfect justice to acquit him with this arm?' (pardon the mangled quote, my folio is in a box), all Horatio says is: It will be shortly known to him from England ... In effect, rather than advise Hamlet against revenge, he's advising him to do it, and do it quickly before Claudius finds out what else he's done. Pennington and many others write about Hamlet from Claudius' perspective, which I find useful as an acting exercise, a sort of devil's advocate position if you will, but I have yet to see how the lines in the text justify the position that Claudius is completely stone-faced at the play. As Hamlet says, all he has to do is 'blanch' and the guilt will be clear. The reaction doesn't have to be that strong, but even a subtle response of the eyes would give Hamlet and Horatio the answer they were looking for. Andy WHite Urbana, IL, for now (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 17:47:27 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0045 Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap >From: W. L. Godshalk >Date: Saturday, 11 Jan 1997 22:30:57 -0500 >Subject: Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap; Branagh's *Hamlet* >And we can't be sure that old King Hamlet is a truth teller. Does he appear in the play? Or do you just use "old King Hamlet" as shorthand for "the apparition that claims to be old King Hamlet"? Sorry. No wonder my students caim I'm too picayune. Jeff Myers (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 12:35:49 -0500 Subject: Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap; Branagh's *Hamlet* Bill Godshalk notes of BBC Hamlet: >As I recall this scene, Claudius says, "Give me some light," before he walks >over to Hamlet. He uses the torch he has been handed to examine Hamlet's face, >then says, "Away," and walks out. I recall precisely the same actions described to me as performed by Claudius in a production at the Guthrie either directed by or including (or both) Sir T. G. himself decades ago. Maybe the BBC got it from there. Or maybe it goes back even further. Anybody know? Tom ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 09:01:22 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0048 Re: Winter's Tale Productions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0048. Tuesday, 14 January 1997. (1) From: A.E.B. Coldiron Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 13:41:47 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0046 Q: Winter's Tale Productions (2) From: Steven Marx Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 11:34:18 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0046 Q: Winter's Tale Productions (3) From: Karen Pirnie Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 17:41:08 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0046 Q: Winter's Tale Productions (4) From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 00:07:17 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0046 Q: Winter's Tale Productions (5) From: Jurgen Pieters Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 08:18:56 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0046 Q: Winter's Tale Productions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: A.E.B. Coldiron Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 13:41:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0046 Q: Winter's Tale Productions Have you checked Dennis Bartholomeusz'z book, _Winter's Tale in Performance 1611-1976_ (Cambridge UP 1982)? A. Coldiron (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Marx Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 11:34:18 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0046 Q: Winter's Tale Productions In response to the query on Winter's Tale productions. I directed my graduate students in a December 1993 performance that took place in the San Luis Obispo Old Mission Church. The first three acts were performed in an austere meeting room; the fourth act took place in the mission gardens, and the final scene unfolded inside the sanctuary before the altar. You can watch and hear the statue come alive at if you have the time (about 10 minutes) and disk space to download the 3.7 Mgb file. If you want to save the quicktime movie after viewing it, hold down the mouse until a dialog box appears. Steven Marx (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Pirnie Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 17:41:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0046 Q: Winter's Tale Productions In reply to Jay Louden's inquiry about _The Winter's Tale_ productions, the Alabama Shakespeare Festival in Montgomery, Alabama, did the play last season. I was unfortunately not able to see it, but they have a web page accessible through most Shakespeare pages, and you could probably contact them for reviews. Karen Pirnie University of Alabama (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 00:07:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0046 Q: Winter's Tale Productions Saw a wonderful production of winter's tale at trinity Square Rep in Rhode Island two years ago...country and western! It worked. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jurgen Pieters Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 08:18:56 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0046 Q: Winter's Tale Productions In response to Jay Louden's request: one book you should really have a look at is Rene Girard's book on Shakespeare (Theater of Envy), in which Winter's Tale features prominently and is read from within a 'spiritual perspective' (whatever that may be) Yours, Jurgen Pieters ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 09:13:21 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0049 Re: Ideology Once Again Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0049. Tuesday, 14 January 1997. (1) From: Norm Holland Date: Monday, 13 Jan 97 16:04:51 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0044 Re: Ideology Once Again (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 13 Jan 97 23:57:48 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0044 Re: Ideology Once Again (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Monday, 13 Jan 97 16:04:51 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0044 Re: Ideology Once Again Re ideology: I'm surprised that no one in these discussions of ideology has brought in psychology. There is a lot of psychological literature about cognitive dissonance, how beliefs are held, how applied to events, how language is held in the brain, denial, and so on. I think it is unfortunate to discuss ideology entirely by means of philosophical definition and speculation when, as a matter of intellectual history, these questions have moved from the formulating domain of philosophy to the testing domain of psychology (as my old philosophical mentor, Charles Stephenson, might have put it). --Best, Norm Holland (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 13 Jan 97 23:57:48 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0044 Re: Ideology Once Again Bill Godshalk comments > [T]o call human cultural practices ideology > is to impose meaning and value on these innately meaningless > and valueless practices. They are basically random and > without coherence. You're missing the distinction between cultural practices and ideology. Culture practices are ALL the superstructural manifestations of an economic base. Ideology is only those superstructural manifestations of an economic base which are ESSENTIAL to the continuance of that economic base. > Last year, a young Indian Shakespeare scholar gave me > her representation of what happened to her at the Frankfurt > Airport. A German policeman had been cruel to her--in an > unspecified manner--because she is an Indian woman. She > told me that this story illustrates the dark > currents of ideology. One can't know why the policeman acted in this way on this occasion. One can notice, however, that the nation state, a phenomenon of industrial capitalism, must police its borders. Being nasty to foreigners is endemic to border police. I tend to agree with this Indian woman in finding such abuse ideological and not random. I expect a flood of protests now from border police who are also SHAKSPERians and who find that comment unacceptably general! Dale Lyles wonders about the lack of > playwrights from socialist modes of production who have transcended > that boundary across the globe in the way that Shakespeare has? Drama was mass media in early modern London, so perhaps we'd need to look for a artist in another medium. Eisenstein, maybe? More importantly, of course, the capitalist mode of production has spread across the world. Socialist production has had nothing like the same success. Am I right in thinking that the Russian writers most valued across the world are those from the pre-revolutionary period of the late nineteenth century? Early modern London can also be seen as a pre-revolutionary period. Could it be that the writings produced just prior to major upheavals reflect the fractures and self-contradictions in a collapsing ideology, and so these texts appear to contain questions of great pertinence to those living under the succeeding ideology? Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 09:21:29 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0050 Re: Shakespeare and Popular Culture (Children) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0050. Tuesday, 14 January 1997. (1) From: Christine Jacobson Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 16:47:34 -0700 Subj: Children's Shakespeare (2) From: Christine Jacobson Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 16:32:40 -0700 Subj: My final posting - regards S.Mulder, Dave Evett, (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Jacobson Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 16:47:34 -0700 Subject: Children's Shakespeare Terry Gray's comments regarding Children's Literature commencing around 1744 reminded me of something we were taught in Children's Lit class - re Newbury's Book Selling Shop adjacent to St. Paul's Cathedral in London in the mid 1700's. Apparently he was supposed to be one of the first publishers and writers of stories for children that were specifically for amusement and not didactic religous or "manners" books. I have heard of Mary and Charles Lamb's interpretation of Shakespeare for Children. Has anyone here heard of Searle and Willan's "Complete Molesworth" and the chapter on "How to be A Good Elizabethan"? It's amusing. I can't remember the title of Shakespeare's childrens' stories for children illustrated by Charles Keeping. The illus- trations are excellent and contribute to the value of that volume. Maybe Palomar College Library has a reference through the artist. Also to S. Mulder - I was given Nigeo Marsh as the name of an author that wrote mystery stories using Shakespeare's plays as plot lines. (Please pardon my terrible spelling in my posting submissions.) Christine Jacobson. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Jacobson Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 16:32:40 -0700 Subject: My final posting - regards S.Mulder, Dave Evett, Lisa Hopkins and Ron dwelle mentioned pop cultural sources and Shakespearean influence. These cartoon references are neat. Also, Seinfield's sit com is a ubiquitous portion of our cable system here in Alberta, Canada and ocassionally he refers to Shakespeare's characters' dialogue - "Just like the Montagues and the Capulets...." and more. I really wish I had been able to participate regarding advertising and evidence ofShakespeare as I sell promotional advertising products to businesses and could have used some nifty ideas. Dave Evett's Shakespeare and Ideology and public taste's infl. on method of Beer brewing in "jolly old" is something I printed out for my husband who makes frequent trips across the pond. Yes, S. Mulder, I've become accustomed to Mordecai Richler as one of Canada's cultural icons. I read his first novel "A choice of enemies" - very Checkovianesque, ennui, type of love story and have started St. Urbains but only got into it a few pages - now I will attempt it again after reading your comments. To get this back to Shakespeare - my prof. suggested reading a book called "One Thousand Acres", a takeoff on King Lear. It proposes that Lear's daughters behaved the way they did because they were traumatized by incest. Also this could be interesting reading. Salut a Tous! This is such a neat group. - Oh, possibly someone looking for family relationships in Renaissance times could take a look at "The Bedford Companion to Shakespeare". There is a chapter in their which really discusses the Elizabethean perceptionof family duty and also refers to a documented incident of Father - daughter relationship source that Shakespeare might have used for King Lear plot devel. Christine M. Jacobson. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 09:27:37 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0051 Re: Family Relationships; Earth's Music; Line Length Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0051. Tuesday, 14 January 1997. (1) From: John Cox Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 11:50:57 -0500 (EST) Subj: Family Relationships (2) From: Chyrel Remmers Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 11:21:46 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0041 Q: The earth has music (3) From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Monday, 13 Jan 97 20:32:07 EST Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 8 Jan 1997 to 9 Jan 1997 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cox Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 11:50:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Family Relationships In response to Susan Mather's request for information about family relationships, the place to begin is with Lawrence Stone's *The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800* (1977). An important supplement and corrective is Ralph Houlbrooke's *The English Family 1450-1700* (1984). See chapters 6 and 7 in Houlbrooke on relations between parents and children. John Cox Hope College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chyrel Remmers Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 11:21:46 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0041 Q: The earth has music I was sure that Shakespeare wasn't the author, but that Emerson or Thoreau first coined the expression. Unfortunately, I can't find the source. I'll be interested in locating the origin. Chyrel Remmers (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Monday, 13 Jan 97 20:32:07 EST Subject: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 8 Jan 1997 to 9 Jan 1997 Line Lengths: The most interesting source is Spevack's multivolume concordance where each of the individual character's parts receive the full concordizing. It's great fun to work with and to share out to actors. The various electronic versions could swiftly find the numbers too. But that takes acquiring and learning how to do those magic tricks. At the SAA, perhaps, or in some quite private, plain-paper wrapper sidebar of the Internet, is there a "remedial" place where those of us who missed out on learning that stuff the first dozen times around could step in, unnoticed, no questions asked? Are the electronic versions available neatly? available with elegant search software? "Will there be rabbits on the farm, George? Tell me about the rabbits again." Lenny Urkowitz, SURCC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 09:45:48 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0052 Qs: Non-Shakespearean Videos; Sh. and Renaissance Occult Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0052. Tuesday, 14 January 1997. (1) From: Jeff Myers Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 17:26:39 GMT Subj: Question about non-Shakespearean videotapes (2) From: Anders H Klitgaard Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 00:47:31 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Shakespeare and the Renaissance Occult (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 17:26:39 GMT Subject: Question about non-Shakespearean videotapes Are there any videotapes of non-Shakespearean English Renaissance plays available to show to classes? If so, what are they and where can I get them (or at least find out what's available)? Thanks, Jeff Myers (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anders H Klitgaard Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 00:47:31 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Shakespeare and the Renaissance Occult Dear SHAKSPERian I am looking for people who not only are interested in the occult aspects of Shakespeare/the Renaissance in general, but furthermore are working/going to work specifically in this area. My own project is an M.Litt. (MA) dissertation (c 15000 words) to be completed by the end of August '97. There's plenty of literature in this area, so what I'm looking for is not so much inspiration/information, as it is partners in a serious dialogue with a specific target. How would you like a proper dialogue lasting half a year? Please write! Yours sincerely, A H Klitgaard ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 09:49:15 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0053 Re: Shakespeare and Popular Culture Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0053. Tuesday, 14 January 1997. From: Richard A. Burt Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 13:59:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Shakespeare and Popular Culture] A wide range of films and television programs using Shakespeare are discussed in an anthology Lynda Boose and I have co-edited entitled _Shakespeare, the Movie: Popularizing the Plays on Film, TV, and Video_. It is due out from Routledge this September. By the way Falstaff beer makes an appearance in My Own Private Idaho (Scott Favor / Hal drinks it). The dog Wishbone plays Romeo in the Romeo and Juliet. There is a Columbo episode involving Macbeth, a Brady Bunch about Romeo and Juliet, a Gilligan's Island in which the crew produces "Hamlet, the Musical," a Beverly Hills, 90210 with a brief part of the balcony scene played cross-dressed, and a Family Matters and Martin also using Romeo and Juliet (always the balcony scene). I am presently writing about some of these episodes and a number of films drawing on film theory and queer theory in a book entitled _Unspeakable Shakespeares: Disonant Re-Mixes, Queerer FX_. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 09:59:07 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0054 Astronomers' on Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0054. Tuesday, 14 January 1997. From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 22:59:18 -0500 Subject: The Times: Britain: Astronomer discovers cast of stars hidden in Hamlet [Editor's Note: A friend sent me some abstracts that I have been holding on to until now. I will append then to the end of Bill Godshalk's submission --HMC] The Times: Britain: Astronomer discovers cast of stars hidden in Hamlet January 14 1997 BRITAIN Shakespeare was hailed yesterday for championing an English scientist's view of the Universe against something rotten from the state of Denmark. Nigel Hawkes, science editor, reports Astronomer discovers cast of stars hidden in Hamlet. THERE is more of heaven and earth in Hamlet than has been dreamt of in anyone's philosophy, an American astronomer claimed yesterday. Shakespeare was not only tackling human issues such as revenge, madness and the point of existence, but he was also taking a wide look at the size of the Universe and whether the planets orbit the Earth or the Sun. The 1601 drama is full of references to rivalry between two theories of the cosmos, Professor Peter Usher of Pennsylvania State University said. The Bard championed the view that won. Delegates at the American Astronomical Society's meeting in Toronto were told: "Hamlet is an allegory for the competition between Thomas Digges of England and Tycho Brahe of Denmark." In 1576, Digges, an English scientist and scholar, published his Perfit Description, in which he took up the Sun-centred view of Copernicus, and suggested that the stars we see are like the Sun, and distributed through infinite space. At the end of the century, Giordano Bruno was martyred for publishing similar ideas. Shakespeare knew Digges, Professor Usher says, and through him knew also of the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe, whose cosmology was Earth-centred and believed the solar system was embedded in a spherical shell of stars. "When Hamlet states: 'I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space' he is contrasting the shell of fixed stars in the Ptolemaic and Tychonic models with the Infinite Universe of Digges," Professor Usher said. "Claudius is named for Claudius Ptolemy, who perfected the geocentric model. Claudius personifies Ptolemaic geocentrism, while Rosencrantz and Guildenstern personify Tychonic geocentrism. The latter are summoned by Claudius because the position of the King is threatened by young Hamlet, who personifies the Infinite Universe." Thus, when Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are killed, so are Tycho's ideas, and when Claudius is killed, it signals the end of geocentrism. "The chief climax of the play is the return of Fortinbras from Poland and his salute to the ambassadors of England. Here Shakespeare signifies the triumph of the Copernican model and its Diggesian corollary." Copernicus was a Pole. Prince Hamlet is a student at Wittenberg, a centre of Copernican learning, but when he announces a desire to return to his studies there, the King demurs, saying: "It is most retrograde to our desire." This, Professor Usher says, was a play on the word retrograde, which is when the stars appear to move backwards. Explaining it was a problem for Earth-centred cosmologies. Hamlet's madness is linked to his support for Digges, the gravediggers asserting that in England "the men are as mad as he". If that is right, Professor Usher says, then Hamlet "evinces a scientific cosmology no less magnificent than its literary and scientific counterparts". * Two groups of American astronomers reported the strongest evidence yet for the existence of black holes, the final outcome of collapsed stars whose dense cores suck in all nearby matter. A team from the University of Michigan used data from the Hubble space telescope to identify three new black holes. They believe a black hole exists at the centre of nearly every galaxy. A second team, from the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, studied pairs of stars where one is pulling gas away from the other, and found four where the energy simply disappears a "strong indication" of a black hole. **************************************************************************** Abstracts: [24.01] A New Reading of Shakespeare's Hamlet. P. D. Usher (PSU) I argue that Hamlet is an allegory for the competition between the cosmological models of the contemporaries Thomas Digges (1546-1595) of England and Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) of Denmark. Through his acquaintance with the Digges' family, Shakespeare would have known of the essential elements of the revolutionary model of Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) as well as Digges' extension of it. Prior to 1601 when the writing of Hamlet was completed, Shakespeare knew also of Tycho and his relatives Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and would have seen that Tycho's hybrid geocentric model was a substantial regression to the well-known geocentricism of Ptolemy (fl. 140 A.D.). It has been suggested that Polonius is named for a fictional character Pollinio, an Aristotelian pedant. I suggest that Claudius is named for Claudius Ptolemy for whom Polonius would have been a suitable attendant. I suggest further that the slaying of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is the Bard's way of killing the Tychonic model. The slaying of Claudius signals the demise of Ptolemaic geocentricism, both ends being prolonged, the former dramatically, the latter as a matter of historical fact. But the climax of the play is not the slaughter of the chief protagonists; it is the triumphal arrival of Fortinbras from Poland and his timely salute to the ambassadors from England. By means of this apparent incongruity, Shakespeare celebrates the Copernican and Diggesian models and states poetically the nature of the new universal order. I present literary and historical evidence for the present reading which, if essentially correct, suggests that Hamlet evinces a scientific cosmology no less significant than its literary and philosophical counterparts. The last year of the sixteenth century saw the martyrdom of Bruno, but the first year of the next century saw the Bard affirm that there are more things in heaven than were dreamt of in contemporary philosophy. Abstract Payne-Gaposchkin and others have suggested that Hamlet shows evidence of the Bard's awareness of the astronomical revolutions of the sixteenth century. I summarize major arguments and note that the play's themes recur in modern astronomy teaching and research: (1) The play amounts to a redefinition of universal order and humankind's position in it. (2) There is interplay between appearance and reality. Such a contrast is commonplace wherever superficial celestial appearances obscure underlying physical realities, the nature of which emerge as the tale unfolds. (3) The outermost sphere of the Ptolemaic and Copernican models seems to encase humanity, who are liberated by the reality of Digges' model and the implications advanced by Bruno. Similarly the oppressiveness of the castle interior is relieved by the observing platform which enables the heavens to be viewed in their true light. (4) Hamlet could be bounded in a nut-shell and count himself a king of infinite space, were it not that he has bad dreams. These concern the subversiveness of the new doctrine, for Hamlet refers to the infinite universe only hypothetically and in the presence of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who are named for relatives of the Danish astronomer Brahe. (5) Hamlet, and Brahe and Bruno, have connections to the university at Wittenberg, as does the Copernican champion Rheticus. (6) Ways are needed to reveal both the truths of nature, and the true nature of Danish royalty. Those unaccustomed to science think that there is madness in Hamlet's method. In particular, `doubt' is advanced as a methodological principle of inquiry. (7) The impression of normalcy and propriety in the upper reaches of society is like the false impression of an encapsulating universe. In Hamlet this duality is dramatized tragically, whereas in King John (cf. BAAS 27, 1325, 1995) it is not; for by 1601 when the writing of Hamlet was probably completed, Shakespeare would have known of the martyrdom of Bruno the previous year, whereas in 1593-4 when King John was written, the picture was less clear. For these reasons, Hamlet's princely `philosophy' speaks to our day. Abstract Shakespeare wrote King John c.1594, six years after the defeat of the Spanish Armada, and ~ 50 years after publication of the Copernican heliocentric hypothesis. It is said to be the most unhistorical of the History Plays, ``anomalous'', ``puzzling'', and ``odd'', and as such it has engendered far more than the customary range of interpretive opinion. I suggest that the play alerts Elizabethans not just to military and political threats, but to a changing cosmic world view, all especially threatening as they arise in Catholic countries. (a) Personification characterizes the play. John personifies the old order, while Arthur and the Dauphin's armies personify the new. I suggest that Shakespeare decenters King John just as Copernicus decentered the world. (b) Hubert menaces Arthur's eyes for a whole scene (4.1), but the need for such cruelty is not explained and is especially odd as Arthur is already under sentence of death (3.3.65-66). This hitherto unexplained anomaly suggests that the old order fears what the new might see. (c) Eleanor's confession is made only to Heaven and to her son the King (1.1.42-43), yet by echoing and word play the Messenger from France later reveals to John that he is privy to it (4.2.119-124). This circumstance has not been questioned heretofore. I suggest that the Messenger is like the wily Hermes (Mercury), chief communicator of the gods and patron of the sciences; by revealing that he moves in the highest circles, he tells John that he speaks with an authority that transcends even that of a king. The message from on high presages more than political change; it warns of a new cosmic and religious world order (d) Most agree that John is a weak king, so Shakespeare must have suspected flaws in the old ways. He would have known that Tycho Brahe's new star of 1572, the comet of 1577, and the 1576 model of his compatriot Thomas Digges, were shattering old ideas. (e) The tensions of the play are not resolved because in 1594 the new order was not yet generally accepted. Instead, the new world view is announced subtly, and thereby perhaps prudently, for the onset of persecution of its advocates is only a few years away. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 09:39:51 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0055 Re: Shakespeare and Popular Culture Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0055. Wednesday, 15 January 1997. (1) From: Richard A. Burt Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 14:02:47 -0500 (EST) Subj: Star Trek (2) From: Charles Ross Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 17:30:02 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0053 Re: Shakespeare and Popular Culture (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A. Burt Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1997 14:02:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Star Trek I have a complete list of Shakespearare allusions and quotations in Star Trek and Star Trek: the Next Generation_ for anyone who is interested. [Editor's Note: If you are interested, please reply directly to Prof. Burt at burt@english.umass.edu --HMC.] (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Ross Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 17:30:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0053 Re: Shakespeare and Popular Culture With regard to Shakespeare and Popular Culture, I hope everyone saw the take on Romeo and Juliet on Third Rock from the Sun this week: Lithgow (?) in jackboots with riding crop, slashing at the cowering cast. Charlie Ross Purdue ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 09:51:06 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0056 Re: Winter's Tale Productions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0056. Wednesday, 15 January 1997. (1) From: Patrick M Murphy Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 10:18:34 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0048 Re: Winter's Tale Productions (2) From: Kathleen Brookfield Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 97 00:38:00 -0500 Subj: Time as female goddess. [Winter's Tale Productions] (3) From: James Harner Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 17:40:35 -0600 (CST) Subj: RE: SHK 8.0048 Re: Winter's Tale Productions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patrick M Murphy Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 10:18:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0048 Re: Winter's Tale Productions You may wish to look at <>. Edited by Maurice Hunt, Garland, 1995. This recently published volume has reprinted about 20 theater reviews of the play from 1802-1988 as well as critical discussions of the play. Patrick M. Murphy Department of English SUNY Oswego (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Brookfield Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 97 00:38:00 -0500 Subject: Time as female goddess. [Winter's Tale Productions] My production will have a female goddess' figure who also plays the bear and Time. You might be interested in a performance of Pericles at the Stratford Festival, Ontario, in 1974 where the part of Gower was played by a young black woman actress (Renee Rogers). The effect was very spiritual as she looked like a goddess figure with a crown and a long gold robe. She appeared high above the main stage with all lights off except a spotlight on her. A similar figure would probably work well as Time in Winter's Tale, particularly because of the strong female focus in that play. Stratford Festival has a web site where you might get more information about their productions of Winter's Tale. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Harner Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 17:40:35 -0600 (CST) Subject: RE: SHK 8.0048 Re: Winter's Tale Productions The World Shakespeare Bibliography (in its annual version in Shakespeare Quarterly and in The World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM) provides production details for numerous productions of Winter's Tale (and reviews and related studies). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 09:56:13 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0057 Re: Ideology Once Again Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0057. Wednesday, 15 January 1997. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 10:29:51 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0049: Ideology (2) From: Jurgen Pieters Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 08:23:44 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0049 Re: Ideology Once Again (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 10:29:51 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0049: Ideology Gabriel Egan writes to me: "You're missing the distinction between cultural practices and ideology. Culture practices are ALL the superstructural manifestations of an economic base. Ideology is only those superstructural manifestations of an economic base which are ESSENTIAL to the continuance of that economic base." And I think Gabriel has missed my point. I agree with him. The distinction between "all cultural practices" and "ideology" is NOT innately meaningful. Gabriel interprets the incident at Frankfurt to be ideological: " Being nasty to foreigners is endemic to border police. I tend to agree with this Indian woman in finding such abuse ideological and not random." But it is not transparent what this police action has to do with "those superstructural manifestations of an economic base which are ESSENTIAL to the continuance of that economic base" (i.e., Gabriel's definition). This definition is imposed, not innate to the action. If nothing is innately meaningful, then ideed nothing is innately meaningful, and that includes all human actions. Ideology does not exist as some kind of trans-historical, natural category. Categories are human constructions--like women, fire, and dangerous things. (I realize that this assertion is debatable, and that some philosophers argue for the existence of "natural" categories.) Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jurgen Pieters Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 08:23:44 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0049 Re: Ideology Once Again In response to Norm Holland's comment on the necessity to take into account psychological factors when studying ideology: Althusser's great essay on Ideological State Apparatuses derives many of its insights from the work of Lacan, as do all of Slavoj Zizek's marvelous books (I can really recommend For they know not what they do and The Sublime Object of Ideology (both published by Verso) to anyone interested in this thread.) As to Gabriel Egans retortion of Bill Godshalk's message - that the difference between cultural practices and ideological ones would reside in the fact that the latter serve to sustain or reproduce the economic base - I would say that 'subversive' cultural practices are as ideological as 'sustaining ones, they are only acted from within a different ideology. I think it would help here to call those activities that Gabriel calls 'ideological' hegemonic (in Gramsci's sense of the word) and those activities that I have termed - somewhat unfortunately -'subversive' anti-hegemonic. (Further, Gabriel's remark opens the difficult question on base-superstructure-relations: possibly an idea to open a new discussion?) Yours, Jurgen Pieters ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 10:01:27 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0058 Re: Non-Shakespearean Videos Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0058. Wednesday, 15 January 1997. (1) From: Michael Friedman Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 16:54:52 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0052 Qs: Non-Shakespearean Videos (2) From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 97 09:54:00 GMT Subj: Non-Shakespearean videos (3) From: Andreas Schlenger Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 11:44:49 +0100 (MET) Subj: Re: Non-Shakespearean Videos (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 16:54:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0052 Qs: Non-Shakespearean Videos Speaking of non-Shakespearean Renaissance drama on video, I came across the following passage in George Geckle's Text and Performance series volume on *Tamburlaine* and *Edward II*. Speaking of director Tony Robertson's 1969 Edinburgh Festival production featuring Ian McKellan as King Edward, Geckle writes: Finally, the production was filmed by the BBC at the Picadilly Theatre in London in January 1970, and that version was subsequently broadcast in the United States in 1975 and 1977 over the Public Broadcasting System (88). Does anyone on the list remember seeing this production or have any idea how one might obtain a copy of the broadcast on videotape? Michael Friedman University of Scranton (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 97 09:54:00 GMT Subject: Non-Shakespearean videos I have a video of an Italian film of 'Tis Pity She's a Whore starring Charlotte Rampling and Oliver Tobias. I don't know whether it's still available. I was fairly underwhelmed and only watched it once, but I seem to recall that every time an incestuous act was about to take place we were shown white horses copulating (I do hope this really happened and wasn't the result of my frenzied imagination...) I also have an idea that it was originally translated into Italian, and when they decided to make it in English after all, they didn't just revert to the Ford script, but translated it back again. I definitely recall that at the end Soranzo's lot massacre about half the population of Parma. Lisa Hopkins Sheffield Hallam University L.M.Hopkins@shu.ac.uk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andreas Schlenger Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 11:44:49 +0100 (MET) Subject: Re: Non-Shakespearean Videos On Monday, 14 Jan 1997, Jeff Myers wrote: > Are there any videotapes of non-Shakespearean English Renaissance plays > available to show to classes? If so, what are they and where can I get them > (or at least find out what's available)? Many months ago I found an Italian film version (and a brilliant one!) of John Ford's _'Tis_Pity_She's_A_Whore_ at our local British Council. Here are some information about the movie, found at the Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com): -.-.-.- Addio fratello crudele (1973) Italy 1973 Color (Technicolor) Produced by: Clesi Cinematografica Also Known As: 'Tis a Pity She's a Whore (1973) Directed by Giuseppe Patroni-Griffi -.-.-.-.-.-.- Regards, Andreas. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 10:04:58 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0058 Q: A Great Caesar Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0059. Wednesday, 15 January 1997. From: Louis C. Swilley Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 09:44:05 -0600 (CST) Subject: Julius Caesar Shakespeare presents Caesar as pompous, fearful, bragging and subject to manipulation by flattery. Nothing in productions I have seen questions these facts. Yet this is the man whom Brutus, Antony and others in the play (the messenger who comes to the grieving Antony!) praise for his "greatness." I have been looking for that "greatness" in the character as presented in various productions for years. (Years ago, in London, I did see Gielgud as Caesar deliver the "Yon Cassius hath a lean and hungry look" while leaning back vulnerably on the edge of a fountain and delivering those lines directly to Cassius who stood meekly before him. I nearly leapt from my seat with delight at the insight of this new interpretation, for here was a Caear who was indeed formidable. Unfortunately, nowhere else in the production was this insight capitalized upon - we were returned to Caesar-the-pompous-fool routine.) If we take the position that the character of Caesar is comparable to that of Hitler, Mussolini, Evita, and, as about them, wonder how such a posturing, self-filled "leader" can command the respect of his associates, we must conclude that, in fact, he doesn't. As with the case of those historical figures, we must suppose that Caesar's associates find him just as he is presented to us, but follow him because his is the currently successful "bandwagon," and they want to be on it. (I exclude Brutus, the idealist, the dreamer, in this - and I address the Caesar of the *play*, not the historical Caesar, whatever he was.) Now, everything is reasonably explained: those responsible for the government, says Shakespeare, are as weak and or corrupt as the Caesar they allow to lead. Ah, but not everything. What about Marc Antony's soliloquy over the corpse, a soliloquy rich with praise for this dead leader? Under the circumstances of the siloloquy, we cannot doubt that these are the true feelings of this man. Yet Antony is the man who *immediately* capitalizes on this death and who will shortly show himself hard enough to condemn his own nephew to death in a political trade-off ("Here with a spot I damn him.") Is it not probable that, in the privacy of his soliloquized thoughts, this ambitious, ruthless Antony would not remark to himself the faults of the Caesar whom Shakespeare has shown us to *have* faults? Surely *he* is not like the dreaming Brutus? (If he is, he certainly awakens from the condition quickly!). * * * Is it possible to present a Caesar who is indeed great, as the single scene in the Gielgud production mentioned above suggested that there might be? And that pompous, "I am as constant as the northern star" speech be delivered by a Caesar who shows here, perhaps, a sense of humor? (Indeed, might not his greatness be, in part, his power of persuasion by suggesting through the camaraderie of humour that he is "just one of the guys" and therefore has only such power as they democratically allow him?) It has always seemed to me that the man who delivered that speech as it is usually given is inviting his death not only at the hands of the conspirators, but at the hands of the audience as well! May I hear from scholars, directors and actors on the above points? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 10:11:52 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0060 Decision Not to Dig the Globe's Remains Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0060. Wednesday, 15 January 1997. From: Andrew Gurr Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 09:46:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Not digging the Globe's remains English Heritage is the government body responsible for sites in England that are scheduled and protected because they are thought to be of 'heritage' interest. It has a statutary responsibility to endeavour to 'preserve' all such sites. Unfortunately in recent years it has converted that responsibility into a policy of keeping archaeologists away from sites of archaeological interest. Now it has found another victim. The foundations of the original Globe, public interest in which is attested by the three hundred thousand visitors that passed through the new Globe exhibition nearby in the last two years, are not to undergo any further excavaation. The 5% or so of the Globe that a Museum of London team of archaeologists uncovered in 1989 from the open space behind Anchor Terrace in Southwark was a segment on the north-east flank of the auditorium. Analysis of this fragment made it clear that the most significant and valuable foundations, the stage area, must be underneath Anchor Terrace itself. A tentative dig was done in the Terrace's cellarage in 1992, and established that the remains are there. Now, it seems, the opportunity to learn anything from them is to be buried permanently. At a meeting on 7 January Southwark Borough Councils Planning Committee affirmed English Heritage's policy by granting permission to the owners of Anchor Terrace, which is a scheduled late Georgian block built in 1839 facing Southwark Bridge Road, to convert the building into flats, and to return the Globe's remains (quote)to the burial regime which has protected them in the past (unquote). Without consultation, least of all with the scholars and theatre historians who could have told them how important the site is, nor taking any account of the high level of public interest, English Heritage has concluded that (quote) further archaeological investigation with the basement of Anchor Terrace is not justified at present (unquote). This is rather like burying the Elgin Marbles in the hope that everyone will forget they exist. When converted to its new use, Anchor Terrace will be able to use its Grade 2 Preservation Order to keep itself immune from any digging throughout the foreseeable future. The rest of the Globe behind Anchor Terrace is also to be buried indefinitely under a new block of flats. The sites of the Globe and its near neighbour the Rose are unique. The fragments of the two of them that the Museum of London archaeologists uncovered in 1989 told us much more about Shakespeare's theatres than had been achieved through centuries of painstaking analysis of the documentary evidence. As theatres their design was unique. The Globe and all the other similar early theatres were demolished during the Cromwell era in the 1640s, and few records of what they were like survive. Consequently we know less about the venue for which Shakespeare wrote his greatest plays than about almost any other kind of theatre in the world. It was the workplace where he staged his greatest plays. He himself contributed one-eighth of its building cost in 1599. Abandoning the study of these remains means that we lose permanently the opportunity to learn anything new about our greatest playwrights own theatre. English Heritage's policy was really designed for Roman and similar remains, not for these rarities. The Globe and Rose sites are unlike other archaeological remains precisely because they are unique. More than two hundred Roman theatres have survived. Leaving some of them buried will not affect what has been learned already from the early excavations. But only eight or nine theatres like the Globe were ever built in London during the first brief flourish of Shakespearean theatre, and most of them have already been lost to later redevelopment. Both the Rose and the Globe sites are protected by scheduling as Heritage sites, but the knowledge they contain is what gives them life. Protection in the form of permanent burial is a function appropriate to the dead. The Globe site does not deserve permanent interment. None of the principles that were invoked when this decision was made will bear much scrutiny. The argument, for instance, that (quote) the burial regime... has protected them in the past (unquote) is itself scarcely tenable, on the evidence of a report by English Heritages own Archaeology unit. When the Rose's remains were concreted over in 1989 to allow Rose Court to be built over its head it was acknowledged that this form of preservation for a half-dug site was new and experimental. Sensors were installed to identify any changes in the condition of the remains. A report based on the records from these sensors handed to English Heritage in 1993 said that indications of significant changes in the moisture content together with bacterial activity had been found. Since then nothing has been done to check on the progress of these changes. The remains stay buried and decaying. A similar shell of concrete protects the Globe's relics dug up in 1989 behind Anchor Terrace. We simply do not know whether this kind of alleged protection will prevent the remains from decaying in the future. The technology needed to dig under Anchor Terrace is not a novelty. There is no need to demolish the whole of this not unhandsome building, but only to dig a few more holes in its sturdy basement floor. This has already been done once by the archaeologists. An innovative ground radar survey in 1991, looking for density differences at the level of the Globes foundations under the floor of the Terrace, led in 1992 to four test pits being dug to check on the hints that the radar scan gave. These digs proved that the whole of Anchor Terraces foundations consist of a raft of concrete three feet thick, and that some remains of the Globe do lie under that raft. In the hope of prompting further digs, the Globe Centre in 1995 commissioned a more sophisticated ground radar scan in the basement. This produced significant indications that there are ample remains of the Globe there under the raft. There is ample space in the vicinity of the stage area for a further analytical dig which would do no harm to those three feet of concrete which hold the Georgian building in place. The Globe is a site of truly international interest, and anything that can add to our knowledge of it as Shakespeare's workplace is invaluable. Leaving the remains undisturbed is the very form of protection which left us ignorant of even their existence for three hundred years. A policy on archaeological sites which insists on leaving them undiscovered is a paradox, brilliantly economical in cost, but appallingly smug about the ignorance those savings leave us in over the sites for which English Heritage has statutary responsibility. It acclaims the heritage concept and historical knowledge in principle, but denies it in practice. Further information about this issue can be found on the Web by accessing the Globe page at http://www.reading.ac.uk/globe. The only form of pressure that can be applied to change this policy and the decision over the Globe site is by loudly voicing public interest. The Globe is a scheduled site, so the decision can be referred to the Heritage Minister in the Department of the Environment and the Secretary of State for the Environment. If you have even a mild opinion about the loss which implementing this decision will entail, please write to the Heritage Minister, Virginia Bottomley, and to the government minister ultimately responsible as Secretary of State for the Environment, John Gummer. Their addresses are c/o the House of Commons, Westminster, LONDON SW1. Andrew Gurr (whose address is the English Department, University of Reading, Box 218, READING RG6 7AA, UK). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 10:19:18 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0061 Re: Mousetrap; Daughters; Richard 3; Astronomy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0061. Wednesday, 15 January 1997. (1) From: Rick Jones Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 10:47:29 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0047 Re: The Mousetrap (2) From: Anthony Haigh Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 12:44:40 -400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0043 Question about Resources (3) From: Ed Pixley Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 16:53:03 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0032 Re: Richard III, Lover (4) From: Chris Gordon Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 97 21:41:00 -0600 Subj: SHK 8.0054 Shakespeare and Astronomy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 10:47:29 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0047 Re: The Mousetrap I'm perfectly willing to buy an argument that Claudius cannot remain stone-faced through the Mousetrap scene. But we should be careful not to confuse Claudius's "admitting his guilt" with Hamlet's (and perhaps Horatio's) *perception* that he has done so. Were I to direct the play or play Claudius (both unlikely but not altogether implausible eventualities), I would center on Hamlet's running commentary, calling attention in particular to the fact that the murderer in the enactment is the king's nephew. Just as Macbeth believes himself invulnerable because of all that Birnam Wood, from woman born stuff, so does Hamlet believe that he has proved Claudius's guilt by enacting the means of the murder. But Claudius can plausibly claim he was responding to the relationship of murderer to victim. The problem is that we tend to see such problems in disjunctive terms: Claudius either is or is not proven guilty. I think it is a reasonable position to believe that the LAPD framed a guilty man in the O.J. Simpson case. It is also reasonable that Hamlet (however inadvertently) has done the same to Claudius. Rick Jones rjones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anthony Haigh Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 12:44:40 -400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0043 Question about Resources In reply to Susan Mather's questions regarding Shakespeare and his daughters... Two summers ago I attended the summer Institute in Stratford and one of the ongoing seminars was on Shakespeare and his relationship to his daughters and the whole question of father/daughter relationships in the plays. As the only father in the group I was somewhat backed into a corner (not always an unpleasant experience!) and was cast as the defender of fatherhood. I have been playing with the idea ever since - it seems a powerful, and underdeveloped one. Are Helena/Hermia, Rosalind/Celia, Olivia/Viola different versions of Susanna/Judith? Why do daughters betray their fathers? Are fathers too hard on their daughters? Are daughters mere property, or does William offer us a more modern, and less paternalistic paradigm? Good questions all. Is there anyone else from that seminar (run by Ruth Ann Henderson of the University of Turin) on the list? Could we begin to reconstruct the debate as the starting point for a discussion? I would direct Ms. Mather to Peter Whelan's excellent play "The Herbal Bed" and, of course to Bond's "Bingo." The RSC recently toured a double bill of "The Tempest" and "Bingo." The double casting worked very well, but the Bond faired less well against a superbly directed and acted "Tempest." Did anyone else see these productions? I felt that Whelan's Susanna was very sympathetically drawn and could indeed have been the Bard's daughter. Am I right to detect a somewhat less sympathetic reaction to her marriage to the prosaic Dr. Hall? I look forward to hearing from wiser heads than mine. Cheers, Tony Haigh Centre College, KY (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pixley Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 16:53:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0032 Re: Richard III, Lover Christine: What a refreshing treatment of Richard's response to himself as lover! You have, for me, generated considerable thought, not just on Richard III (as tragedy), but also on the regenerative power of love as a motif that could inform much of Shakespeare. You mentioned Edmund, but isn't Lear himself restored to sanity by the realization that Cordelia not only does but "can" love him? The forgiveness scene between them is one of the things that makes the final scene so "awe"ful. I won't dwell on this now, but Leontes _WT_ and Benedick seem also to benefit from the power of love, and I believe one could even make a case for Petruchio. Thank you, Ed Pixley SUNY-Oneonta (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Gordon Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 97 21:41:00 -0600 Subject: SHK 8.0054 Shakespeare and Astronomy For anyone intrigued by Bill Godshalk's posting from _The Times_, hie thee to your astronomy colleagues: the January/February issue of _Mercury_, the Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific has "Shakespeare's Astronomy" by the same Peter Usher as the cover story. The astronomer friend with whom I serve on the board of the Minneapolis Planetarium (I'm the token humanist) brought it to our meeting today--to which I had brought copies of Bill's post. Chris Gordon ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 10:21:12 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0062 Q: Productions of The Tempest Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0062. Wednesday, 15 January 1997. From: Rod Osiowy Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 1997 20:37:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: The Tempest I am curious as to why so few theatre companies select "The Tempest" as a production. Perhaps it is because it requires original music, special effects, like flying, and a huge cast; or is it just a mediocre script? I would be interested to hear about how various directors have approached "The Tempest" if they are out there. I would also like to hear from anyone who has a video suggestion, besides "Prospero's Books" and the B movie "Tempest." Has anyone producted this play? Rosiowy@kootenay.awinc.comed shk.txt ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 09:14:14 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0063 Re: Winter's Tale Productions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0063. Thursday, 16 January 1997. (1) From: Joanne Walen Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 10:45:47 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0046 Q: Winter's Tale Productions (2) From: Michael Swanson Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 12:08:39 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0056 Re: Winter's Tale Productions (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 19:50:51 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0056 Re: Winter's Tale Productions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Walen Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 10:45:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0046 Q: Winter's Tale Productions WT was performed as part of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival season last year. They keep a scrapbook of reviews in the Members' Lounge and also maintain archival material from each production. Their production had a female"goddess" figure who played the Bear and Time. There was also the use of much red lighting to highlight the inner torment and jealousy of Leontes during the first half. The OSF general number is 541-482-2111. You could ask first to be put through to Joan Langley, head of Education. She could route you to the proper person in charge of the archives. The Shakespeare Centre in Stratford-upon-Avon also maintains a library of archival material from the RSC seasons, with all reviews, promptbooks, photos, and in some cases archive viedoes of the productions. This is valuable production information--if you can get to Stratford. I don't have in front of me the library number, but the Education office number is (from the US) 011-44-1789-283038, and the staff could route you. Good luck! Joanne Walen (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Swanson Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 12:08:39 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0056 Re: Winter's Tale Productions The production of Pericles referred to by Kathleen Brookfield -- with an African-American female singer playing Gower -- may have been first staged in 1974, the year she gives it, but I doubt it. The production I saw at Stratford with Renee Rogers playing this role was in 1986. Michael Swanson Chair, Fine Arts Department Franklin College of Indiana (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 19:50:51 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0056 Re: Winter's Tale Productions At the Patricia Corbett Theatre in Cincinnati on October 25-29, 1995, Charles Holmond directed a Winter's Tale, with Dale Doerman as dramaturg, in which Time was (possibly supposed to be) a goddess. In any case, Time was a woman (Christine Probts) dressed in diaphanous white material with one breast exposed. (I later learned that the breasts was a plastic prosthesis.) She protected the infant Perdita as well as spoke Time's lines. I've wondered about the exposed breast of Time. A maternal suggestion? Time nurtures? As I recall, there was no bear. It was left to our imagination. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 09:20:46 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0064 Re: The Mousetrap Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0064. Thursday, 16 January 1997. (1) From: John Mills Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 09:27:14 -0700 (MST) Subj: The Mousetrap (2) From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 11:46 ET Subj: SHK 8.0047 Re: The Mousetrap (3) From: Framji Minwalla Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 12:09:38 -0500 Subj: Mousetrap (4) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 16:47:17 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0047 Re: The Mousetrap (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Mills Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 09:27:14 -0700 (MST) Subject: The Mousetrap Andy White writes that Claudius "admits his guilt." How? By "blamching." Really? Would you like to be convicted and executed on such "evidence"--or see anyone else so treated in a civilized society? Whatever this or that actor decides to have Claudius do here by way of reaction, there can be no claim for "proof" in any moral or legal sense. His reaction "proves" nothing. As someone pointed out years ago--Wilson perhaps in What Happens in Hamlet--Claudius, as King, would find the play highly objectional simply because it depicts the killing of a king. Cf. Elizabeth's objection to the deposition in RII. Such "seditious" representations were banned in the monarchies of Europe as late as the mid 19th Cent. Is this important? Indeed it is. It is the heart of the matter. In that Claudius is guilty of his father's murder; he goes to his death not knowing. John Mills (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 11:46 ET Subject: SHK 8.0047 Re: The Mousetrap I'm a little surprised that Andy White, theater man, supposes that a little movement of the eyes will do to apprise Hamlet and Horatio of Claudius' guilt; it might work in life, or in a film, where cutting to a closeup of C's face would force the gesture on the audience. But in the theater, in a scene as large and complex as this one, where Hamlet keeps drawing focus _away_ from Claudius--how do directors and Claudii deal with that fact?--there's no way I can think of to insure that such a modest signal will be read by the whole house. With a wink, Dave Evett (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Framji Minwalla Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 12:09:38 -0500 Subject: Mousetrap Much has been said of whether Claudius is guilty or not, whether and when he admits his guilt, where the attention of the spectator should be, what the meaning of the scene is, all without taking much account of how the scene can be staged, and what meanings mught derive from this. Imagine an Elizabethan outdoor stage--thrust with audience on three sides. The flexibility of this arrangement--no focal point, no power center from which to manage the action--suggests why Shakespeare's dramaturgy always allows two or more points of attention, each weighing against the other. During The Mousetrap, we have four (perhaps five) places to watch--Hamlet, Horatio, the Players, and Claudius and Gertrude (and Ophelia and Polonius). If you place the play upstage center, with Claudius and Gertrude downstage facing them, and Hamlet and Horatio upstage left and right watching Claudius, you lose one of the focal points--Claudius. If you place the Players on one or another of the sides of the stage, and put Gertrude and Claudius on the other side, you lose the space in which Hamlet and Horatio can play to the audience. If you place the Players center stage, with Claudius and Gertrude upstage watcing, and Hamlet and Horatio all the way downstage (with access to the audience), and have the Mousetrap performed in the round, you have possibly an ideal arrangement. You get to watch Claudius as he formulates a response to Hamlet after recognizing (during the dumb show) that Hamlet's accusing him of murdering old Hamlet. You get to watch Hamlet's shennanigans, his clumsy but passionate plotting, his almost childish attempt to get at his usurping uncle (and you get to watch and compare this against both Horatio's more sedate and Claudius's more scheming and manipulative behavior). And you get to watch the players, with archaic plodding lines, and stilted performances, make Shakespeare's play seem all the more 'real' (and yet we have the paradox of both Claudius and Hamlet dissimulating). What a marvelous scene. Putting it on film destroys this set of carefully established relationships because the spectator focuses where the camera does, and not on the convergence of all three stage events. While there's obviously things to be gained by filming what was originally written for the stage, the filming must reimagine for film all the congruences Shakespeare set-up. Branagh's film just doesn't manage this. Framji Minwalla (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 16:47:17 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0047 Re: The Mousetrap I'll observe his looks, I'll tent him to the quick ... Give him heedful note For I mine eyes will rivet to his face The formula for suspense is: make the audience expect something and then spend a long time not fulfilling it. This as it turns out makes for a pretty good summary of *Hamlet*, and it also describes what's going on in the mousetrap scene. At the end of act two we've been given something to wait for, viz some guilt-unkenneling reaction from the king, and we're going to wait about 430 lines for it. We're going to wait through a whole other scene where the king figures out Hamlet instead of the other way around (but we get the guilt confessed right away, so apparently THAT's not what we're waiting for...). We're going to wait through the long lecture to the actors and the praising of Horatio, and then, as if to recap for those joining us late, we're going to get the whole setup explained to us again ("There is a play tonight before the king, one scene of it," etc)! And THEN, and most importantly as far as suspense is concerned, we have to wait through half the show before we get any reaction out of the king at all! We have to see the whole crime acted out, quite accurately, right there in front of the criminal, whom we're scrutinizing minutely and anxiously, and the criminal doesn't blench! The necessity of this, or at least the egregious dramatic mistake of having the king give himself away at the first indication, after so long and thorough a buildup, seems obvious to me. You don't need some crackpot theory about him not understanding the dumbshow or not paying attention while it's playing. It's simply that in the face of something explicitly and cunningly designed to make him lose his cool, he keeps his cool. For a while. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 09:30:59 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0065 Re: Non-Shakespearean Videos Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0065. Thursday, 16 January 1997. (1) From: Barbara Geisey Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 97 9:51:43 -30000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0058 Re: Non-Shakespearean Videos (2) From: Edward Rocklin Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 14:20:57 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0058 Re: Non-Shakespearean Videos (3) From: Mark Webster Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 17:47:17 -0600 Subj: Re: Non-Shakespearean Videos (4) From: Juliet A. Youngren Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 19:38:56 -0600 (CST) Subj: Non-Shakespearean Videos (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Geisey Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 97 9:51:43 -30000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0058 Re: Non-Shakespearean Videos According to the Educational Film & Video Locator there's a copy of the Classic Theatre Series "Edward II" for rent at the University of Texas at Dallas. (214/690-2949) BGeisey@UAkron.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward Rocklin Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 14:20:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0058 Re: Non-Shakespearean Videos Michael Friedman asks about the broadcast of Marlowe's _Edward II_: I remember watching it, and finding it powerful, in a way that, retrospectively, I can see Ian McKellan often is powerful: the murder scene, in particular, was wrenching in the wide oscillations Edward swung through, with a mixture of king and utterly vulnerable human being. The play was one of a series, sponsored by the NEH I think --but what was the title? -- which had a companion volume with the playtexts, but I do not know if it had any illustrations from the productions (which included, _The Duchess of Malfi_ and, perhaps a Sheridan or Goldsmith?). I have not seen the film advertised, but it seems to me a year or more ago someone posted more information on the production and the series on this list. Perhaps Hardy can access that exchange? Edward L. Rocklin California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Webster Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 17:47:17 -0600 Subject: Re: Non-Shakespearean Videos >Are there any videotapes of non-Shakespearean English Renaissance plays >available to show to classes? If so, what are they and where can I get them >(or at least find out what's available)? > >Thanks, >Jeff Myers There is a video production of Middleton & Rowley's *The Changeling* that aired several months ago, possibly on the Bravo channel, with Bob Hoskins and Elizabeth McGovern. I'm afraid I don't have any information on who produced it or where it can be ordered, but I do have a copy that I taped at the time. I would be glad to loan this to you (the production is quite good -- I make no guarantees about the quality of the recording). You can e-mail me directly if you're interested. Regards, Mark Webster Univ. of Texas (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juliet A. Youngren Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 19:38:56 -0600 (CST) Subject: Non-Shakespearean Videos I have a videotape of Marlowe's _Doctor Faustus_ with Richard Burton as the "good" doctor, Elizabeth Taylor as Helen of Troy, and members of the Oxford University Dramatic Society in the other roles.It was produced in 1967 and released on video by RCA/Columbia in 1987. The code number seems to be 60824. The play is fairly mangled; in particular, the Seven Deadly Sins scene is reduced to almost nothing and a bit of _Tamburlaine_ or some similar play has been substituted. Still, it is not without interest, and as far as I know it's the only version of this play available on video. I picked this up used from a bargain bin at (believe it or not) my local Blockbuster, so I have no idea whether it's still available. For more information, you could try writing to this address: RCA/Columbia Pictures Home Video 3500 W. Olive Ave. Burbank, CA 91505 Juliet Youngren ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 09:40:55 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0066 Re: Ideology Once Again Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0066. Thursday, 16 January 1997. (1) From: Jesus Cora Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 17:05:35 UTC+0100 Subj: SHK 8.0057 Re: Ideology Once Again (2) From: Thomas Bishop Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 14:11:22 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0049 Re: Ideology Once Again (3) From: Paul Hawkins Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 17:32:10 -0500 (EST) Subj: Ideology Cnce Again (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 17:05:35 UTC+0100 Subject: SHK 8.0057 Re: Ideology Once Again Dear SHAKSPEReans, Excuse my ignorance, but shouldn't we think that the economical structure depends on the culture rather than the other way round, seeing culture as exclusively based on economics? Or, that a culture is the interlacing and interrelationship, confluence, etc. of different factors such as religion, economics, climate, history, etc.? Are we not being quite narrow-minded on considering the economic base as the Primum Mobile? Yours in bewilderment, J. Cora (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 14:11:22 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0049 Re: Ideology Once Again Gabriel Egan writes: > Culture >practices are ALL the superstructural manifestations of an economic base. >Ideology is only those superstructural manifestations of an economic base which >are ESSENTIAL to the continuance of that economic base. I want to explore some of my understanding of the contours of this minefield. If this leads only to me conducting my education in public, I ask you to forgive me. My understanding of Gabriel Egan's position is that he regards ideology now not as, in its older sense, a set of conscious political commitments, but as something much deeper, something largely unconscious, something more like a structure of unexamined beliefs and, lower down, of feelings, and, lowest of all, as something like the grounding of the kind of beings we "perceive" ourselves to be (in particular, the perception of ourselves as having "individuality"). This has the consequence of making all deliberately embraced political positions something other than ideology except insofar as they serve to maintain a means of production. Marxist beliefs are non-ideological in Britain, but presumably WERE ideological in the former Soviet Union. This is rather odd. Consider the following example: Last week I went to the store to buy a shirt to teach in, as my old ones were looking rather frayed. In order to do this, I had to go to my bank machine and get out some money from my bank account. When I got to the store (a discount store) I found myself with a choice between two shirts I liked. One bore the label "Made in Indonesia", the other "Made in the U.S.A." with a tag from the Garment Workers' Union. Since I disapprove of the labor practices of the textile industry in Indonesia and applaud the Garment Workers Unoin in the US, I bought the latter shirt, though it was very slightly more expensive. Which parts of my actions are covered by Egan's description of ideology? Oddly enough, it would seem that everything EXCEPT my decision to buy the Union-made shirt are so. My perception of myself as an individual with a specific need (for a shirt to perform my function as a teacher), my "ownership" of an individual bank account from which I can withdraw money through my PIN number, my choice of a discount shirt store. Perhaps my taste in shirts is not, or perhaps it is in some way I dont recognize, that has to do with my commitments to presenting a certain image of myself -as- an individual. But my decision as to WHICH shirt was not ideological at all, on the Egan model, no doubt because it really was superfluous to my "essential" relation to contemporary capitalism. Am I alone in finding this peculiar? It is the only moment of my day that if felt anything like a political pressure to make a deliberate choice. Is ideology now entirely a matter of what one does not think? (Until some truth teller tells one about it) I still have a problem distinguishing Culture from Ideology. Is it only as an individual labourer and consumer that I am an ideological subject? Not as an individual worshipper or husband? Is it only when my perception of myself as distinct from the next person is mobilized as -economic- that ideology takes place? Or is it in the BASIC perception of my separateness as a functioning organism? Or somewhere between? (Where?) Mr. Egan's recent definitions of ideology have left me with the impression that its workings reach so deep down into my consciousness that they could not possibly be separated out as distinct elements from the rest of my commitments to the culture(s) I inhabit. Now I am told that they can be so separated into the ESSENTIALLY economic and the somehow merely superstructural. That seems to me an entirely different claim. When an economic base manifests itself in a superstructure in some way "essential" to its maintenance, we have ideology. OK. But where and how is the "essentially" economic separated out in this winnowing way? Is it always the same for all of us? Or does the ideology of a priest differ from that of a prostitute? Are there "levels" of ideology? Are some ideologies more ideological, more essential than others? Important issues that bear on and spring from a philosophy of mind are being ignored here. At these deeper levels the question of how minds are formed, how they perceive themselves and their needs, what the relation of biological, psychological and sociological conditions might be needs to be confronted. Perhaps (as Darwin might have argued) the perception of oneself as an individual is deeply basic to human functioning in a way precedent to politics. I think Mr. Egan would deny this, but there are powerful arguments in its favour. That is to say that we need a more careful account of how such perceptions of self and need are formed, taken up and organized in political communities in different ways. The current accounts of ideology dont seem to me sufficiently supple to do that yet. Tom Bishop P.S. Almost any historical moment can be described as "pre-revolutionary" if you look hard and long enough. We still read Plato and Homer -- were they pre-revolutionary? Of course, and also, of course not. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 17:32:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: Ideology Cnce Again I would be interested in knowing which educational system Gabriel Egan is thinking of that now teaches Shakespeare on the assumption that he "helps the formation of strong character, moral rectitude, and good taste" (SHK 8.0037, 11 Jan 97). This idea about the moral value of literature of course exists throughout history, and in one form or another it has probably motivated one part or another of the pre-university teaching of literature in many countries, but it's not the only idea behind the teaching of Shakespeare to children and adolescents, or even the dominant one. It's certainly one that is seldom mentioned, because it is, as Egan recognizes, easily refuted, though for other reasons in addition to those that Egan perhaps envisages. But ironically, the idea that the reading of literature should be morally improving--made so either by the approaches we take to the literature or by the choice of texts--is perhaps more characteristic of current, fashionable critical dispensations than it ever was of the more "traditional" set of ideas about literature that have shaped and continued to shape pre-university teaching. One large idea that certainly guided my own pre-university education in Ontario, and that shapes the curriculum within which I teach in Quebec's CEGEP system, is that the study of great literature offers not moral improvement but pleasure, a difficult pleasure as intellectual as it is visceral. Another guiding idea is that literature, because of its complexity, ambiguity, and inscrutability--its openness to certain ranges of interpretation --and the varied stylistic and rhythmic excellences to be found in the writings of diverse literary artists--is an essential part of the development of a student's reading and writing skills. Both ideas loom larger in my program than any idea of moral improvement (which figures not at all), and are even, as they should be, antagonistic to it. Paul Hawkins ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:17:59 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0071 Conference: Influence and Intertextuality Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0071. Thursday, 16 January 1997. From: John Lee Date: Thursday, 16 Jan 1997 11:36:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Influence and Intertextuality [Please excuse the cross-posting.] Influence and Intertextuality A One-Day Conference at the University of Bristol, Saturday 24 May 1997 How have theories of intertextuality and Bloom's anxiety of influence changed thinking about literary relations? About tradition and the canon? About creativity? About plagiarism? And about more local matters such as allusion, echo and borrowing? The organizers of the conference invite suggestions for papers of approximately 20 minutes which address such questions. Please send abstracts of about 100 words to the address below, by 31st March. For information on registration and accommodation, please contact: Influence and Intertextuality c/o Dr J.M. Lyon Department of English University of Bristol 3/5 Woodland Road Bristol BS8 1TB Fax: 0117 9288860 Tel: 0117 9287787 E-mail: George.E.Donaldson@bris.ac.uk http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/English/cf_inter.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:20:50 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0072 CFP: *Shakespeare and Japan* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0072. Thursday, 16 January 1997. From: Holger Klein Date: Thursday, 16 Jan 1997 07:23:13 -0500 Subject: *Shakespeare and Japan* SHAKESPEARE AND JAPAN. Vol. IX (1998) of the Shakespeare Yearbook, ed. by Holger Klein for the Mellen Press, deals with the Reception of Shakespeare in Japan. The volume is being co-edited by Peter Milward, Tetsuo Anzai, and Soji Iwasaki in Tokyo. In principle, any aspect of reception is interesting, notably translations, adaptations, imitations, parodies/travesties, all forms of intertextual use in the receptor country's literature, theatre productions, production reviews, trends of criticism, films and videos and their reviews, the role of Shakespeare in public life - school, university curricula, journalism, advertising, etc. Contributions may be between 15 and 25 pages, double-spaced including notes. A specific style sheet is available, otherwise use the MLA Style Sheet. Any offers please to Holger Klein. The deadline for submission is September 1997. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 09:48:05 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0067 Re: A Great Caesar Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0067. Thursday, 16 January 1997. (1) From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 13:37:39 -0500 Subj: SHK 8.0058 Q: A Great Caesar (2) From: John P. Dwyer Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 17:30:20 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0058 Q: A Great Caesar (3) From: David J. Kathman Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 22:14:43 +0100 Subj: Julius Sizzer (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 13:37:39 -0500 Subject: SHK 8.0058 Q: A Great Caesar Dear Mr Swilley: Your access to Marc Antony's 'true feelings' suggests you may be able to shed some light on whether or not Lady Macbeth 'really' faints. I am agog. Really. Truly. Terence Hawkes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John P. Dwyer Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 17:30:20 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0058 Q: A Great Caesar Dear Louis C. Swilley: Although not much of a Shakespeare scholar (and definitely not an actor nor a director), may I suggest that the element of your post: *And that pompous, "I am as constant as the northern star" speech* is perhaps a personal and even collective response to not only Gielgud's production (and others), but may be a complete misreading. For instance may the claim be heard as not altogether pompous (nor humorous)? A man desperate within himself may lay claim to consistency as a saving/ redeeming factor despite all else. Remember, pity runneth soon in a noble heart. John Dwyer (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David J. Kathman Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 22:14:43 +0100 Subject: Julius Sizzer This is rather off-topic, but the query about the character of Caesar somehow reminded me of the story of Julius Caesar as told by the late, great Milt Gross. Gross was a humorist in the early part of this century, and his schtick was to retell familiar stories in the Yiddish-influenced dialect of first- and second-generation urban Jews. I don't know why I've always found his stuff so hilarious, because I'm not Jewish at all, but it still makes me chuckle 15 years after I first discovered it. It's been my experience that some people just find his writing exasperating, but I hope at least some SHAKSPERians will find it half as hilarious as I do. Anyway, with apologies to Shakespeare, here is Milt Gross' version of Julius Caesar. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu How It Got Bomped Huff Julius Sizzer ------------------------------------ Julius Sizzer was a hemperor from Rumm wot he liked honly fet pipple. So was likewice leeving in Rumm a conspeerator wot he was entitled Kessius -- wot he was werry, werry skeeny wot he weighed gradually a tuttle from ninety-hate ponds -- (soaking wat yat) -- witt de harmor on witt a monkeh wranch yat in de beck pocket, witt a heepo hunder wan harm ivvin!! So in view from de sleem phizzik he was a whole time in Dotch witt Sizzer. So from monnink teel nite he was itting brad witt potatiss witt meelk witt crim witt botter witt hall kinds from stotchy foods it should inkriss by heem de hedverdupois. So de murr wot he hate, so de sleemer grew de feegure!! So he sad -- "Yi Yi Yi -- I'll hev to skim opp a skimm!" So he ren queeck by Brutus wot he sad so: "Hollo, hold top -- come lat's we should tie on de nuzz-beg!!" (Brutus, by de way, was redder rotund. So Kessius, dot jeep, was trying to inwiggle heem in he should ulso be skeeny, occurding de haddage wot meesery luffs weesitors/) "Wot you'll hev, Brootie?? Try de grapefroot -- witt a leedle peeckles witt lamon-jooze!! Witt a pine-hepple -- goot -- Come we'll go now by a Toikish bett we'll lay arond gradually in de stim-romm, I should tukk over a preposition!!" So Brutus sad: "Ho K, is by me agribble." So Kessius sad: "You know dees guy Sizzer?" "Yeh." "So lat's we should cruk heem!!" So Brutus sad: "Why we should cruk heem??" So Kessius sad: "Bicuss it itches by heem de palm." So Brutus sad: "Hm -- for mine pot it could itch by heem hall over! I'm werry leeberal-minded. Besites he's a goot guy -- he riffused he should accept a cron!" So Kessius sad: "Ha Ha! A prass-hagent geg!! Dot's jost noosepaper tukk! Deedn't I saw heem de odder night in de badroom in de front from a meeror a whole night trying hon crons?? Ha HA! Riffused a cron!! Benena Hoil!!" So Brutus sad: "YI YI YI!! So for dees we'll geeve heem de woiks! So how?? Witt knifes witt deggers, maybe!!" "How about peestols?" "Too motch noize. We could tie heem maybe on a railroad treck -- it should come alung de train --" "Nup I got it -- we'll sand heem a cake it should be insite a bomb so -- Sh-sh-sh -- Pipe don -- here he comes... Hollo Julie, hold top, we was jost tukking wot a great guy you are, ha, Brutus?" So Sizzer sad: "Hollo Brutus -- Wot's dees? You kerrying now a cane?? Oh -- oxcuse me -- it's YOU, Kessius -- skerkrow!! Hm -- stend front-ways so I could see you? Wal, wal -- De skaleton in harmor, ha? Steel training for a jockey, ha? You deedn't sleeped yat don de drain-pipe from a battob? Wal, wal -- gatting woister avery day... Shot one heye so you'll look gradually like a niddle!!! Hmm -- sonds like a pair from dice whan he wukks! So tonight by de dence werr at list a peelow onder de gomment odder a balloon, a blun-opp one, I should be hable I should look you in de faze -- beg from bones, you!!" So Kessius gafe a leff: "HA HA HA HA!! You sure a penic, Julius, I soitinly gatting a keeck from you queeps ivvin if is on me de juk! S'lonk!!" (Of cuss he rilly deedn't minn it he was jost hecting a pot.) "Slonk -- so like I was saying, Brutus, we'll hall kraut arond heem so I'll say 'Why does it lay a cheecken a hagg, Julius?' So he'll henswer: 'In horder he shouldn't break it!' So whan he'll geeve de henswer'll be de tsignal we should geeve heem de woiks!!" Pot Two ------- Sootsayer: "Bewerr from de Hides from Motch, Sizzer!!" Sizzer: "Why I should bewerr from de Hides from Motch??" Sootsayer: "It stends in de Crystal Ball signs you should bewerr from de Hides from Motch!" Sizzer: "Noo, it stends ulso in de sobway signs I should dreenk Cula-Cola!! Is dees a criterion?? Hm -- geeve a look a whole mob -- Hey wot you teenk diss is, boyiss? De Kenel Stritt sobway station? Should I know why it lays a cheeken haggs?? Boyiss -- put away de deggers -- Deedn't I told you guys -- neex on de mommbly-pag beezness -- Whoooooy -- Hay -- I tink wot dey trying to essessinate me!!" Kraut: "Hm -- You ketch right hon, dunt you?" Wot dey gafe heem witt de deggers so -- wot it looked gradually de gomment like it came beck jost from a wat-wash lundry. So dees was de cocklusion from Julius Sizzer. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 09:57:40 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0068 Re: Productions of The Tempest Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0068. Thursday, 16 January 1997. (1) From: Diana E. Smith Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 13:17:42 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0062 Q: Productions of The Tempest (2) From: Ian Doescher Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 17:40:40 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0062 Q: Productions of The Tempest (3) From: Mikko Nortela Date: Thursday, 16 Jan 1997 11:21:54 +0200 (EET) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0062 Q: Productions of The Tempest (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Diana E. Smith Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 13:17:42 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0062 Q: Productions of The Tempest Did you see the recent performance on Broadway with actor who played Sejanus in "I, Claudius" series as Prospero? Production was wonderful, largely, I think because the entire set was a mass of real sand, with Caliban, Trinculo, etc. burying themselves in the stuff. Also, Ariel could really sing, which helped. Diana Smith (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ian Doescher Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 17:40:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0062 Q: Productions of The Tempest To Ron Osiowy: I saw a production of "The Tempest" here on campus that was by far the best student production I'd ever seen. The director decided to stage the play in the large exhibition pool in the gymnasium. The audience sat on one side of the bleachers, and he utilized the space around the pool, the opposite bleachers, and even the diving boards (which provided an excellent wobbling first scene, in which the storm occurs). And then, of course, the director made full use of the 50 meters or so of exhbition pool available to him. Ariel (played by an extremely athletic man) swam from end to end at times, and at then end of the storm the captain and crew fell in. The "splashy" approach to the play gave it a new element that worked very well, and the decision to use the exhibition pool was an inspired choice on the director's part. Ian Doescher (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mikko Nortela Date: Thursday, 16 Jan 1997 11:21:54 +0200 (EET) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0062 Q: Productions of The Tempest Actually Jean Sibelius (a Finnish composer, 1865-1957) made music to "The Tempest" ("Myrsky", 1925, op. 109), and the music has now been recorded by by a small but very good record company, Ondine. If I remember it right, the Finnish Broadcasting Company (YLE) has also made a TV-production of this play with music by Sibelius, and you could ask for it from ylenykkonen@yle.fi - at least they can give you more information about it. Mikko Nortela manortel@cc.jyu.fi ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:04:53 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0069 Star Trek Allusions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0069. Thursday, 16 January 1997. From: Richard A Burt Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 20:39:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0053 Re: Shakespeare and Popular Culture Here are the Star Trek allusions. Incidentally, all of the episodes of Star Trek and Star Trek, Next Gen can be bought at video stores. Episodes that use Shakespeare: Star Trek "The Conscience of the King Star Trek Next Gen Encounter at Farpoint "First thing we do, let's kill all the players." The Naked Now "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" Darmok (balcony scene of R and J) Shakespeare provides the leitmotif: Hide and Q "The play's the thing .. . All the world's a satge Life's but a walking shadow . . What a piece of work is man. . . This above all: to thine own self be true Shakespeare provides episode title Remember Me Thine Own Self Scenes from Shakespeare Enacted as Prologue Henry V, Act 4, scene 1, lines taken from 88-167. Emergence Tempest V, 1 48-57 Shakespeare as Comic Relief ime's Arrow A Midsummer's N D Act 2, scene 1, 1-5, 59-62 Menage a Troi Excerpts from sonnets 116, 18, 141, 147 Also Othello 5.2. 13-15 When I have picked the rose . . This is followed By Tennyson, Canto 271 "'Tis better to have loved and los tthan never to have loved at all. Start Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Number of allusions, mostly from the Klingon played by Christopher Plummer. Hamlet is central, as the title of this film indicates. "To be or not tot be"--at a dinner party "The undiscovered country" "Have we not heard the chimes at midnight? Henry IV, PArt 2 "Let us sit on the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings. If you prick us , do wwe not bleed? If you tickle us , do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? If you wrong us, shall we not revenge? Mof 3.1. Once more uno the breach. Henry V 3.1. Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war, Julius Caesar 3.1. Our revels now are ended Tempest 4.1. I am constant as the nortthern star. Julius Caesar 3.1. Sorry about the typos. Please forgive me for not annotating the allusions. If you use this info for publication, I'd appreciate a footnote. Thanks. Best, Richard ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:10:16 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0070 Qs: Nobody and Somebody; Doubling; Portia Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0070. Thursday, 16 January 1997. (1) From: Billy Houck Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 11:37:45 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Nobody and Somebody (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 20:02:28 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0056 Re: Virtuoso Doubling (3) From: Louis C Swilley Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 09:20:26 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: Brutus' Portia (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 11:37:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Nobody and Somebody Does anone know of a modern publication of the 1592 play NOBODY AND SOMEBODY, mentioned in THE TEMPEST? I'm interested in mounting it next year some time. The only edition I've ever seen was in an antique book in Stratford. felicitations, Billy Houck Arroyo Grande, California (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 20:02:28 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0056 Re: Virtuoso Doubling Some time ago, Gabriel Egan in a TLS review suggested that Shakespeare's company went in for "virtuoso doubling." I can't at the moment find the review, so this reconstruction is from memory. He asserted that the company used doubling that demanded extraordinary acting skill, not the easy doubling of minor roles. For example, the actor who played Cordelia might double as the Fool. I don't think Gabriel used this possiblity, but I think it's a fair example of virtuoso doubling. My questions are two: (1) Is this paraphrase essentially correct? (2) If so, what hard, material evidence do we have for the assertion that the company specialized in virtuoso doubling? Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 09:20:26 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Brutus' Portia In *Julius Caesar*, Portia comes to her husband Brutus on the night of the meeting of the conspirators and shows him how she has stabbed herself as a sign of her constancy and her ability to keep any secret Brutus tells her! We can just imagine how, say, Woody Allen (as indeed any sane person) might react to this ("What!? Couldn't you have just said, 'Cross my heart and hope to die'?"). But in every production I have seen, Brutus reacts as though he thinks she has done something admirable, and promises to tell her what he and the other conspirators are up to. Shakespeare doesn't think she has done something admirable; he thinks she is seriously unbalanced, as is evidenced by her later scene of distraction with her messenger and the Soothsayer, and, later, by the report, given by Brutus, that she has committed suicide by swallowing live coals! Brutus does not acknowledge her insanity (perhaps does not see it?). If so, what does this say about *him*? Is Brutus' attitude here at one with his blindness to Caesar's serious personal faults - if, indeed, he is so blind (In this remark, I do not refer to Brutus' clear estimate of Caesar as a danger to the state, but to his reading of this fearful, pompous, bragging tyrant as a great man.) In the productions I have seen, these facts about Portia have been brushed over, and the consequences for the character of Brutus ignored. (Further, there has been no hint of explanation of Brutus' pretending - so unlike him - to his generals that he has not heard of Portia's death until they tell him of it!) I would appreciate any observations about the above, based on the argument of the play, not on what history tells us - Shakespeare distorts or omits matters of history to make his artistic point. For the solution of these problems and explanation of these things, the play awaits a competent director, one who accepts the lines as they stand, but - somehow, I know not how - interprets them to give us satisfactory answers to such questions as I ask above. The answers lie in the kind of interpretation exampled in the Gielgud scene I mentioned in an earlier mailing; but convincing interpretation cannot be "spotty," as the Gielgud scene was, it must be carried consistently throughout the play. L. Swilley Houston TX ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:43:55 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0073 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: Q1LEAR PERFORM Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0073. Friday, 17 January 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, January 17, 1997 Subject: New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: Q1LEAR PERFORM As of today, SHAKSPEReans may retrieve David Richman's essay, "The *King Lear* Quarto in Rehearsal and Performance" (Q1LEAR PERFORM) from the SHAKSPER Fileserver. To retrieve "The *King Lear* Quarto in Rehearsal and Performance", send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET Q1LEAR PERFORM". Should you have difficulty receiving this or any of the files on the SHAKSPER Fileserver, please contact the editor at . Below you will find a note from David Richman regarding the essay and a brief excerpt from it. ******************************************************************************* From: David M Richman Date: Tuesday, 7 Jan 1997 21:38:51 -0500 (EST) Since so much has been made, of late, on the last lines of Lear, I'd like to offer an electronic offprint of my account of an attempt to stage the *King Lear* Quarto. The production I describe took place in April, 1985, and the account was published in *shakespeare Quarterly* Autumn, 1986. While I remain proud of the production, humbled to have worked with so many talented people on it, I am quick to acknowledge that other performers and directors would, will, make far different choices than those described in this account. Were I again to attempt to stage the Quarto today, nearly twelve years later, and had I the privilege of working with such talented people as I worked with in 1985, I might try different choices. Most particularly, I found Lear's last lines in Quarto to be unplayable, verging on the ridiculous. I no longer think them ridiculous, and I'd try to play them today. If I failed, I would acknowledge the failure as mine. Others might succeed. I have subsequently worked with students on several occasions on scene studies of the final scene in Q and F versions. I haven't yet brought off Q to my satisfaction, but I am still trying. David Richman University of New Hampshire ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The *King Lear* Quarto in Rehearsal and Performance" David Richman Associate Professor of Theatre University of New Hampshire For more than two and a half centuries, readers have been reasonably content with editorial conflations of *King Lear*'s two authoritative texts, that printed in the 1608 Quarto and that published in the 1623 Folio. From 1838, after Macready ended the reign in the theatre of Nahum Tate's redaction by restoring to the stage both the fool and the unhappy ending, producers and directors have founded theatrical productions on such conflations, though they have taken liberties with them. A century after Macready's production, Granville-Barker began to disentangle the Quarto from the Folio. He argued that the Folio offers many of Shakespeare's improving revisions and strongly advised directors to base their productions on that text.1 During the last decade Granville-Barker's arguments have been seized and amplified. The issue is far from settled, but a growing number of scholars and critics have been arguing that the Folio represents a systematic revision of the Quarto by the playwright.2 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:51:18 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0074 Productions: 12th Night and The Tempest Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0074. Friday, 17 January 1997. (1) From: Matthew W Mitchell-Shiner Date: Thursday, 16 Jan 1997 08:59:55 -0800 (PST) Subj: 12th Night Productions - Intermission (2) From: Carol Light Date: Thursday, 16 Jan 1997 12:25:21 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0068 Tempest Productions in a Brave New World (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew W Mitchell-Shiner Date: Thursday, 16 Jan 1997 08:59:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: 12th Night Productions - Intermission My journey working on my first Shakespeare production is already one of the best times of my life. We finally deceided to cross cast Feste, Fabian and Valentine; we are setting the play in 1920's Florida - Illyria is now a fashionable beach resort. Question for those who have done this show in production with only one intermission - where did you place it? We are trying to find a natural break that ends the first act well, and still maintains a longer first act then second act. Thank you. - Matthew (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carol Light Date: Thursday, 16 Jan 1997 12:25:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0068 Tempest Productions in a Brave New World >Did you see the recent performance on Broadway with actor who played Sejanus in >"I, Claudius" series as Prospero? As it happens I did, because it united my two great theatrical loves: Shakespeare and Star Trek: the actor was Patrick Stewart, appallingly underutilized in the Star Trek Next Generation series and most recently, two Star Trek Interminable movies. I too, enjoyed the production (which came, I believe, from a Shakespear in the Parks venue). It had a Carribean theme, with vodoo and witch-doctors appearing as the various apparitions. I thought Patrick Stewart did a very nice job (and I could listen to that man recite Shakespeare anytime, anyplace, anywhere), but I didn't much care for the interpreation of Prospero, which I've described as "the Magician in Spite of Himself". I found Stewart's Prospero to be much more timid, much more intimidated by his magical powers, Ariel and even Caliban than I imagined or have seen in other performances. But he was a joy to watch, with all vestigages of hisis role as Jean Luc Picard on Things Trekian completely absent. In this show, he had a much lighter touch (he even danced), his whole body posture and his intonation, expressions, were Shakespearian (he was the only British accent in the play, and perhaps not so coincidentally, the only one who sounded as if he were speaking naturally, albeit in verse). Ariel was played by a woman, a black actress who added wonderful, almost sexual tension, to the Ariel-Prospero relationship. She and the other Americans (I mean, were there no actors with at least West Indian accents available in NYC?) did fairly well with the text and kept the show moving. It only lit up, alas, when Mr. Stewart strode the stage. List live long and prosper, Carol Light Admitted Amateur ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:05:45 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0077 Re: Star Trek Allusions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0077. Friday, 17 January 1997. (1) From: Stephen Buhler Date: Thursday, 16 Jan 1997 13:06:06 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0069 Star Trek Allusions (2) From: Jane A Thompson Date: Thursday, 16 Jan 1997 13:37:38 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0069 Star Trek Allusions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Buhler Date: Thursday, 16 Jan 1997 13:06:06 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0069 Star Trek Allusions Richard Burt has helpfully listed several of the Shakespeare allusions appearing in *Star Trek*--the original series, the *Next Generation*, and the film *ST6: The Undiscovered Country*. Many of these have been considered in detail in a special issue of the Science Fiction and Fantasy journal *Extrapolation*. Devoted to the uses of Shakespeare in *Star Trek*'s various incarnations, the Spring 1995 issue (volume 36, number 1) was edited by Susan C. Hines. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jane A Thompson Date: Thursday, 16 Jan 1997 13:37:38 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0069 Star Trek Allusions Well, Richard Burt's is an OK list; however, it is not complete. There is a fairly complete list for _Star Trek_ (the original series), _Star Trek: The Next Generation_, and the films through _Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country_ in a FAQ posted originally to rec.arts.startrek.misc. That FAQ also includes some commentary, chiefly on the _Hamlet_ quote in the film title, but I think it misses the allusions in "Darmok." There are several essays around on this topic. In fact, _Extrapolation_ had a special issue on Shakespeare references in _Star Trek_. There was also a session at the last MidAtlantic Popular Culture Conference--the paper call that resulted in this session was posted on SHAKSPER, in fact. (I was in that session myself.) Anyway, there is still no source I know of that lists any Shakespeare allusions in the two _Star Treks_ currently running, and in my admittedly spotty viewing, I've never noticed any allusions. Has anyone else? I'd like to know this, as my own thesis was that the first and second series are in competition for their shared market in _ST6_, and the "old" ST attempts to take back a kind of cultural high ground from the new series through its manipulation (sometimes extreme) of Shakespeare. But since the film, its passing joke about Shakespeare as being secretly a Klingon (David Warner's character says something like, "You don't really know Shakespeare unless you have experienced him in the original Klingon") has blossomed into the voluminous work of the Klingon Institute (I think that's its name--it's got a Website, but I don't know the address), "re-translating" the Shakespearean canon and the Bible--and probably other texts by now--into the alphabet and language invented by Marc Okrand. _Hamlet_ is apparently finished; I don't know what version of the text they chose to translate as I don't read Klingon. (Klingon now has more speakers than Esperanto.) I'm not quite sure what to make of all this--perhaps some of you have reactions. --Jane ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:56:18 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0075 Videos: Question and Response Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0075. Friday, 17 January 1997. (1) From: Satia B. Testman Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 22:41:38 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Richard II (2) From: K. H-K. Date: Thursday, 16 Jan 1997 13:41:14 GMT Subj: Films on Video (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Satia B. Testman Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1997 22:41:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Richard II Does anyone know if Derek Jacobi's Richard II is available on video? I would love to see it and don't know where to begin. Satia R. Testman stestman@pigseye.kennesaw.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: K. H-K. Date: Thursday, 16 Jan 1997 13:41:14 GMT Subject: Films on Video There is a version of Marlowe's *Edward II* directed by Derek Jarman currently available on videotape. Although I haven't seen it, *Sight and Sound* devoted a number of pages to the film when it was originally released in Britain, and as I remember the articles, they received the piece well. *The Tempest* is available in a variety of treatments. There's a Jarman production of it, which isn't, so far as I can tell, available on video; there's a short animated version, part of *Shakespeare: The Animated Tales*; John Cassavetes directed the lovely *Tempest* which is a 1982 updating of the story, set on a Greek island. I don't think it's available any more, but many video rental places still stock it. Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:01:09 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0076 Re: Ideology Once Again Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0076. Friday, 17 January 1997. (1) From: Dale Lyles Date: Thursday, 16 Jan 1997 13:42:37 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0049 Re: Ideology Once Again (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 17 Jan 97 01:05:57 GMT Subj: Re: Ideology Once Again (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Thursday, 16 Jan 1997 13:42:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0049 Re: Ideology Once Again Gabriel Egan writes: >Drama was mass media in early modern London, so perhaps we'd need to look for a >artist in another medium. Eisenstein, maybe? Flat tergiversation as ever was committed? It's an appealing idea to switch horses in the middle of the inning, I suppose, but I don't go down to the theatre and produce Eisenstein, no matter how many times I show the Odessa Steps to awed 16-year-olds. Shakespeare and Eisenstein are different artistic *modes*, if you'll forgive the theft of the term. I have to come down on the side of the argument that, assuming that we cannot escape the values of our language, Shakespeare must have some kind of "innate value," and that value is not limited to his embodying the power structure of capitalist modes of production. Otherwise, how did the Moscow Art Theatre escape everlasting redemption? Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 17 Jan 97 01:05:57 GMT Subject: Re: Ideology Once Again A batch of replies, all in one First, to Jesus Cora... > Are we not being quite narrow-minded on considering the > economic base as the Primum Mobile? It's Marxism. Any evidence that economics is not primary would help show that Marxism is narrow-minded, if you can find it. Second, to Tom Bishop... > My understanding of Gabriel Egan's position is that > he regards ideology now not as, in its older sense, > a set of conscious political commitments, but as > something much deeper, something largely unconscious, > something more like a structure of unexamined beliefs > and, lower down, of feelings, and, lowest of all, as > something like the grounding of the kind of beings we > "perceive" ourselves to be (in particular, the perception > of ourselves as having "individuality"). Yep. > This has the consequence of making all deliberately embraced > political positions something other than ideology except > insofar as they serve to maintain a means of production. You already established that ideology isn't about political positions, so it can't come as much of a surprise that "deliberately embraced political positions [are] something other than ideology". > Which parts of my actions [when buying a shirt] are covered by > Egan's description of ideology? Oddly enough, it would seem that > everything EXCEPT my decision to buy the Union-made shirt are so. That's only odd if you recant your first paragraph acknowledging that it's not about political commitments, but about "something much deeper". > When an economic base manifests itself in a superstructure > in some way "essential" to its maintenance, we have ideology. > OK. But where and how is the "essentially" economic separated > out in this winnowing way? Wherever and however we argue about what constitutes culture. Towards the end of _Culture and Society_ Raymond Williams argued that the category 'culture' ('a tending of natural growth') could usefully include the practice of trade union activism. This would clearly not serve capitalist production but rather be antagonistic towards it. Trade unionism is resistance to capitalist production, even though one can't think oneself entirely out of the conditions one finds oneself in. (The sexism of much working class political activism in 1960s & 70s Britain typifies the incompleteness of any consciousness raising). Williams charted the development of the notion of 'culture', with its widely varied significances (eg Great Works of Art, or The Food and Recreation Patterns of the Middle Classes) and offered a redefinition useful to Marxists. Who is making the distinction between parts of the superstructure that directly serve the base and parts which are superfluous or even antagonistic? Us! > P.S. Almost any historical moment can be described as > "pre-revolutionary" if you look hard and long enough. Really? London 1661, Paris 1790, Moscow 1918 can be all described a pre-revolutionary? For how long do I have to look before that happens? Lastly, to Paul Hawkins... > I would be interested in knowing which educational system > Gabriel Egan is thinking of that now teaches Shakespeare > on the assumption that he "helps the formation of strong > character, moral rectitude, and good taste". The British. Especially since the national curriculum was formulated to demand that all twelve year olds study small, hopelessly decontextualized, excerpts. > One large idea that certainly guided my own pre-university > education in Ontario, and that shapes the curriculum within > which I teach in Quebec's CEGEP system, is that the study of > great literature offers not moral improvement but pleasure, > a difficult pleasure as intellectual as it is visceral. Sadly British education ministers of the 1980s didn't lay such an importance upon pleasure. I did not mean to characterize the Canadian educational system, about which I know no more than you have written. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:24:40 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0078 Re: Doubling; Nobody and Somebody; A Great Caesar Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0078. Friday, 17 January 1997. (1) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 17 Jan 97 01:05:45 GMT Subj: Re: Doubling (2) From: Ton Hoenselaars Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 10:02:35 -0600 (CST) Subj: RE: SHK 8.0070 Qs: Nobody and Somebody (3) From: Louis C Swilley Date: Thursday, 16 Jan 1997 14:34:49 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0067 Re: A Great Caesar (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 17 Jan 97 01:05:45 GMT Subject: Re: Doubling Bill Godshalk asks about virtuoso doubling > For example, the actor who played Cordelia might double as the > Fool. I don't think Gabriel used this possiblity, but I think it's a fair > example of virtuoso doubling. Although they are unalike, this would be an example of thematic doubling if it used the two-in-oneness to suggest that the two characters share a similar relation to the father figure. I was commenting on that kind of thematic doubling in the ISGC Globe production of _Two Gentlemen of Verona_. I suggested that it was inauthentic and that virtuoso doubling (where the two characters chosen have nothing in common) was more appropriate. Virtuoso and thematic doubling don't have to be opposites, as the example of Cordelia/Fool shows (ie it's both virtuoso and thematic), but C20 directorial sensibilities tend to favour the latter whereas C16/7 favoured the former. A C Sprague _The Doubling of Parts in Shakespeare's Plays_ (London: The Society for Theatre Research, 1966) rejected the doubling of Fool and Cordelia becayse the Fool was an important comedian's role, not a boy's, and Armin was too old to play Cordelia (p33). > My questions are two: (1) Is this paraphrase essentially correct? I don't think Fool/Cordelia is a good example, for the above reason. > what hard, material evidence do we have for the assertion that the > company specialized in virtuoso doubling? Richard Fotheringham "The Doubling of Roles on the Jacobean Stage" _Theatre Research International_ 10:1 (1985) gives examples from _Volpone_ and _The Alchemist_ in which the dialogue seems to acknowledge, and indeed gain comic effect from, the doubling which analysis of the casting requirements shows is necessary. Fotheringham also gives examples from Marston's _Antonio and Mellida_ and Webster's _The Duchess of Malfi_. Gabriel Egan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ton Hoenselaars Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 10:02:35 -0600 (CST) Subject: RE: SHK 8.0070 Qs: Nobody and Somebody There is an edition of *Nobody and Somebody* in the Malone Society Reprints. I am not certain if it is still available from the Society. Ton Hoenselaars (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Thursday, 16 Jan 1997 14:34:49 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0067 Re: A Great Caesar >Dear Mr Swilley: Your access to Marc Antony's 'true feelings' suggests you may >be able to shed some light on whether or not Lady Macbeth 'really' faints. I am >agog. Really. Truly. > > Terence Hawkes Dear Mr. Hawkes: Speaking to no one but himself in his soliloquy over "this bleeding piece of earth," Antony is certainly expressing his "true feelings." ( What other interpretation is possible for a *soliloquy*?). And I would assume that the Lady Macbeth whose has just a few moments ago gone to the murder scene to take care of the murder weapon(s) (when her husband hadn't the courage to do it), has here feigned her fainting for the purpose of distraction. This lady, who, as she says, would dash her nursing baby's brains out if she had sworn to do so, is not the fainting kind, surely; at least, not in this part of the play. If she *really* faints, it can only be early evidence of her later emotional wobbling - and either has the same effect: distraction from the dangerous point under consideration by the surrounding figures. >Although not much of a Shakespeare scholar (and definitely not an actor nor a >director), may I suggest that the element of your post: *And that pompous, "I >am as constant as the northern star" speech* is perhaps a personal and even >collective response to not only Gielgud's production (and others), but may be a >complete misreading. For instance may the claim be heard as not altogether >pompous (nor humorous)? A man desperate within himself may lay claim to >consistency as a saving/ redeeming factor despite all else. Remember, pity >runneth soon in a noble heart. > > John Dwyer Dear John Dwyer, My estimate of Caesar's lines we here discuss is not made of these lines in isolation, but observed in light of all the *public* lines of Caesar. All of those lines suggest a man who is so full of his recent victories, one who is contemptuous of those in at least nominal power ("graybeards" he calls the senators), he is virtually *sailing* up to a new, self-appointed height. I admit that his fear (his remarks to Antony about Cassius, and his anxiety over the events of the night and Calpurnia's warning) suggests the possibility of a man, as you say of him, "desperate within himself." As you see it, does his desperation lead him to this pompous, insulting speech, "I could be well moved if I were as you, etc.,"? Remember, this is the man who could charm the crowd with his pretended reluctance to have a crown. What on earth is he doing here in the Senate, using such an approach around those who, unlike the yelping crowd, have (still) the power to make him king! But I lose my own original question. Whether he is desperate or not, wherein is this man shown to be the "great one" of whom Antony and Brutus speak? Do you offer his *desperation* as evidence of his greatness? * * * (And I'm afraid I do not understand the first sentence of your response, above.) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 13:14:10 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0079 Re: Ideology Once Again Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0079. Saturday, 18 January 1997. (1) From: Jesus Cora Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 17:15:26 UTC+0100 Subj: SHK 8.0066 Re: Ideology Once Again (2) From: Ed Bonahue Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 14:13:10 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0076 Re: Ideology Once Again (3) From: Paul Hawkins Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 19:46:34 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0076 Re: Ideology Once Again (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 21:21:38 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0076 Re: Ideology Once Again (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 17:15:26 UTC+0100 Subject: SHK 8.0066 Re: Ideology Once Again Dear Tom Bishop, Ok, your decision on buying a new shirt was ideological, but it was also based on feelings. You don't like Indonesian textile industry because it exploits workers in a fearsome way. Therefore, you care about those people, you accept that there is something common between you and them. You are thinking in humanitarian and also, why not? Humanist terms. This leads this discussion back to whether Humanism exists or not or whether is has been superceded. After all, is not Marxism another kind of Humanism? Hasn't got Humanism a lot to do with morals and moral improvement? All the best. J. Cora. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Bonahue Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 14:13:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0076 Re: Ideology Once Again To Jesus Cora's question: > Are we not being quite narrow-minded on considering the > economic base as the Primum Mobile? Gabriel Egan responded: > It's Marxism. Any evidence that economics is not primary would help > show that Marxism is narrow-minded, if you can find it. Even if economics is primary (a view I generally agree with), that doesn't mean the economics-culture equation is a zero-sum game. We have already critiqued Althusser's definition of ideology, but his discussion of contradiction and overdetermination is still useful here. Others can summarize his argument more clearly than I, but here goes: Althusser proposes that the economic base ultimately generates social conditions and cultural circumstances that operate independently of pure economic relations, with the result that overdetermined intersections of economic political, and cultural forces may be contradictory and irreducible to pure economic phenomena. So, while Althusser maintains that economics provide the primary base, he provides for cultural formations that are more than simply expressions of material relations. Ed Bonahue University of Florida (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 19:46:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0076 Re: Ideology Once Again In response to Gabriel Egan: I don't mean to be difficult, but how does a requirement that students study decontextualized passages confirm that the idea guiding the curriculum is that literature improves the moral character of those who read it? Paul Hawkins (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 21:21:38 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0076 Re: Ideology Once Again Jesus Cora asks: > Are we not being quite narrow-minded on considering the > economic base as the Primum Mobile? Gabriel Egan responds: >It's Marxism. Any evidence that economics is not primary would help show that >Marxism is narrow-minded, if you can find it. Gabriel Egan and I agree that nothing (and we mean "everything," don't we?) is innately, inherently meaningful. If nothing is innately meaningful, then the assertion that "economics is . . . primary" can not be a statement that something is, or all things are, inherently "economic" because meaning does not inhere. To assert that "economics is . . . primary" is to attempt to impose meaning on an innately meaningless set of phenomena. Nothing is innately economic, or inherently anything else. Meaning by Shakespeare or Marx? Nonsense. (Where's Terry Hawkes to back me up on this?) Marxism is simply another human attempt to impose meaning on a meaningless universe and/or on a bunch of innately meaningless playscripts by Shakespeare. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:25:52 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0080 Re: Shakespearean and Non-Shakespearean Videos Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0080. Saturday, 18 January 1997. (1) From: Miles Edward Taylor Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 09:29:57 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0075 Videos: Question and Response (2) From: Kenneth Adelman Date: Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 11:07:52 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0075 Videos: Question and Response (3) From: Richard A. Burt Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 14:15:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0075 Videos: Question and Response (4) From: Mason West Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 16:07:54 -0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0075 Videos: Question and Response (5) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 14:39:07 -0500 (EST) Subj: Non-Shakespearian Videos (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Miles Edward Taylor Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 09:29:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0075 Videos: Question and Response Here at UO, all the BBC productions, including Jacobi's R2, are available at our library. If your library does not have them, a hundred others probably do and you may find some willing to do an interlibrary loan. Jacobi is wonderful as Richard, and this is one worth seeing. For the most part, though, these BBC productions are painfully dull. The comedies especially suffer from the reverential treatment. The Jacobi Hamlet is also very good, however. A few notes on the version of "The Changeling" which recently aired on the Bravo network: besides Hoskins and Grant, the other star--and a real eye-opener--was Elizabeth McGovern as Beatrice-Joanna. For me, she was the best part of the production. Also, the whole sub-plot from which the play takes its name, wherein Antonio plays mad to gain access to the madhouse keeper's wife, was stricken. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Adelman Date: Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 11:07:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0075 Videos: Question and Response Yes. Jacobi's RII is available on the BBC version of Shakespeare. Some five or so years ago, BBC did the complete canon and this was a highlight in that (Jacobi was also Hamlet in that series). A good library will have the complete set, at least mine does in Arlington, VA. Time-Life somehow joined with BBC to market the series, I believe, so it may be listed that way as well. Enjoy it! It's wonderful! Ken Adelman (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A. Burt Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 14:15:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0075 Videos: Question and Response There are lots and lots of videos available. One place to look for availability is Ken Rotthwell's Shakespeare on Screen. Also consult Walking Shadows. Video rental stores will often order videos for you. I just got the Cukor RomeoandJuliet for 17.00. Newly relased videos are initially expensive, but eventually drop to less than 20.00. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mason West Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 16:07:54 -0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0075 Videos: Question and Response Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer wrote: *The Tempest* is available in a variety of treatments. . . . John Cassavetes directed the lovely *Tempest* which is a 1982 updating of the story, set on a Greek island. I don't think it's available any more, but many video rental places still stock it. This version, Tempest (without the definite article), is one of my favorite 'little movies.' While it is a relatively modest production, I would not go so far as to call it a B-movie as someone earlier labeled it. For one thing -- not to invite the ire of the Marxists -- it has a bit more class than, say, a Charles Bronson movie. The excellent cast includes Cassavettes, Susan Sarandon, Gena Rowlands, Raul Julia (as a lovable "Calibanos"), and Molly Ringwold in her first film. Paul Mazursky, not Cassavettes, directed, though the film's story of a man in the thick of a mid-life crisis, a marriage break-up, and a search for his cultural roots in Greece very much resembles the sort of films Cassavettes directed and acted in with cohorts Peter Falk and Ben Gazara (sp?) during the '60s and '70s. A lot of the wit and charm of this movie comes as much from Cassavettes and his New York theatrical milieu as it does from Shakespeare, and it's none the less for it. Mazursky, remarkably, manages to capture most of his denouement in a well choreographed take of about five minutes while a sultry tango plays on the soundtrack. Other treatments of the Tempest include Forbidden Planet and Peter Greenaway's Prospero's Books. Though the 1956 production of Forbidden Planet predated the watershed of realistic special effects heralded in 1968 by 2001: A Space Odyssey, it set some excellent standards that science fictions films were obliged to follow, and it remains a cult classic today. Walter Pidgeon stars and Kate Francis plays his cloistered daughter. Greenaway's Prospero's Books by the controversial artistic British director Peter Greenaway (best known for his The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover) is as dark as Paul Mazursky's Tempest is light. I'm not prepared to comment on Greenaway's deviations from Shakespeare, but this is an important film to see if you are interested in how Shakespeare has been handled in film adaptations. -- Mason West mason@pobox.com (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 14:39:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Non-Shakespearian Videos I have seen a wonderful video of "The Duchess of Malfi", with Nigel Terry as Bosola, although I can't recall where it came from. I'll ask my prof about it and get back to you. Andy White Now in Arlington, VA ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:34:32 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0081 Re: Lady Macbeth; Portia; Caesar Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0081. Saturday, 18 January 1997. (1) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:45:32 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0078 Lady Macbeth fainting (2) From: Thomas Bishop Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 11:43:31 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0070 Qs: Portia (3) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 17 Jan 97 22:49:01 GMT Subj: Re: A Great Caesar (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:45:32 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0078 Lady Macbeth fainting Fans of the nerves-of-steel Lady Macbeth are advised not to read too attentively her anxious soliloquy in 2.1: "Hark! Peace, it was the owl that shrieked, . . . Alack, I am afraid they have awaked . . . Hark!" etc. Those praising her gumption for putting bloody knives in the hands of drugged simpletons are better off forgetting how she fumbled her famous ruthlessness in the main event and fobbed the real work off on somebody else, more daunted by her own hallucination than her husband was by his ("Had he not resembled my father as he slept, I had done't"). (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 11:43:31 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0070 Qs: Portia Louis Swilley raises an interesting point about Brutus and Portia. I'm not myself so sure that Portia's stabbing herself can be taken as evidence of an unbalanced mind. It seems to me perfectly compatible with what else we hear of her as a figure inheriting Stoicism both as a philosophy and a family tradition (she was Cato's daughter after all). Her stabbing herself to show her ability to exercize her will and endure suffering with resolve is consistent with Stoic attitudes, though perhaps rather intense as rhetorical proof of them. Brutus understands her gesture in that spirit. (One can compare her here with Lady Percy in 1H4 who offers to break Hotspur's finger. Portia would presumably have offered to break her own!) Her manner of death is also, while gruesome, consistent with a kind of maddened Stoicism (we are told she is "distract" when she dies). But I don't find the latter an invitation to import "distraction" into the earlier scene. I think we have here part of a set of questions in the play about the Elizabethan reception of the idea of "Romanitas". Brutus' feigning not to have heard of her death is another puzzle. To me it seems to be connected to the play's concern with what one knows and what one shows. Brutus' ruse here functions as an opportunity to show his generals how imperturbable he really is, how resolved, how like his father-in-law (as he will be in death also). But the play shows us this as a facade mounted for rhetorical purposes in the midst of a life and death struggle for control of the Roman state. Brutus is, in a way, "Antonized" into policy here, perhaps by the urgent desperation of the moment. An actor has many choices at such a moment. I note that Cassius backs the strategy up here, though there might well be several kinds of irony playing within his lines. Tom (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 17 Jan 97 22:49:01 GMT Subject: Re: A Great Caesar Louis C Swilley writes > Speaking to no one but himself in his soliloquy over "this > bleeding piece of earth," Antony is certainly expressing his > "true feelings." (What other interpretation is possible > for a *soliloquy*?). The word 'soliloquy' had no currency in the drama in the period. Subsequent interpreters have invented this category of speech, and they might be mistaken about its conventions. The actor playing Antony might be addressing the corpse. He might be addressing the audience. Or, as you say, he might be talking to himself. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 17:17:47 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0082 Productions: 12th Night; Winter's Tale Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0082. Saturday, 18 January 1997. (1) From: Dale Lyles Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 15:43:28 -0500 (EST) Subj: Productions: 12th Night (2) From: Porter Jamison Date: Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 06:20:22 -0800 Subj: Re: 12th Night Intermission (3) From: Eric Armstrong Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 09:58:33 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0063 Re: Winter's Tale Productions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 15:43:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Productions: 12th Night Without digging my promptbook out, and only checking my notes, I think we broke after Act II, and after looking at the text, I remember thinking how not natural it was. But I also I think I remember there was no natural break. We too set the show in a seaside resort, albeit a contemporary, Ocean Pacific one. Everyone carried swords, nonetheless. I think I've mentioned on this list before how Malvolio went from white shirt and gray slacks to yellow shorts, tank top, knee socks [laced all the way up the calf], with 'M, O, A, I" stencilled on the back of his tank top. It was truly ludicrous. Have fun in Illyria! We certainly did. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Porter Jamison Date: Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 06:20:22 -0800 Subject: Re: 12th Night Intermission When I did the show two years ago, we placed the interval after III, 1. The cross-garter plot and the ill-will of Sir Andrew towards Cesario are both established just before the break, and the audience is left with Viola and Olivia's mutual frustration/despair. The second half has an energetic comic beginning with Sir Andrew threatening to leave (with the set-up of the swordfight), followed by the reminder to the audience that Viola has a twin brother in town and the cross-garter payoff scene with Malvolio and Olivia. Hope this is of help. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 09:58:33 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0063 Re: Winter's Tale Productions This past summer I had the great good fortune to play in the Winters Tale outdoors in Toronto with Shakespeare in the Rough. I played Antigonus and was chased offstage by a bear: our bear was more of a monster created by the entire company, much like a Chinese dragon. Time, who was represented by a woman with a large cape with an image of a goddess on it (sort of Polynesian or maybe African?), was the head of the bear, riding on the shoulders of our tallest actor (6'8"). A formidable thing to run from. Time started the play and the second half of the play, and stood in the back, with the ghosts of Antigonus and Mamillius, watching over the magical ending. As Antigonus, I particularly liked reaching out to Paulina just before she gets set up with Camillo, and then magically "flourishing" the idea of putting the two together in Leontes mind. I'm not sure that Leontes realized that I was doing this, but the audience seemed to like it. It was also a great way of getting the entire company onstage for the final scene so we could immediately take bows. But back to Time: I am not too sure how well the audience "got" who Time was, as our costuming was so simple and the double casting, with Time immediately turning into Archidamus, and in the second half playing Mopsa (or maybe Dorcas, I don't remember), it was a real challenge for the actor to be really clear. Playing outdoors we couldn't do any ooga-booga lighting effects for the supernatural stuff, so we tended to use sound effects made with found items. Eric Armstrong ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 17:27:44 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0083 Re: Richard III, Lover; Doubling; Star Trek; The Mousetrap Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0083. Saturday, 18 January 1997. (1) From: Jimmy Jung Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 13:39 Subj: SHK 8.0039 Richard III, Lover (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 21:39:39 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0078 Re: Doubling (3) From: Jeff Myers Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 20:15:18 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0077 Re: Star Trek Allusions (4) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 15:14:09 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0064 Re: The Mousetrap (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jimmy Jung Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 13:39 Subject: SHK 8.0039 Richard III, Lover I wanted to thank yall for your responses to my Richard III question. I found particularly interesting the comments regarding the political reality of Anne's situation and postings that point out how surprised Richard is after the wooing, "I do mistake myself." Taken together, they suggest that Anne is conning Richard, for political reasons; instead of Richard conning Anne. I guess this is the irony Christine was talking about. jimmy PS I think that Richard really feels lonely because of his hump and Anne really believes that marry Richard will help her and she hopes that she can keep some of her power that way. So she pretends to like him, but in the end he doesn't really love her so he kills her and that makes her feel really sad. And could Terence Hawkes please explain the fainting thing, so I can laugh with him? (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 21:39:39 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0078 Re: Doubling I want to thank Gabriel Egan (and others offline) for answering my question about doubling. I knew about the objection to the Fool and Cordelia doubling; it's been made recurrently. Of course, it's good to remain skeptical. How can anyone now be sure that Armin played the Fool? Perhaps Armin played Gloucester in Lear, and perhaps the Fool was played by a bright, young actor who quite easily doubled as Cordelia. Eh? Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Friday, 17 Jan 1997 20:15:18 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0077 Re: Star Trek Allusions Shakespeare's easy. Star Trek even refers to Milton (or, as Ricardo Montalban says, Meel-ton). Kirk even identifies the specific line in Milton to which Montalban refers. Jeff Myers (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 15:14:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0064 Re: The Mousetrap I'm slow in responding, since I'm now in Arlington, VA, and have only now set up the computer -- this is a long-distance logging in, too! So here's my (at long distance fees) more than two cents' worth: At the Shakespeare Rep this past fall/winter, Claudius is upstage, watching the dumb show. I believe the lights focused on his face, and his eyes visibly widened at the sight of the poisoning. He didn't move, as I recall, he merely widened his eyes, and this was enough evidence to convict him in the eyes of the whole audience. (Oh yeah, and they kept in the line before the Nunnery Scene in which he confesses, too). This, in answer to 'how could Andy White, a man of the theatre, say such things?' In addition, without any physical evidence, or hope of evidence, Hamlet is not in a position to ask that Claudius be deposed a la Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones case. The only evidence he has is a ghost, and a flinch. Let the lawyers scream and pull their hair, the dumb show is designed to reveal Claudius' guilt for the audience's benefit, so that they know the titular hero isn't just a raving maniac on a paranoid tear. Andy White Arlington, VA (whew, check out the stack of book boxes, here!) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 17:31:15 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0084 Q: Martext/Marprelate Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0084. Saturday, 18 January 1997. From: Chris Stroffilino Date: Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 06:37:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Q: Martext/Marprelate Many footnotes on Sir Oliver Martext (AYLI) say he is perhaps a reference to the fictitious puritan pamphleteer Martin Marprelate---this seems very far-fetched to me. I am reading a book on the latter now, but does anybody know any persuasive, or at least semi-persuasive articles that pursue and explore the connection ('old' or 'new' historical approaches welcome). Thanks, Chris Stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 09:50:02 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0085 Re: Characters: Lady Macbeth; Portia; Caesar Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0085. Monday, 20 January 1997. (1) From: Louis C Swilley Date: Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 17:35:18 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0081 Re: Lady Macbeth; Portia; Caesar (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saurday, 18 Jan 1997 20:32:01 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0083 Re: Lady Macbeth fainting (3) From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 08:01:57 -0500 Subj: SHK 8.0067 Re: A Great Caesar (4) From: John Velz Date: Sunday, 19 Jan 1997 03:29:36 +0200 Subj: Brutus' Portia (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 17:35:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0081 Re: Lady Macbeth; Portia; Caesar >Fans of the nerves-of-steel Lady Macbeth are advised not to read too >attentively her anxious soliloquy in 2.1: "Hark! Peace, it was the owl that >shrieked, . . . Alack, I am afraid they have awaked . . . Hark!" etc. Those >praising her gumption for putting bloody knives in the hands of drugged >simpletons are better off forgetting how she fumbled her famous ruthlessness in >the main event and fobbed the real work off on somebody else, more daunted by >her own hallucination than her husband was by his ("Had he not resembled my >father as he slept, I had done't"). Mr. Shepherd, You make an excellent point here. And you suggest by this that Lady M. does indeed faint at the point in the play under discussion. But does it make any difference whether the fainting is pretended or real (and I wonder how an actress would make that distinction - unless she did something delSartian for the former)? The *effect* of the fainting is that the men around her are distracted from a subject that would make them suspect her husband. Under this condition, I think it best to interpret her fainting as pretended, intended. L. Swilley >Louis Swilley raises an interesting point about Brutus and Portia. > >I'm not myself so sure that Portia's stabbing herself can be taken as evidence >of an unbalanced mind. It seems to me perfectly compatible with what else we >hear of her as a figure inheriting Stoicism both as a philosophy and a family >tradition (she was Cato's daughter after all). Her stabbing herself to show her >ability to exercize her will and endure suffering with resolve is consistent >with Stoic attitudes, though perhaps rather intense as rhetorical proof of >them. Brutus understands her gesture in that spirit. (One can compare her here >with Lady Percy in 1H4 who offers to break Hotspur's finger. Portia would >presumably have offered to break her own!) Her manner of death is also, while >gruesome, consistent with a kind of maddened Stoicism (we are told she is >"distract" when she dies). But I don't find the latter an invitation to import >"distraction" into the earlier scene. I think we have here part of a set of >questions in the play about the Elizabethan reception of the idea of >"Romanitas". Mr. Bishop, The director who brings this scene to an audience must speak to that audience, must make us see and feel the character's position as though it were our own. Shakespeare, above all, has ever shown his ability to transcend temporal "philosophies", presenting scenes that touch us with a humanity that is timeless; this has required directors and actors to find the heart of the character and to present that in such a way that we feel and *understand* why the character acts as he does. This must not depend on our appreciation of an historical circumstance (Stoicism) from outside the play that must be brought in to it to understand why a character is acting as he or she is. If Brutus is a Stoic and this causes him (and Portia) to act and respond in a way that is to be accepted as proper to a man (or a woman), this Stoicism must be shown to be such a part of the character(s) as human beings (not merely symbols for a philosphy) that we see and feel how this act (Portia's stabbing herself) and the reaction it evokes (Brutus' praise of it). I do not want the director and actor to merely tell me that Brutus is a Stoic and therefore he will find his wife's self-mutilation admirable. The fact is that when I see Portia report her wound, I expect any Brutus I have ever seen portrayed earlier in that production to react now with concern for her sanity. There has been nothing except *talk* of Stoicism, earlier in the written play, to warrant any other response. That he reacts differently - and to my disbelief and horror - suggests to me that the character has not been presented earlier in a way to allow me to accept such a patently inhuman response of unfeigned praise for her deed. We cannot change the play to accomodate this reasonable demand; it is the task of directors and actors to show us how the characters can be interpreted to make everything fit, make them "feel right." (As an example of what I mean here, I return to my memory of Gielgud as Caesar: Gielgud and the director of that production showed us, although but briefly, a Caesar of whose greatness we were given a glimpse when he leaned back vulnerably on the fountain edge and addressed *directly to Cassius who stood meekly before him* the speech, "Yon Cassius hath a lean and hungry look, etc." With this, I *saw* a formidable, powerful Caesar - not the fretting, superstitious bully who otherwise infests productions of this play, and who, notwithstanding those presentations, we are urged to believe to be a great man.) Surely Shakespeare speaks to every age; he does so because he presents constants in human nature that transcend philosophical vogues, or historical dispositions of mind. An audience of whatever time must not be expected to understand the "Elizabethan mind" (or "Romanitas") in order to appreciate the significant moment of his works. It is the proper work of the directors and actors to find and present our deepest, constant selves in the characters they realize on the stage. I am still convinced that Shakespeare is presenting Portia as unbalanced. Her extraordinary and surely unnecessary demonstration of her ability to keep a secret, her confusion in her scene with the Soothsayer, and the report of her gruesome means of suicide, all told show Shakespeare's intention. The writer chose to present these things when they could have been either suppressed altogether or modified to suggest something other than one inclined to madness. >Brutus' feigning not to have heard of her death is another puzzle. To me it >seems to be connected to the play's concern with what one knows and what one >shows. Brutus' ruse here functions as an opportunity to show his generals how >imperturbable he really is, how resolved, how like his father-in-law (as he >will be in death also). But the play shows us this as a facade mounted for >rhetorical purposes in the midst of a life and death struggle for control of >the Roman state. Brutus is, in a way, "Antonized" into policy here, perhaps by >the urgent desperation of the moment. An actor has many choices at such a >moment. I note that Cassius backs the strategy up here, though there might well > be several kinds of irony playing within his lines. I very much appreciate your reading here. Again, I think the scene needs some stagework to emphasize the points you want it to make. L. Swilley >The word 'soliloquy' had no currency in the drama in the period. Subsequent >interpreters have invented this category of speech, and they might be mistaken >about its conventions. > >The actor playing Antony might be addressing the corpse. He might be addressing >the audience. Or, as you say, he might be talking to himself. Mr. Egan, I am baffled by your remarks, here. A character, alone on the stage (or speaking to a *corpse*, which is the same thing), must be talking to himself and delivering his true feelings, call the speech a soliloquy or whatever you like. Is it your contention that the audience watching the play can be interpreted as a character *in* the play -, as perhaps a crowd of Romans? Surely not at this point in this play. L. Swilley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saurday, 18 Jan 1997 20:32:01 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0083 Re: Lady Macbeth fainting Jimmy Jung asks: "And could Terence Hawkes please explain the fainting thing, so I can laugh with him?" Let me play Hastings to Hawkes' Richard. Terence recurrently asks this question because he has the firm belief that fictional characters do not think. Fictional characters are not real people, so they don't really do anything. To ask if Lady Macbeth "really" faints is thus a joke. Get it? Terence does not read books on art theory, or, if he does, he seems to reject theories of "seeing in" and "making believe." When he looks at a painting by Titian all he sees is paint on canvass. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 08:01:57 -0500 Subject: SHK 8.0067 Re: A Great Caesar Dear Mr. Swilley: Yes, I think I see. But how far can we trust a man who goes around 'speaking to no-one but himself' as you so rightly put it? And in blank verse? Do you think such a person can really have genuine access to his own 'true feelings', even though he believes he does? We need to probe more deeply than that. You properly observe that Lady Macbeth is not 'the fainting kind' (ah! sic transit etc, but let that go), yet this poor creature, who plainly doesn't know whether she has any children or not, is surely one for whom the swoon might offer welcome, even regular refuge from the realities her husband chooses to bring home. I am assured by experts that 'she' is in any case male. The strain of prolonged deception has long been known to provoke seizure. Macbeth, for his own reasons, elects to ignore this state of affairs. Perhaps we haven't yet taken sufficient account of how disturbed these people are? Maybe it is time (if you'll pardon the expression) to act? Terence Hawkes (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Sunday, 19 Jan 1997 03:29:36 +0200 Subject: Brutus' Portia Louis C. Swilley asked recently about staging Portia, including her self-inflicted wound. I directed a university production of *JC* in 1971 using period costume, which meant dressing Calphurnia and Portia in the same to-the-floor gown, Portia's in pastel blue (the color for all of Brutus' family) and Calphurnia's in gold. Both women were undergraduate drama majors. The moment we rehearsed the scene in costume late in the rehearsal schedule, I realized that it would be positively obscene to have Portia lift her hem thigh high to show the wound as the text clearly demands:-- "I have given myself a wound, here in the thigh." Right then and there I emended to "I have given myself a wound, here in the leg" and we used makeup to paint a sizable and angry-looking gash on the fleshy part of Portia's calf." When we had this all arranged I remembered having seen an eighteenth-century theatrical edition of the play which read "I have given myself a wound here in the arm". I had at the time laughed out loud at the prudishness of this emendation on the eighteenth-century stage; but now, several years later I was wise enough to take my laughter back. If you garb Portia in a traditional mater familias's floor-length dress, you just can't stage the scene as written without getting unwanted laughter or gasps of disapproval from the audience. Our more decorous slight lifting of the long skirt to show the calf never elicited anything but sympathy and respect for Portia of a kind I think Shakespeare wanted his audience to feel. Yet Shakespeare, a man of the theater, wrote the line with full awareness that his Roman women would be wearing floor lenth full-skirted dresses. Even if he dressed Portia as an Elizabethan matron, the same staging problem would obtain. One wonders how the Lord Chamberlain's Men handled this line and its staging problem. I know you want more than this, Louis, but this is all I have for you at this moment. I once published an article called "'Nothing Undervalu'd to Cato's Daughter': Plutarch's Porcia in the Shakespeare Canon" in *Comparative Drama*, 1978, I think; since reprinted. The article shows that Shakespeare had a special interest in Porcia as she is portrayed in Plutarch and he puts aspects of her character and situation into three plays and a poem besides *Julius Caesar*. We ought to go slow before condemning the Portia motif in JC since Sh. himself was obviously deeply committed to it, working it into five art objects--including *The Merchant of Venice* where Shakespeare has Bassanio tell us where he Shakespeare got the name of his heroine from: In Belmont is a lady richly left; And she is fair and fairer than that word; Of wondrous virtues. Nothing undervalu'd To Cato's daughter, Brutus' Portia. (MV 1.1) These lines were written three years before he wrote *JC*. [The other works discussed in this article were *The Rape of Lucrece*, *Henry IV Part I*, and *Macbeth*]. All best to you. John ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 09:57:13 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0086 Re: Ideology Once Again Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0086. Monday, 20 January 1997. (1) From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 12:12:11 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0076 Re: Ideology Once Again (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Sunday, 19 Jan 97 14:55:26 GMT Subj: Re: Tories and Education (3) From: Dale Lyles Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 00:12:56 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0079 Re: Ideology Once Again (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 12:12:11 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0076 Re: Ideology Once Again > > Are we not being quite narrow-minded on considering the > > economic base as the Primum Mobile? > > It's Marxism. Any evidence that economics is not primary would help show that > Marxism is narrow-minded, if you can find it. Actually, Gabe, I'd say that the burden of evidence is to prove that economics *is* primary. Just saying it is and challenging others to dispute this finding seems a little irresponsible. A statement to the effect that all is economics is much like Thales's statement that all is water: you can always dismiss attempts to cite cases to the contrary, but you can't really prove a statement so broad and ontological. That all is economics, in other words, is an ontological postulate, not provable in itself, but rather the presupposition on the basis of which evidence must be treated. As such, it is neither more or less verifiable or true than a statement to the effect that all is water, the form of the good, being, spirit, sexual desire, universal human needs, etc. Anyone taking issue with one of these broad ontological postulates can always be dismissed on the ad hominem basis that they are themselves controlled by the form of the good, being, spirit, sexual desire, economics or universal human needs in making their arguments. The postulate itself, however, cannot be proven; it is merely a prejudice. Cheerio, Sean. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Sunday, 19 Jan 97 14:55:26 GMT Subject: Re: Tories and Education Paul Hawkins asks > how does a requirement that students study decontextualized > passages confirm that the idea guiding the curriculum is that > literature improves the moral character of those who read it? The minds of Tory politicians are full of fragments of Shakespearian text which they think amount to wisdom. This sort of thing... - The course of true love never did run smooth. - If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly - The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool At party conferences they recite bits of speeches (eg Ulysses's degree speech from Troilus and Cressida) which 'prove' that Shakespeare's values are Tory values. They genuinely think that exposing children to small doses of Shakespearian text makes them grow up straight. They get a bit worried about children looking at the whole of a play, especially in performance, because they dimly recollect that it all starts to get a bit messy at that level. How to bridge the gap between the fragments and the whole story? Rhodes Boyson, ex-headteacher turned education minister, said "I'd start with Lamb's tales, so the children got the whole story first". Rex Gibson predicts that the ISGC Globe will be a popular school excursion and argues very convincingly that its historicizing influence will counter the dehistoricizing tendency of the British national curriculum. Gabriel Egan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 00:12:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0079 Re: Ideology Once Again Here's where I have to part company with the "meaningless" crowd. Yes, the universe is meaningless, and yes, we humans attempt to impose meaning on this random universe. That is what we now recognize as learning. However, one of the results of this feeble attempt is that we *create* meaning, or at least what is good enough to pass for meaning in the only way we can get it, and that is through closed-system/circular/kinds of pathetic things like the works of William Shakespeare. Sure, one can look further out into the empyrean and say, "Golly, there really is no ultimate meaning, at least that I can discern," but the sensible thing to do is then to reply to one's self, "That's cool. I think I'll read *King Lear* again." We gotta have it, guys, it's hard-wired into us, so might as well make it Bill Shakespeare as Tupac Shakur. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 09:59:31 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0087 Q: Slings and arrows of outrageous fortune Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0087. Monday, 20 January 1997. From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 21:13:27 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0084 Q: Slings and arrows of outrageous fortune I was reading the letters of Abelard and Heloise last week, and noticed (again) her reference to fortune's arrows: "O fortune unfortunate, which has already so spent all the arrows of its whole strength on me . . . ; it has emptied its full quivers on me" (trans. C. K. Scott Moncrieff, New York, 1933, p. 77). (Betty Radice's 1974 translation is essentially the same.) And I again thought of Hamlet's "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" (3.1.58 Arden ed.). But this time I got up and pulled down Harold Jenkins's Arden edition and checked his footnotes. Although Jenkins suspects that the line should read "stings and arrows of outrageous fortune," he cites no examples of the arrows of fortune. (Neither does the Furness variorum.) I checked the OED1 under "slings," and found example after example of the union of "slingers and archers, slings and bows"--the light artillery of pre-gunpowder warfare. Jenkins found only one example in Golding's translation of Caesar's Gallic Wars. I see no need for an emendation of "slings" to "stings." Under "fortune," I found no reference to "fortune's arrows." I checked the Shakespeare concordance and found no other reference to the arrows of fortune in Shakespeare's plays. I checked STC1 (the copy I have at hand) and found nothing s.v. Abelard. D. W. Robertson, Jr., in his book on Abelard and Heloise (1972) notes some parallels between Shakespeare's plays and Abelard's thought, but sees no reason to believe that Shakespeare read Abelard; the ideas are generally Patristic--according to Robertson. That's as far as I've got. I have not yet looked in Patch. I imagine there must be other references to the arrows of fortune--references that I have not yet found, but which you have at your finger tips. Yours, Bill Godshalk Addendum: Both "slings" and "arrows" had a figurative use by Shakespeare's time (and probably much earlier), indicating the "power" of certain abstractions. So, one could talk about, say, the slings of conscience. Perhaps there was no tradition in which Fortune was pictured as an archer.========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 09:23:54 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0088 Midwinter's Tale Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0088. Tuesday, 21 January 1997. From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Saturday, 18 Jan 1997 23:06:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Kenneth Branagh I'm teaching an intensive course on _Hamlet_ and _King Lear_ this term, and one of my undergraduate students recommended Kenneth Branagh's film, _Midwinter's Tale_, which Castle Rock just released on video. The film, written and directed by Branagh, concerns a group of actors who mount a production of _Hamlet_ in a small English town. The film is quite winsome and funny. Sara van den Berg University of Washington ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 09:31:23 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0089 Re: Non-Shakespearean Videos Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0089. Tuesday, 21 January 1997. (1) From: Mark Mann Date: Sunday, 19 Jan 1997 02:48:21 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0058 Re: Non-Shakespearean Videos (2) From: Fran Teague Date: Sunday, 19 Jan 97 13:46:05 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0080 Re: Shakespearean and Non-Shakespearean Videos (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Mann Date: Sunday, 19 Jan 1997 02:48:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0058 Re: Non-Shakespearean Videos About a year ago, the cable channel Bravo aired an excellent adaptation of " The Changling", starring Elizabeth McGovern, Bob Hoskins, and Hugh Grant. One can write to Bravo for info regarding access to these videos, or so I've heard. " The Changling" is a tad beyond Shakespeare's day, but still worth viewing. Also, somewhat less worth viewing, is Richard Burton's " Dr. Faustus" which is available in every video store and library. It stars Burton as the Dr., and Liz Taylor, as Helen, and the rest of the cast are Oxford students, who supported Burton/Taylor when they went to Oxford to perform a limited run of the Marlowe piece. It's worth seeing only for Burton's beautiful delivery of Marlowe's mighty lines, especially the thrilling final speech. Cheers, Mark Mann (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Sunday, 19 Jan 97 13:46:05 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0080 Re: Shakespearean and Non-Shakespearean Videos With regard to videos and films that are analogues to Shakespeare's plays: I've recently heard that the film _Strange Brew_ is an analogue to _Hamlet_. Unfortunately my local video store hasn't got it, so I can't check this one out. Can someone who has seen it, tell me if this identification's true? Here's what little I know about the film: _Strange Brew_ is the story of beer-loving Doug and Bob Mackensie (characters from the Second City TV series) who are supposed to be parallel to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. They go to visit a friend whose father has died and whose uncle has seized the family kingdom, a brewery. (Here in the college town of Athens, GA. everyone who has heard of this film says it's a cult classic for beer-drinking undergraduates, and I get blank looks if I mention _Hamlet_.) Fran Teague ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 09:35:32 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0090 Re: Productions: 12th Night Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0090. Tuesday, 21 January 1997. (1) From: Mark Mann Date: Sunday, 19 Jan 1997 19:36:42 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0074 Productions: 12th Night (2) From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 16:12:31 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0074 Productions: 12th Night (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Mann Date: Sunday, 19 Jan 1997 19:36:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0074 Productions: 12th Night My troupe, The Arden Shakespeare Co. performed 12th Night as our maiden production, and we too cross-gendered Fabian ( Feste too, though we left the question of his gender open)...we took our interval after the letter scene, which felt right, and Act 2 opened with Feste and Viola doing their " I do live in my house" exchanges...secondary note: I have always looked for ways to make the fifteen minutes of interval meaningful in more ways than a break for the audience--in this production we had a few fiddlers ( who followed Feste around like an Illyrian mariachi band) come out and play some songs while Feste solicited funds for their payment...after the 15 minutes were up, with a tambourine full of cash he sauntered up on the stage and encountered Viola, who began their dialogue, and tossed some expenses in the kitty as well. The interval was blended into the action seamlessly, and no time was lost reengaging the audience into the play. Likewise, in a production of The Winter's Tale, which I directed for Actor's Summer Theatre in Columbus, Ohio, in an outdoor amphitheatre, the Sicilia half of the play was set on a white, stone floor with 5 white screens on which were painted bare fruit trees suggesting Japanese screen paintings...after a few minutes of interval, the cast came out, 1 at a time, in their Bohemia garb, with baskets of flowers which were scattered across ther floor in a kind a splatter painting effect, and each screen was turned around to show the same tree, in full flower and color. The actors then fanned out through the crowd, delivering fruit and bread and colored fans and other trinkets, and when Time arrived to begin his speech, the stage had gradually been transformed into the country sheepshearing festival setting, and all the actors rushed to the stage to begin dancing the first of several country dances. The audience's delight at such antics convinced me that there are many opportunities in using the interval, and I'd like to see other productions make use of such moments. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 16:12:31 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0074 Productions: 12th Night To Matthew W. Mitchell-Shiner: In my production, intermission occurred at the end of Act II, right after the "letter scene" w/Malvolio. If the scene is being played at all comically, it provides a great place to break the action. The only problem, I suppose, is that your second half is then slightly longer, textually, than the first half. However, in my production the second half was so fast-paced that we still beat out the first half by about ten minutes. Anyway, a suggestion. I think you've made an excellent choice for a first Shakespeare production: it is, in my opinion, the most accessible play of Shakespeare's, both for audience members and young actors. Good luck! David Skeele ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 10:18:19 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0096 Re: Ideology and Soliloquys Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0096. Tuesday, 21 January 1997. (1) From: John Lee Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 16:53:06 +0000 (GMT) Subj: English Education (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 17:00:00 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0086 Re: Ideology Once Again (3) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 23:35:43 +0000 (GMT) Subj: RE: Soliloquys and truth (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Lee Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 16:53:06 +0000 (GMT) Subject: English Education It's a small point, but I would think that few who have passed through the English Educational System would recognize it from Gabriel Egan's description. And it's another small point, but some of those Tory ministers's know more than a few scraps. (Some politicians are stupid, but not many. Some are very bright -- and particularly good at using language effectively.) Terence Hawkes, if I remember rightly, was involved in a head to head. Any comments? And Rhodes Boyson isn't Minister for Education. Gillian Shepherd is. John Lee J.Lee@bristol.ac.uk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 17:00:00 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0086 Re: Ideology Once Again "The postulate itself, however, cannot be proven; it is merely a prejudice," writes Sean Lawrence--I think--correctly. Meaning is postulated, not proven. So I believe; I don't really know. Dale Lyle is apparently fed up with my insistence that entities and actions are not innately meaningful. So let me make my point: it seems to me that the Marxist Shakespeareans first postulate that there is no innate meaning, no inherent truth. They then go on to postulate that certain categories (e.g., economics, ideology) have innate meanings and are inherently true. I don't think anyone can have it both ways. If entities and actions are not innately meaningful, then they are not innately meaningful. Full stop. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 23:35:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: RE: Soliloquys and truth Louis Swilley writes > A character, alone on the stage (or speaking to a > *corpse*, which is the same thing), must be talking to > himself and delivering his true feelings, call the > speech a soliloquy or whatever you like. Why? I may enter an empty stage and say 'I am Cassius, and I feel tired'. Both, either, or neither might be untrue. Your tone implies that the conventions operating in early modern drama are clear to us. I suggest that they are far from clear, but our presumptions seem so reliable that questioning them appears silly and pedantic. We mustn't forget that those on the stage are pretending, after all. > Is it your contention that the audience watching the > play can be interpreted as a character *in* the play, > as perhaps a crowd of Romans? Surely not at this point > in this play. As you final question indicates, more possibilities exist than are allowed for in your earlier certainty. Perhaps not surprisingly, I disagree with everything you said about transcendental truths, absolutes, "constant selves", and the like. (But let's not start another relativism thread, eh?) Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 10:27:06 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0099 New York Times Reviews and Feature Articles Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0099. Tuesday, 21 January 1997. From: Tom Dale Keever Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 02:07:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: New York Times Reviews and Feature Articles SHAKSPERians who would like to see what the "Newspaper of Record" has to say about recent New York, or London, productions should add the following URL to their "Bookmarks" : http//www.nytimes.com/ Many New York Times reviews and feature articles get posted here. For a shortcut to the theater news and reviews try: http://www.nytimes.com/library/theater/ Happy Web surfing, Tom Dale Keever tdk3@columbia.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 10:20:30 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0097 Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0097. Tuesday, 21 January 1997. From: Jenny Lowood Date: Sunday, 19 Jan 1997 17:52:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0030 Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap Patrick Stewart's version of Claudius, as described by Mark Mann, seems to sidestep what is implied by the words, "Give me some light." This line suggests an inner anguish and confusion which, it seems to me, is brought out clearly in those performances in which we know Claudius is genuinely disturbed by what he sees. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 09:39:45 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0091 SAA 1998 Program Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0091. Tuesday, 21 January 1997. From: Paul Werstine Date: Sunday, 19 Jan 97 20:05:44 EST Subject: SAA 1998 Program "The Program Committee for the 1998 Shakespeare Association of America meeting invites proposals for paper sessions, seminars, workshops, and special events from members of the Association. This Committee consists of the following four Association members: Paul Werstine, chair, at werstine@bosshog.arts.uwo.ca; King's College, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont. Canada, N6A 2M3; John Cox, at cox@hope.cit.hope.edu; Department of English, Hope College, Holland, MI 49423; Claire McEachern, at MCEACHER@HUMNET.UCLA.EDU; Department of English, UCLA, 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles CA 90095-1530; Lois Potter, at lpotter@brahms.udel.edu; Department of English, University of Delaware, 204 Memorial Hall, Newark, DE 19716. Proposals should be a maximum of one page and must be received no later than 1 March 1997." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 09:41:58 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0092 Call for Applications: NEH Summer Seminar Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0092. Tuesday, 21 January 1997. From: Kevin Lindberg Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 09:12:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Call for Applications Applications are invited for an NEH Summer Seminar for College Teachers entitled THE ENGLISH REFORMATION: LITERATURE, HISTORY, AND ART (June 9 to August 1, 1997). This interdisciplinary program will consider different phases in a major historical watershed that contributed to the transformation of the literary and artistic production of early modern England between the time of Tyndale's Bible translations and publication of Milton's biblical epics. The seminar will bring together literary, historical, and artistic concerns that conventional disciplinary boundaries still tend to separate. Texts under consideration will include selections from Foxe's "Book of Martyrs," Spenser's THE FAERIE QUEENE, and Milton's PARADISE LOST. Applications are welcome from college teachers and independent scholars who specialize in the literature and cultural history of the English Renaissance and Reformation, and to historians of religion, politics, art, and music. THE DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION IS MARCH 1. Direct inquiries to: Professor John N. King NEH Summer Seminar Department of English The Ohio State University 164 West 17th Avenue Columbus OH 43210-1370 Telephone: 614-292-6065 (o) or 614-875-1761 (h) -- ask for Kevin Lindberg e-mail: lindberg.2@osu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 09:47:27 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0093 Re: Slings and arrows Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0093. Tuesday, 21 January 1997. (1) From: Ian Lancashire Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 10:51:57 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0087 Q: Slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (2) From: Don Foster Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 22:59:42 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0087 Q: Slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (3) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 00:57:51 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0087 Q: Slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ian Lancashire Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 10:51:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0087 Q: Slings and arrows of outrageous fortune Randle Cotgrave's wonderful French-English dictionary (London, 1611) explains * "Catapulte" as "A sling, or warlike engine, whereout great arrowes, or darts were shot" * "Mangonneau" as "An old-fashioned Sling, or Engine, whereout stones, old yron, and great arrowes were violently darted" Hamlet's phrase makes good sense in this context as referring to military catapults that shot metal or stone arrows. (It is difficult to imagine someone, even as capable as Lady Fortune, managing personally to operate two weapons, a sling and a bow-and-arrow, at the same time.) The OED does not document this sense. I reported this finding in an article on early dictionaries in the collection "English Language Corpora: Design, Analysis, and Exploitation", ed. Jan Aarts, Pieter de Haan, and Nelleke Oostdijk (Rodopi, 1993). Half my early modern English dictionary database--not Cotgrave, so far-- can be searched from a link on my Web page. The current Web EMEDD database includes about 128,000 word entries and is in-progress. Ian Lancashire University of Toronto (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 22:59:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0087 Q: Slings and arrows of outrageous fortune Re: Bill Godshalk's query: The emendation of *slings* to *stings* is, I think, wholly unjustified. The collocation of Fortune and slings is exampled elsewhere in the period. A few examples: The "To be or not to be" soliloquy is one of several passages in *Hamlet* that may owe something to Marlowe's translation of *Lucan* (pub. 1600). For example: "Fortune thee I follow, War and the destinies shall try my cause." This said, the restless general through the dark, Swifter than bullets thrown from Spanish slings Or darts which Parthians backward shoot, marched on... (228-32) See also Thomas Middleton, *The Wisdom of Solomon Paraphrased* (1597): And what of this vain world, vain hope, vain show, Vain glory seated in a shade of praise, Mortality's descent and folly's flow, The badge of vanity, the hour of days? What glory is it for to be a king When care is crown, and crown is Fortune's sling? (verse 12.1-6) And cf. William Browne's lament for "Doridon," loved by "Marine" (from *Britain's Pastorals*: [1613]) Marine about to speak, forth of a sling (Fortune to all misfortunes plies her wing More quick and speedy) came a sharpened flint, Which in the faire boy's neck made such a dint That crimson blood came streaming from the wound, And he fell down into a deadly swound. The blood ran all along where it did fall, And could not find a place of burial... Don Foster (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 00:57:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0087 Q: Slings and arrows of outrageous fortune Bill--do references to "arrows of fortune" have to be explicit? Wouldn't Bassanio's "shaft" anecdote be an example of the "arrow of fortune" motif? Or would this only be true if paper can "issue life blood" thus proving that Lady Macbeth does NOT faint and that Portia in MV is as "dead" as Portia in JC?-- Chris Stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 10:03:28 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0094 Re: Characters: Portia; Lady Macbeth Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0094. Tuesday, 21 January 1997. (1) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 12:10:11 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0085 Re: Lady Macbeth (2) From: Jenny Lowood Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 13:52:22 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0085 Re: Characters: Lady Macbeth; Portia; Caesar (3) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 15:35:20 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0085 Re: Portia (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 15:39:20 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0085 Re: Characters: Lady Macbeth; Portia; Caesar (5) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 15:31:40 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0085 Re: Characters: Lady Macbeth; Portia; Caesar (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 12:10:11 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0085 Re: Lady Macbeth No doubt our actress can show us a faked faint, but if she has any sense of theater she'll just pass out as convincingly as possible and leave it at that. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jenny Lowood Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 13:52:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0085 Re: Characters: Lady Macbeth; Portia; Caesar L. Swilley writes that "There has been nothing except *talk* of Stoicism, earlier in the written play, to warrant any other response." I beg to differ. Brutus' primary act of agreeing to conspire against Caesar despite his own feelings, his love for the man, is an act of stoicism. The fact that Brutus is a stoic, in other words, explains his character and motivation in a very basic way. Jenny Lowood (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 15:35:20 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0085 Re: Portia Portia's knife will penetrate most gowns of any length or century. If she cannot be convinced to stab herself onstage, the torn fabric and spreading stain will give her something to point to (if she *must* point) without spoiling the decorum of her self-mutilation. But I say decorum be damned: Think you I am no stronger than my sex Being so father'd and so husbanded? [ripping her skirt open she exposes her thigh and plunges her dagger into it.] Tell me your counsels, I will not disclose 'em. I have made strong proof of my constancy, Giving myself a voluntary wound Here in the thigh. Can I bear that with patience And not my husband's secrets? (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 15:39:20 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0085 Re: Characters: Lady Macbeth; Portia; Caesar John Velz writes, >If you garb Portia in a traditional mater familias's >floor-length dress, you just can't stage the scene as written without getting >unwanted laughter or gasps of disapproval from the audience. Our more decorous >slight lifting of the long skirt to show the calf never elicited anything but >sympathy and respect for Portia of a kind I think Shakespeare wanted his >audience to feel. Yet Shakespeare, a man of the theater, wrote the line with >full awareness that his Roman women would be wearing floor lenth full-skirted >dresses. Even if he dressed Portia as an Elizabethan matron, the same staging >problem would obtain. One wonders how the Lord Chamberlain's Men handled this >line and its staging problem. One simple solution is to have her point to her inner thigh. It's not mandatory that she lift her skirts. (Okay, Terence . . . that he lift his skirts.) Yours, Bill Godshalk (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 15:31:40 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0085 Re: Characters: Lady Macbeth; Portia; Caesar Terence Hawkes writes of Lady Macbeth: " I am assured by experts that 'she' is in any case male." I find this comment rather puzzling. Does he mean that Lady is gendered male in the play script? Does he mean that the Macbeths enjoy a homosexual union (in their fictional world of Scotland)? Or does he mean that Lady was probably played by a male actor on the early seventeenth century stage? My reading of Stephen Orgel's Impersonations: The Performance of Gender in Shakespeare's England influences my hesitant "probably played." As Orgel says, "the claim of an all-male public stage at the very least needs some serious qualification" (10). Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 10:06:54 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0095 Re: Winter's Tale Productions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0095. Tuesday, 21 January 1997. (1) From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 15:56:21 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0063 Re: Winter's Tale Productions (2) From: John Velx Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 00:38:53 +0200 Subj: Winter's Tale Prod. (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 15:56:21 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0063 Re: Winter's Tale Productions A good resource for finding out about past productions of THE WINTER'S TALE is Dennis Bartholomeusz' "The Winter's Tale in Performance, 17??-19??." I don't remember the exact dates on the subtitle and the title may not even be exactly right, but you should be able to find it searching by author. Good luck! David Skeele (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velx Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 00:38:53 +0200 Subject: Winter's Tale Prod. I sent the note below to J. T. Louden privately, but since he is getting response on the Listserv, I will add this to the SHAKSPER mailbox: >Dear Jay Louden: >Dennis Bartholomeusz (sp?) pubd. a stage hist. of the play not too many >years ago. One memorable RSC production (1974, I think) starred Ian >McKellen as Leontes with a Lapland motif including cave paintings on the >cyclorama and a walrus tusk carved with runes for the oracle. Do look >this one up. I myself made my debut in Shakespeare in 1965 at Rice Univ. >as a realistic grizzly bear. Antigonus and I played it to get alternating >gasps and laughs out of the audience, thus imitating the play, which veers >between comedy and tragedy. If you want I can describe the Bear scene as >we played it. Another prod. of RSC later (I think this was the one that >had a memorable Hermione with Judi Dench) did the statue scene awfully >well. In the Lapland production, the Bear was a Shaman wearing a wooden >bear mask, took Antigonus by the arm in ritual fashion and led him across >the stage and off. Shaman came out later as Father Time carrying an hour >glass in one hand and the mask under his other arm. Very effective. The >deathbringer and the truthbringer in one "person". > >I love to watch the audience watch the play in W.T. productions at >Stratford. The audience gasps in startled recognition when the statue >moves and comes to life. THEY DO NOT KNOW THE PLAY. Every director >should know and capitalize on this. > >Good luck. John Velz ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 10:24:27 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0098 Qs: Charles's Marginalia; Current thoughts on MND Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0098. Tuesday, 21 January 1997. (1) From: David Knauer Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 12:09:01 -0500 (EST) Subj: Q: Charles's Marginalia (2) From: Dale Lyles Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 22:04:38 -0500 (EST) Subj: Q: Current thoughts on MND (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Knauer Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 12:09:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Q: Charles's Marginalia In doing research for a dissertation chapter on Renaissance readers of drama, I came across this remark in Andrew Gurr's _The Shakespearean Stage_, 3rd ed.: "Charles himself read plays, and marked his copies with appreciative comments" p. 20. Does anyone, including Prof. Gurr, know where Charles's copies are stored or, better yet, whether his comments have ever been reproduced more accessibly? Thanks in advance, David Knauer (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Monday, 20 Jan 1997 22:04:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Q: Current thoughts on MND I have been preparing to direct a production of *Dream* in the fall and, having directed it sixteen years previously, I'm anxious to explore it with all the powers my older mind can muster. I'm fully aware of the criticisms/readings/productions which explore the Athens/Woods dichotomy, that of daylight rationality vs. moonlit sexuality. I did some work in that direction years ago and am preparing to take it quite a bit further this time. However, I can't help thinking that perhaps there might be other trains of thought regarding this play which I have missed, and I would appreciate this list's help in discussing those ideas, whatever they may be. Are there other themes to be explored in *MND*? What might they be? Are there areas of the usual dichotomy which you think I might have missed? Above all, how might these ideas affect a production of the play? (Gabriel, if you tell me that the mechanicals are oppressed workers and we must take their P&T seriously, I shall hardly forbear hurling things at you...) I will have access to a university library this summer, but I figured I could get a headstart here on SHAKSPER. Thanks for your assistance, Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:58:08 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0199 Re: Strange Brew Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0100. Wednesday, 22 January 1997. (1) From: Eric Armstrong Date: Tues, 21 Jan 1997 09:20:21 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0089 Re: Strange Brew (2) From: Jimmy Jung Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 14:18 Subj: Strange Brew; Non-Shakespearean Videos (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Tues, 21 Jan 1997 09:20:21 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0089 Re: Strange Brew >_Strange Brew_ is the story of beer-loving Doug and Bob Mackensie (characters >from the Second City TV series) who are supposed to be parallel to Rosencrantz >and Guildenstern. They go to visit a friend whose father has died and whose >uncle has seized the family kingdom, a brewery. (Here in the college town of >Athens, GA. everyone who has heard of this film says it's a cult classic for >beer-drinking undergraduates, and I get blank looks if I mention _Hamlet_.) > >Fran Teague This is what my fiancee told me (her family are Strange Brew fanatics) Some details: -The beer brand is called Elsinore beer. - Their friend, Pam (Hamlet), is upset because her uncle is trying to write her out of her inheritance of the brewery/insane asylum. She must wait til she is 21, despite the fact that the actress looks 31... - Pam is in love with Rosie, (a man) an ex-NHL star who has been placed in the insane asylum. - The ghost of her father comes back to reveal the truth regarding his death, through a faulty wiring system in a video game, which replays footage of the actual killing (involving the electric fence). In all seriousness, eric. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jimmy Jung Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 14:18 Subject: Strange Brew; Non-Shakespearean Videos Yes Fran, That is an accurate description of Strange Brew. The plot from the IMDB: Something is rotten at the Elsinore Brewery. Bob and Doug Mackenzie (as seen on SCTV) help the orphan Pam regain the brewery founded by her recently-deceased father. But to do so, they must confront the suspicious brewmaster and two teams of vicious hockey players. The Mackenzie brothers also have their own page with more than you'd ever want to know about the movie at: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ernestc/mackbros.htm Good luck trying to explain Shakespeare at UGA. Jimmy Jung Georgia Tech, class of 84 "go jackets" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:02:56 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0101 Re: Ideology Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0101. Wednesday, 22 January 1997. (1) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 18:14:30 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: Teaching British to the Englanders (2) From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 10:53:25 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0096 Re: Ideology and Soliloquys (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 18:14:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: Teaching British to the Englanders John Lee writes > It's a small point, but I would think that few who have passed > through the English Educational System would recognize it from > Gabriel Egan's description. I hope I made it clear that I was referring to the British system, and not whatever the 'English' system is. (English is taught as a subject in Britain, but not, even mutatis mutandis, vice versa). > And Rhodes Boyson isn't Minister for Education. Gillian Shepherd is. Again, I'd hoped to make it clear (by using the words 'the 1980s') that Boyson was the minister, and not that he is. Gabriel Egan (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 10:53:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0096 Re: Ideology and Soliloquys >"The postulate itself, however, cannot be proven; it is merely a prejudice," >writes Sean Lawrence--I think--correctly. Meaning is postulated, not proven. >So I believe; I don't really know. > >Dale Lyle is apparently fed up with my insistence that entities and actions are >not innately meaningful. So let me make my point: it seems to me that the >Marxist Shakespeareans first postulate that there is no innate meaning, no >inherent truth. They then go on to postulate that certain categories (e.g., >economics, ideology) have innate meanings and are inherently true. > >I don't think anyone can have it both ways. If entities and actions are not >innately meaningful, then they are not innately meaningful. Full stop. And, if it is postulated that there is no innate meaning, does that apply to the statement that there is no innate meaning, thereby rendering it meaningless, and leading to the conclusion that there is or might be innate meaning, that to deny it is self-contradictory, and therefore untenable? Roger Schmeeckle ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:10:43 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0102 Re: Current thoughts on MND Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0102. Wednesday, 22 January 1997. (1) From: Billy Houck Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 13:42:19 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0098 Qs: Current thoughts on MND (2) From: Clark Bowlen Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 16:08:25 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0098 Qs: Current thoughts on MND (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 13:42:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0098 Qs: Current thoughts on MND Hi. This isn't a theme, but it's a cute story. When I cast A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM last summer, the boy who had been cast as Snug came up to me and whispered: "Aw, Mr. Houck, you know I can't memorize no lines." I responded: "That's perfect! do it just like that!" He wandered away, not quite sure what was going on... Billy Houck Arroyo Grande Eagle Theatre (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Bowlen Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 16:08:25 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0098 Qs: Current thoughts on MND If the Athens/Wood dichotomy is the spine of the play, I think it plays more powerfully reversed, _i.e._ in the 20th century, we live in the woods and fear the denizens of Athens. Several years ago we did such an urban, rap version of MND that successfully got at the play's dark side. (Our Athens was a landscaped country club exterior. We boarded it up with graffiti-smeared plywood, changed the park bench to a bus stop, and replaced the topiaries with trash piles to effect the transformation, but ....) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:17:40 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0103 Re: Productions: TN and WT Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0103. Wednesday, 22 January 1997. (1) From: Billy Houck Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 14:22:07 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0090 Re: Productions: 12th Night (2) From: John Velz Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 18:51:00 +0200 Subj: Staging WT (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 14:22:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0090 Re: Productions: 12th Night In the Arroyo Grande Eagle Theatre production of Twelfth Night last spring, we put the intermission between III,1 and III,2 right after Olivia has been chasing Viola/Cesario around the stage. This gave the audience something to talk about during intermission, and is tantilizing enough to make them want to see the second half. Our audiences tend to be young and or uncultured, so they very seldom know how the story ends coming in. For this reason, I like to put intermission at some point where the other shoe is about to drop, but it's still hanging there. The beginning of III, 2 is also almost exactly the halfway point in the text. The reason we have intermission in 20th century theatres are so people can smoke, pee, and to sell concessions. For some reason people are able to sit in church for 2 hours, they'll watch a baseball game for 2 hours, they are able to sit in movie theaters for 2 hours, and at home they'll sit in front of the tv channel surfing for up to 6 hours without a break, but if you try to do a play without an official intermission, they cry havoc. Why is this? Best wishes, Billy Houck Arroyo Grande Eagle Theatre (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 18:51:00 +0200 Subject: Staging WT I am very enthusiastic about Mark Mann's staging of intervals of WT and TN alike. Very inventive theater. The WT screens not only pleased me but reminded me as well that after the production closed in which I made my Shak. debut as the Bear (1965), the director, Sandy Havens, confided in me that he had wanted to signal the changing of scenes in our production by a stage hand coming out and turning another gigantic page of a mock-up of a book, the actors entering through the spine of the book, so to speak. I have always regretted that we did not frame the action in that way, bringing "an old tale" on the stage through a tome. The prod. had other merits, but I still pine for what did not happen. It was, of course, my first Shakespeare but I remember it well for other things than that. Good for Mark Mann with the screens and the interval. Wish I had been in Columbus to see it. John Velz Austin, TX ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:24:10 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0104 Re: Lady Macbeth; The Mousetrap; Charles's Marginalia Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0104. Wednesday, 22 January 1997. (1) From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 10:17:16 -0500 Subj: Lady Macbeth (2) From: Ed Peschko Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 11:09:14 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0097 Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap (3) From: Derek Wood Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 21:02:01 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0098 Qs: Charles's Marginalia; (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 10:17:16 -0500 Subject: Lady Macbeth The question 'Did Lady Macbeth really faint' is not my invention. Nor is it a joke. It appears as Note DD in A.C.Bradley's momentous 'Shakespearean Tragedy', published in 1904. Bill Godshalk's stratagem, crediting it to myself, is clearly an attempt to curry favour. It will not succeed. Nor will poring over the letters of Abelard and Heloise (oh dear, the sadness of that 'again'!). T. Hawkes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Peschko Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 11:09:14 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0097 Re: Claudius and the Mousetrap > Patrick Stewart's version of Claudius, as described by Mark Mann, seems to > sidestep what is implied by the words, "Give me some light." This line > suggests an inner anguish and confusion which, it seems to me, is brought out > clearly in those performances in which we know Claudius is genuinely disturbed > by what he sees. I would also say that the words 'Give me some light.' could imply a tyrant, who being confronted by a rebel that is resisting his authority, exerting his authority on *others* by issuing a pointless command. Or maybe as a sign of strength: 'Give me some light!' -- ie: *I'm* in charge here, and don't you forget it! Just because Claudius hides that he is disturbed doesn't mean that he isn't disturbed! Ed (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Derek Wood Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 21:02:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0098 Qs: Charles's Marginalia; >In doing research for a dissertation chapter on Renaissance readers of drama, I >came across this remark in Andrew Gurr's _The Shakespearean Stage_, 3rd ed.: >"Charles himself read plays, and marked his copies with appreciative comments" >p. 20. Does anyone, including Prof. Gurr, know where Charles's copies are >stored or, better yet, whether his comments have ever been reproduced more >accessibly? > >Thanks in advance, >David Knauer I would be interested (and surprised) to know if Andrew Gurr had seen any marked texts or had any sort of ms or holograph data. I take it this is Charles I. I suspect Prof. Gurr had in mind Milton's remarks in _Eikonoklastes_. Milton is speaking of policy in Princes, who carefully put pious words in their own mouths, imitating the right authors: "I shall not instance an abstruse Author, wherein the King might be less conversant, but one whom we well know was the Closet Companion of these his solitudes, William Shakespeare; who introduces the person of Richard the third, speaking in as high a strain of pietie, and mortification, as is uttered in any passage of this Book; and sometimes to the same sense and purpose with some words in this place..." (CP, 3, 361). Milton is interested in Shakespeare's presentation of a king as a "deep dissembler, not of his affections onely, but of Religion" (362). The idea that Shakespeare was the "closet companion" of the wretched king has been sometimes misused by Milton scholars to Shakespeare's disadvantage. Best wishes, Derek N. C. Wood St. Francis Xavier University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:54:59 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0105 Rhetoric and the Art of Persuasion Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0105. Wednesday, 22 January 1997. From: Eric Armstrong Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 10:16:13 -0500 Subject: Rhetoric and the Art of Persuasion I am a teacher of voice and text (including Shakespeare) at an acting school in Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Following the thread on Rhetoric this fall, I have decided to work with my students on recognizing the potential for rhetorical style in speeches in Shakespeare. The idea is that they will find a monologue/soliloquy and try to see whether it follows the 6 parts of an oration (EXORDIUM, NARRATION, DIVISION, PROOF, REFUTATION AND PERORATION- to be precise). We have taken a few speeches through this process of analysis and found that many of them follow these steps, give or take a step or two, or perhaps flipping/swapping a few of the steps. I find that a/ it helps to establish a feeling for the concept of "thinking rhetorically" as an actor - that is using the steps as a way of clarifying what acting teachers call "tactics", b/ this process underlines what I think about the Elizabethan training of speakers/actors in that they knew more about the form of speaking and oration than we might and gives actors a concrete way of including some of that background in their playing, c/ the idea of rhetorical argument, which must have an "audience", helps to consolidate the actor's commitment to her audience, so that she is trying to convince them to see things her way. A good example of this was in RIII when Richard turns to the audience with "Was ever woman..." One discovery that really made a big difference in helping students with the structure was to go backwards through the speech, sentence by sentence (in a modern edition; perhaps colons or semi-colons are good check-points in an early edition). This allowed us to approach the argument from both ends, looking for the climax of the oration and its summary first and then establishing what the character was going for from that. It works remarkably well. Knowing that (practically) everything in the world of Shakespeare has been done before, I am wondering whether others have looked at the rhetorical structure of speeches, and in particular these 6 steps. I am particularly interested in whether characters NOT in a political situation might use this structure (e.g. not a king or royal or courtier-like character, or perhaps one of those in a more personal/private setting). I am willing to try this kind of search with any speech, but has much been written on it? I understand that Sister Miriam Joseph wrote well on this topic but her book(s?) seem to be out of print and every library I go to seems to lack her work. Any tips? Regards, Eric Armstrong ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:54:59 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0105 Rhetoric and the Art of Persuasion Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0105. Wednesday, 22 January 1997. From: Eric Armstrong Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 10:16:13 -0500 Subject: Rhetoric and the Art of Persuasion I am a teacher of voice and text (including Shakespeare) at an acting school in Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Following the thread on Rhetoric this fall, I have decided to work with my students on recognizing the potential for rhetorical style in speeches in Shakespeare. The idea is that they will find a monologue/soliloquy and try to see whether it follows the 6 parts of an oration (EXORDIUM, NARRATION, DIVISION, PROOF, REFUTATION AND PERORATION- to be precise). We have taken a few speeches through this process of analysis and found that many of them follow these steps, give or take a step or two, or perhaps flipping/swapping a few of the steps. I find that a/ it helps to establish a feeling for the concept of "thinking rhetorically" as an actor - that is using the steps as a way of clarifying what acting teachers call "tactics", b/ this process underlines what I think about the Elizabethan training of speakers/actors in that they knew more about the form of speaking and oration than we might and gives actors a concrete way of including some of that background in their playing, c/ the idea of rhetorical argument, which must have an "audience", helps to consolidate the actor's commitment to her audience, so that she is trying to convince them to see things her way. A good example of this was in RIII when Richard turns to the audience with "Was ever woman..." One discovery that really made a big difference in helping students with the structure was to go backwards through the speech, sentence by sentence (in a modern edition; perhaps colons or semi-colons are good check-points in an early edition). This allowed us to approach the argument from both ends, looking for the climax of the oration and its summary first and then establishing what the character was going for from that. It works remarkably well. Knowing that (practically) everything in the world of Shakespeare has been done before, I am wondering whether others have looked at the rhetorical structure of speeches, and in particular these 6 steps. I am particularly interested in whether characters NOT in a political situation might use this structure (e.g. not a king or royal or courtier-like character, or perhaps one of those in a more personal/private setting). I am willing to try this kind of search with any speech, but has much been written on it? I understand that Sister Miriam Joseph wrote well on this topic but her book(s?) seem to be out of print and every library I go to seems to lack her work. Any tips? Regards, Eric Armstrong ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:14:55 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0106 Re: Charles's Marginalia Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0106. Thursday, 23 January 1997. (1) From: Peter C. Herman Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 08:40:52 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0104 Charles's Marginalia (2) From: Naomi Liebler Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 97 14:36:12 EDT Subj: RE: SHK 8.0104 Re: Charles's Marginalia (3) From: Pervez Rizvi pervez.rizvi@capgemini.co.uk Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 97 9:06:57 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0098 Q: Charles's Marginalia (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter C. Herman Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 08:40:52 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0104 Charles's Marginalia An addendum to Derek Woods' remarks reproduced below. Milton also says that Charles is reported "a more diligent reader of Poets, then of Politicians . . . ." (CPW, 406), which, given the passage Woods quotes, proves once more the conflation of poetry and drama in the period. Peter C. Herman >I would be interested (and surprised) to know if Andrew Gurr had seen any >marked texts or had any sort of ms or holograph data. I take it this is Charles >I. I suspect Prof. Gurr had in mind Milton's remarks in _Eikonoklastes_. Milton >is speaking of policy in Princes, who carefully put pious words in their own >mouths, imitating the right authors: "I shall not instance an abstruse Author, >wherein the King might be less conversant, but one whom we well know was the >Closet Companion of these his solitudes, William Shakespeare; who introduces >the person of Richard the third, speaking in as high a strain of pietie, and >mortification, as is uttered in any passage of this Book; and sometimes to the >same sense and purpose with some words in this place..." (CP, 3, 361). Milton >is interested in Shakespeare's presentation of a king as a "deep dissembler, >not of his affections onely, but of Religion" (362). The idea that Shakespeare >was the "closet companion" of the wretched king has been sometimes misused by >Milton scholars to Shakespeare's disadvantage. > > Best wishes, > Derek N. C. Wood > St. Francis Xavier University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Naomi Liebler Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 97 14:36:12 EDT Subject: RE: SHK 8.0104 Re: Charles's Marginalia Derek Wood and David Knauer are encouraged to consult the Office Books of Henry Herbert (Charles I's Master of the Revels). Herbert records instances (one notable one in the case of a play by Massinger) when Charles not only read over the play-script but commented (harshly, in Massinger's case: "This is too insolent, and to be changed"). I wouldn't be a bit suprprised if Herbert's Office Book was among the "sources" Andy Gurr has in mind in making the claim Mr. Wood finds so unlikely. Herbert's Office Book has been reprinted in modern spelling and may well be available in your university library. While Herbert's reporting is admittedly second-hand, it is likely to be reliable, since his boss's objections might have had dire consequences for a Master of the Revels. Herbert's annotations to the licensing data for various plays tended to be rather detailed, for which we should be grateful. Cheers, Naomi Liebler (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pervez Rizvi pervez.rizvi@capgemini.co.uk Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 97 9:06:57 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0098 Q: Charles's Marginalia The introduction to Much Ado in the Riverside edition says that Charles I altered this play's title to "Beatrice and Benedick" in his copy of F2. I've no idea where this copy might reside now, but my first guess would be the royal library at Windsor Castle. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:05:22 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0107 Re: Lady Macbeth Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0107. Thursday, 23 January 1997. (1) From: Thomas Bishop Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 12:11:01 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0104 Re: Lady Macbeth (2) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 13:03:54 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0104 Re: Lady Macbeth (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 12:11:01 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0104 Re: Lady Macbeth As I recall Bradley's discussion, he too doubts that an actor could make it entirely clear whether Lady Macbeth's was a feigned "real" faint or a feigned "feigned" faint. The problem might be compared with Edgar's action in the opening of IV.vi of Lear: a man convincingly feigning the climbing of a hill looks remarkably like a man convincingly feigning a man convincingly feigning the climbing of a hill. (Such issues are also very relevant to playing the statue of Hermione.) Whether Shakespeare understood himself to be raising such issues here in Macbeth we have no way of knowing. Bradley's way of putting it tends to gloss over such questions. But he is right to note that they are raised, and that they often turn out to depend on what sort of consiousness we attribute to a character on a stage. That we do attribute consciousness to characters in stories is both part of common experience (it is one of our modes of both experiencing and interpreting the story), and part of critical commentary on plays stretching back at least to Aristotle, with his discussion of -ethos-. It is not the only way to discuss character, and it has been the subject of fierce attack in recent years. Some of this attack seems to me to have missed the point. Whether Lady Macbeth "really" faints is a complex question, that wont reduce itself easily either to a wide-eyed piece of naivety or to a joke against that naivety. Tom (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 13:03:54 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0104 Re: Lady Macbeth Utterly without evidence I would claim that the question "Did Lady Macbeth really faint" originates not with the venerable Mr Bradley but was asked by even the earliest encounterers of the *Macbeth* text, and was in fact invented by the author himself (intentional fallacy intended). Critically irresponsible or not, this sort of question, imagining real psychology behind the actions of puppets, is fundamental to the successful operation of narratives on brains. Great playwrights will be expected to know this and to use it to their advantage. In this example, the impact (or if you'll forgive the archaism, meaning) of the faint is inseparable from our irresistible unresolvable doubt as to its "authenticity." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:22:25 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0108 Re: WT Productions and Intermissions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0108. Thursday, 23 January 1997. (1) From: Jay t. Louden Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 08:19:04 -0800 (PST) Subj: WT Responses (2) From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 14:59:29 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0095 Re: Winter's Tale Productions (3) From: Mark Mann Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 19:45:31 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0103 Re: Productions: TN and WT (4) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 15:36:26 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0103 Re: Productions: TN and WT (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jay t. Louden Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 08:19:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: WT Responses Dear Friends, Thank you for your responses to my request for information on Winter's Tale productions. You have been very helpful. I am wondering if any out there saw Ashland's and/or Utah Shakes productions this last year? Also, has anyone ever seen the doubling of Antigonus and Autolycus? What are your thoughts on cutting the Cleomenes/Dion scene? Since there are so many scholars on this list, what is your opinion of cutting in Shakespeare's plays? And one last question, did anyone see Peter Brook's most recent (1993-4) production of The Tempest? Thank you all! Jay Louden jtlouden@uci.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 14:59:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0095 Re: Winter's Tale Productions John Velz's comment about audiences being startled at Hermione's return to life is true. We very carefully did not reveal the end of the play in our publicity, and we were rewarded every night with a genuinely surprised audience. It helped to have a Hermione who had just studied the role with the RSC during a summer workshop and whose isolation skills were phenomenal. Her eyes would widen, she would gasp, and suddenly you could *see* the breath fill every inch of her body. It was electrifying; the cast onstage was sincerely jumping back in alarm every night. Our bear, for the record, was offstage, a combination of sound effects, live bear imitations from a gifted mimic in the cast, and Antigonus's bloodcurdling screams. It came at the end of the Scene With No Light, with a constant sound background of storm, sea, crashing, etc. After the bear, the storm died away, the light shifted and grew, and on came the Shepherd. I highly recommend baby-talk to get the second half underway with a miracle of mood shifting. And don't despair during IV.4, the Scene That Will Not End. It drives you crazy during rehearsal, but the audience doesn't realize that they've just watched half the play in one scene. It's a difficult play, but well worth the exploration. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Mann Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 19:45:31 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0103 Re: Productions: TN and WT Many thanks to John Velz re: his comments on my production of the Winter's Tale. John's instinct is dead on that this play is a "tale", and is commented on throughout the telling of it. To enhance that idea, I condensed several other character's speeches and had Time deliver them as narration. We also recorded him delivering key lines throughout the play, to serve almost as chapter titles, i.e. " Jove send her a better guiding spirit" or " there was a man, dwelt by a churchyard", and finally, one of the loveliest, simplest lines in the canon " It is required you do awaken your faith" Time also served as the man who came from the oracle with the verdict of Hermione, opening the seals but reading it without looking at the pages ( he instead smiled at the audience as he delivered the Oracle's edicts). He also entered to Antigonus, later, on the shores of Bohemia, carrying a giant golden bear mask, mounted on a huge pole, which he carried in front of him (other cast members, from the shadows between the screens, also carried "bear poles"). In the next to last scene, where the 3 gentlemen tell Autolycus of the reconciliation, we broke into individual lines, and had the ensemble rush out to the lip of the stage, enthusiastically telling the audience of the reconciliation, and Time joined them to tell the story of Antigonus' fate. The man who played Time is a marvelous African- American actor named Phillip Sekou Glass, who makes his living as a teller of African folk tales. He entered in the statue scene, after Paulina says she will away to some withered bow, and takes over Leontes lines " Good Paulina, lead all from hence" and the cast turned and faced upstage, their tale being completed, and Time ended with his ending lines " if ever you have spent time worse e'er now...". To further enhance this feeling of fairy tale timelessness, our costume scheme was a combination of Victorian and Elizabethan styles, i.e., some ladies wore high necked lace collared Victorian gowns, and Elizabethan headresses--the men, such as Leontes, wore a Bismarckian uniform ( all white, including his medals), but had a floor length tunic over it. Very beautiful, (and obviously, since I'm rambling on here), one of the many things that made me proud as punch of this production. Side note: anyone thinking of mounting The Winter's Tale, should seriously consider using Albononi's Adagio in G as underscoring in the statue scene...there won't be a dry seat in the house. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 15:36:26 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0103 Re: Productions: TN and WT >For some reason people are able to sit in church for 2 hours, they'll watch a >baseball game for 2 hours, they are able to sit in movie theaters for 2 hours, >and at home they'll sit in front of the tv channel surfing for up to 6 hours >without a break, but if you try to do a play without an official intermission, >they cry havoc. > >Why is this? 1) Plays fatigue the deciphering faculties of their attendees more than churches (which explain their metaphors), ball games (whose participants have unambiguous intentions), or movies and tv (which forcibly direct your attention). 2) Theater audiences feel responsible for the vulnerability of their performers, which can be extremely tiring. This isn't a problem in sports arenas (where booing is sanctioned), movies and tv (where the actors aren't present), or church (where the spectator's own vulnerability is preyed upon). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:31:08 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0109 Re: Slings and arrows Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0109. Thursday, 23 January 1997. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 09:54:43 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0093 Re: Slings and arrows (2) From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 16:02 ET Subj: SHK 8.0087 Q: Slings and arrows (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 09:54:43 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0093 Re: Slings and arrows The citations given by Ian Lancashire and Don Foster certainly explain the conjunction of "slings and arrows." The passages quoted, however, don't specifically refer to "the arrows of Fortune," but rather to "Fortune's sling." Of course, as Cotgrave notes, slings "violently darted" great arrows, and, perhaps, arrows are implied by "Fortune's sling." In any case, my thanks to Ian and Don for this information. Chris Stroffolino's response is on target, but I wouldn't search for a lost arrow in the way Bassanio suggests. The second arrow really would be an "arrow of fortune." Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 16:02 ET Subject: SHK 8.0087 Q: Slings and arrows I'd be more inclined to look in the visual iconography of Fortuna for slings/stings and arrows than in texts; arrows in particular (in the left hand) would be a clear and easy way to represent _mala fortuna_. Jean Cousin, _Le Livre doe Fortune_ (before 1574) gives about 200 different images of the goddess from many sources; I've seen a splendidly printed translation, ed. Ludovic Lalanne and trans. H. Mainwaring Dunston, London and Paris 1883. Iconographically, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:43:21 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0110 Re: Mousetrap; Midwinter's Tale; Rhetoric; MND Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0110. Thursday, 23 January 1997. (1) From: Mark Mann Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 12:18:31 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0104 Re: The Mousetrap (2) From: Richard A Burt Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 21:08:33 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0088 Midwinter's Tale (3) From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 19:13:03 -0800 Subj: Rhetoric (4) From: C. David Frankel Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 00:08:22 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0098 Current thoughts on MND (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Mann Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 12:18:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0104 Re: The Mousetrap Dear Derek Wood, As regards the delivery of Claudius' line " Give me some light", 2 points occur to me...1, if Claudius shows too much emotion at that moment, Hamlet is given far too much power in his duel of wits with his uncle.All Claudius need do is"blench"...seems more powerful if the court is left ill at ease by the sudden stoppage of the play, rather than the disturbing outburst of their king. It's enough for Hamlet and Claudius to know each other's position on the board. My second point is more on a theatrical pacing tack...it's better, I think, to have wait to reveal Claudius' heart with the "O my offense is rank"...there's a reason Shakespeare waits so long, when many other villains in the canon let you know right away...it preserves the tension of the audience (that 1 member who doesn't know the story) wondering if Hamlet is wrong in his surmises, and that the ghost IS a devil playing with his weak mind....till the Claudius speech, we have no proof as yet.....Thanks, Mark Mann (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A Burt Date: Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 21:08:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0088 Midwinter's Tale It's worth noting that there is a gay character who plays the "Queen." The director says that Shakespeare was probably bi. Also, the central chacracter of Brangh's comedy _Peter's Friends_ turns out to be gay and has AIDS. There also some gay moments in Branagh's performances of Henry V (the traitors, especially Scroop) and Iago (he has anal sex with Emilia after she gives him the handerkerchief). (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 19:13:03 -0800 Subject: Rhetoric I'm wondering whether Eric Armstrong has noticed any pattern to the speeches that *don't* fit the six stages of formal rhetoric. Does skipping a stage indicate some sort of pressure on the character? Cheers, Sean. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 00:08:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0098 Current thoughts on MND When I directed MND a few years ago I took the idea of transformation as the central informing metaphor for the production. We started a bit clichish with actors coming out onto an almost bare stage gathering for a rehearsal -- some platforms and dressing racks were strewn around. As the student/actors did various things a voice from the back of the theatre proclaimed "Now fair Hippolyta. . ." and in good Pirendellan fashion the Duke and soon to be Duchess moved toward the stage. When Theseus turned to Philostrate he picked out one of the students who happened to be holding a sort of Elizabethan garment. Well, you can probably imagine a lot of what followed. One thing I did learn (or relearn): Midsummer should only get one intermission. In attempting to stress the Athens-Forest-Athens structure I took intermissions at the end of the first two sections; some audience members left after the second intermission because they thought the play was over -- which, in a way, it is if you're not fully anticipating the production of Pyramus and Thisby. Live and learn, I say, cdf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:47:08 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0111 Re: Teaching British to the Englanders Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0111. Thursday, 23 January 1997. (1) From: Jonathan Hope Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 16:24:24 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: Teaching British to the Englanders (2) From: John Lee Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 17:30:41 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Teaching British to the Englanders (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Hope Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 16:24:24 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: Teaching British to the Englanders John Lee is more correct when he writes of the 'English' education system than Gabriel Egan is when he writes of the 'British' one: there is one system in place in England and Wales, and another in Scotland. The differences are quite marked, and can be found throughout both school and university education, administration, and course contents. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Lee Date: Wednesday, 22 Jan 1997 17:30:41 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Teaching British to the Englanders Gabriel Egan points out that he was referring to the British system, and not `whatever the "English" system is'. The change of terminology doesn't change my point -- I don't think anyone who went through the British system would recognize it from Gabriel Egan's description. Whole texts of Shakespeare are used in English schools. (That's a fact? Even if there isn't a text in the class, and even if that wholeness -- along the authority, originality -- disappears as you search for it ...) I used English to narrow down the options a little (though there are large differences within English schooling) -- for the notion of a British system is rather monolithic, totalizing. For example, the Scots have a quite different system of Education, examined by their own examination boards, and incompatible in some ways with the system at work in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Northern Irish have a far stronger Grammar School system left intact. The Welsh have rather different senses of class and education than the English (and half the country has a different language). Small points; my larger question is whether Gabriel Egan's willingness to use large and imprecise generalizations is in part the product and in part the sustaining practice of his chosen theory of ideology? (I did not know that Rhodes Boyston was Minister for Education in the 1980s.) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:40:13 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0112 International Florence Shakespeare Conference Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0112. Friday, 24 January 1997. From: Fernando Cioni Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 10:34:23 +0100 (MET) Subject: International Florence Shakespeare Conference ********************************************************************* * * * INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE * * * * SHAKESPEARE'S TEXT(S) * * A HUNDRED YEARS OF VISIONS AND REVISIONS * * * * Florence 29-31 May 1997 * * * ********************************************************************* The Conference will take place at the University of Florence. Speakers include: Margreta de Grazia, University of Pennsylvania Graham Holderness, University of Hertfordshire Brian Loughrey, Roehampton Institute, London Jerome McGann, University of Virginia Giorgio Melchiori, University of Rome Alessandro Serpieri, University of Florence Gary Taylor, University of Alabama Ann Thompson, Roehampton Institute, London Steven Urkowitz, New York University Michael Warren, University of California Stanley Wells, The Shakespeare Institute Stratford- upon-Avon The Conference will include both plenary papers and panels sessions on such topics as: "The texts of Hamlet", "The politics of editing", "The uses of electronic editions", "The afterlife of Shakespeare's texts". Organizing Committee: Alessandro Serpieri, Keir Elam, Aldo Celli, Carla Dente, Fernando Cioni Registration fee Lit. 70.000 (=A3 30, $ 50) The registration fee must be paid in advance at the time of the hotel= booking. Please send a cheque or money order to Keir Elam, Istituto di Inglese, Via San Gallo 10, 50129 Florence, Italy For further information contact Dr. Fernando Cioni (cionif@cesit1.unifi.it) fax 39 55 2757948 An updated web page is available at www.unifi.it/unifi/inglese/conferen.htm ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:51:55 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.01114 Qs: Bibles; Perspective; Theatre of Blood; Norfolk; Ed. Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0114. Friday, 24 January 1997. (1) From: Jesus Cora Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 14:25:21 UTC+0100 Subj: Q: Bible Translations on the NET. (2) From: Jesus Cora Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 15:05:41 UTC+0100 Subj: Q: Perspective & Drama (3) From: Andreas Schlenger Date: Friday, 24 Jan 1997 17:29:39 +0100 (MET) Subj: Q: "Theatre of Blood" titles (4) From: Thomas Bishop Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 16:01:02 -0500 Subj: Norfolk in R III 3.4 (5) From: Eric Armstrong Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 18:14:26 -0500 Subj: Edition Recognition? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 14:25:21 UTC+0100 Subject: Q: Bible Translations on the NET. Dear Shakspereans, A colleague of mine wants to know about Bible web-pages. She would like to have access to medievan and Renaissance English translations. Any suggestions? Thanks in advance. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 15:05:41 UTC+0100 Subject: Q: Perspective & Drama Dear Members, Does anyone know about bibliography on perspective (pictorial or otherwise) and Renaissance drama, especially Thomas Kyd and Ben Jonson, or "spatial theory" and drama? Thanks in advance. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andreas Schlenger Date: Friday, 24 Jan 1997 17:29:39 +0100 (MET) Subject: Q: "Theatre of Blood" titles Dear Fellow SHAKSPEReans! I'm looking for someone who can help me to identify the plays that are featured in the titles of _Theatre_of_Blood_. (You know - these short b/w silent movie scenes.) I remember that at least one was from "The Merchant of Venice", another from "Richard III", I think. Maybe they are scenes from the plays featured in the movie? (Cesar, Troilus, Richard III, Merchant, Henry VI, Cymbeline, Titus.) Additionally, I would like to know from which productions they were taken. Anyone with a good knowledge of old silent movie versions out there? Regards, Andreas. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 16:01:02 -0500 Subject: Norfolk in R III 3.4 Staging this little scene with my class this semester, we have been led to wonder about the role of Norfolk, who is listed in the Folio entrance but says nothing during the scene and has no specific exit given. Norfolk later plays a more prominent role as one of Richard's generals at Bosworth, and receives the couplet about "Dickon thy master". I cannot recall ever having seen Norfolk in the earlier scene though. It is his firsr specific direction in the plyay. Do members have comments or recollections on his presence and demeanour? There seem to be several possibilities. Tom (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 18:14:26 -0500 Subject: Edition Recognition? In an email today, a friend referred to a mysterious edition of Shakespeare that I have never heard of before and I wondered if anyone knew which one he meant: By the way, I bought a modern type, paperback edition of Dream, which retains original spelling and punctuation from Q1. Very interesting. I don't have it with me at my office. I think the publisher was Routledge, but i might be mistaken. Othello, A&C and Dream are available in this edition. LLL was not in stock but I didn't take the time to ask if it was published. They are as expensive as the Arden but kind of better Does this sound familiar? mailto:armstrn@uwindsor.ca Eric Armstrong ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 14:57:03 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0113 CFP: Early Modern Women Writers; Judith Shakespeare in SQ Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0113. Friday, 24 January 1997. (1) From: Fran Murphy Zauhar Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 09:36:03 -0500 Subj: M/MLA CFP: Early Modern Women Writers (2) From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Friday, 24 Jan 1997 00:13:02 -0500 (EST) Subj: Judith Shakespeare in SQ (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Murphy Zauhar Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 09:36:03 -0500 Subject: M/MLA CFP: Early Modern Women Writers This message is being cross-posted; please excuse the receipt of repeat announcements. Call for Papers 1997 Midwest Modern Language Association Annual Convention, November 6-8, 1997, Ramada Congress Hotel, Chicago, Illinois Special Session on Early Modern British Women Writers: Early Modern British Women Writers: the Individual and the Tradition, 1500-1750 This session will provide a forum for discussing the relationship of one or more Early Modern women writers both to the larger literary tradition and to the works of other women. Papers accepted for this session will focus on an individual writer's work and examine how her writing revises or, perhaps, reinforces, our understanding of the literary communities active in Early Modern England. Papers focusing on individual women who sought to create communities of women writers will be especially welcome. Please send papers (no longer than 8 single-spaced pages) or 1-2 page abstracts by 15 April 1997 to: Frances Murphy Zauhar English Department Saint Vincent College 300 Fraser Purchase Road Latrobe, PA 15650 Phone: 412/539-9761, ext. 2317 Fax: 412/537-4554 email: zauhar@acad1.stvincent.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Friday, 24 Jan 1997 00:13:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Judith Shakespeare in SQ My colleague Elizabeth Hageman has asked that I bring this item to the attention of SHAKSPERians. The December issue of SQ, a special issue entitled Teaching Judith Shakespeare, treats methods and implications of teaching writing by early modern women in conjunction with Shakespeare's poems and plays. Edited by Elizabeth Hageman and Sara Jayne Steen, the issue contains essays by Frances Teague, Jan Stirm, Irene Dash, Lisa Hopkins, Josephine Roberts, Nancy Gutierrez, Megan Matchinske, Theresa Kemp, Kim Hall, and Jane Donawerth. Copies may be ordered for $12 (which includes postage within the U.S.) from *Shakespeare Quarterly*, c/o Folger Library, 201 East Capitol Street, Washington, D.C. 20003. For rates outside of the U.S., call 202-675-0351 or fax 202-544-4623. Cheers, Douglas Lanier DML3@christa.unh.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:50:49 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0119 Cordelia and the Fool Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0119. Friday, 24 January 1997. From: Syd Kasten Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 23:41:06 +0200 (IST) Subject: Cordelia and the Fool Last week Bill Godshalk and Gabriel Egan took a break from their ideology discussion for a brief look at doubling: Bill Godshalk asked about virtuoso doubling, >> For example, the actor who played Cordelia might double as the Fool. and Gabriel Egan replied, >Although they are unalike, this would be an example of thematic doubling if it >used the two-in-oneness to suggest that the two characters share a similar >relation to the father figure. ..... and goes on to point out that >A. C. Sprague rejected the doubling of Fool and Cordelia because the >Fool was an important comedian's role, not a boy's, and Armin was too old to >play Cordelia (p33). My understanding of their interchange is that while all have noticed that Cordelia and the Fool are never on the stage together, none of the above have drawn the ultimate conclusion that the Fool and Cordelia, like Clark Kent And Superman, are one and the same: that the Fool as we see him is really Cordelia in disguise. If this is one of those crank theories that periodically surfaces accept my apologies and trash this letter now. Otherwise consider the evidence. Act I scene 4, begins with the theme of disguise - the entrance of the Kent, whose disguise is not penetrated by Lear. We are then primed to the Fool's entrance with a flourish of 50 lines, in which Lear repeatedly couples a call for his Fool with a call for his daughter. Whithin this section one hears a gratuitous comment by the knight on the change in the Fool's appearance since Cordelia's departure. Surely this is to prime us for a Fool that is other than what he appears, and incidentally to make explicit retroactively an underlying irony in Lear's call for his daughter/fool. Cordelia is not a stranger to the jester's craft. Her answer to the king's request for flattery took the form of a terse conundrum followed by a logical explanation. The Fool that appears on the scene continues the attempt to straighten out the king's thinking in the matter of his divestiture, the reverence of a daughter being replaced by the irreverence of a fool. Further on in the play the author has provided a superfluous scene iii, act 4 in which nothing much happens except for a description of Cordelia's emotional expressiveness. This apparently does not appear in the Folio version. No doubt this scene is an extender to be used in case the actor has gotten tangled in his stays or whatever while redressing to his Cordelia role on her way to Dover and needs more time? Finally, Lear is allowed to die in a state of clarity which goes unperceived by those who surround him. After recognizing Kent through a window in the clouds of his psychosis, and Kent has recalled the period of exile by revealing himself to be the faithful Caius as well, Lear, going back to that time, puts two and two together to achieve a final appreciation of the depth of Cordelia's devotion, a merging of fool and daughter: "And my poor fool is hang'd!"! Kent and Edgar are not the only Shakespearian characters who handled banishment by taking on a disguise. In this case Cordelia would be expressing her courage and foresight by keeping close watch over her father. It would seem from this reading that the C and F roles were conceived as one, but for various reasons (e.g. "Armin was too old to play Cordelia") they were separated, and this became the tradition. Perhaps someone out there can tell me how I arrived at this idea? Have I seen it done and forgotten? It may be that the thought was seeded by a (supply your own superlative) Granada production for television (1983) with Sir Laurence Olivier as Lear, supported by an outstanding cast, and directed by Michael Elliot. Anna Calder-Marshal, playing Cordelia, and John Hurt, cast as the Fool, in complexion and I don't know what other cues radiate to my eyes a similarity greater than that to be found in most Viola and Sebastians I have seen. I wonder if the director, in choosing these two, wasn't intentionally giving us a subliminal nudge towards a concept that has remained over the years a subliminal ambiguity. Or maybe I've been watching too much "Lois and Clark". Sincerely Syd Kasten ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:55:14 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0120 Re: The Mousetrap; Charles's Marginalia Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0120. Friday, 24 January 1997. (1) From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 17:44:47 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0110 Re: Mousetrap (2) From: Andrew Gurr Date: Friday, 24 Jan 1997 10:53:24 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0106 Re: Charles's Marginalia (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 17:44:47 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0110 Re: Mousetrap > All Claudius need do is"blench"...seems more powerful if the court is > left ill at ease by the sudden stoppage of the play, rather than the > disturbing outburst of their king. According to R&G, the king is marvellous distempered and the queen has been struck into amazement. This is more than blenching. And R&G talk about it in public so it's no secret to the court. (But the king's guilt *is* a secret. And nobody seems to find the outburst puzzling or suspicious. It's apparently an understandable direct response to the play and/or Hamlet's behavior. Even hauling him off to England strikes everyone as a reasonable step.) > My second point is more on a theatrical pacing tack...it's better, I > think, to have wait to reveal Claudius' heart with the "O my offense is rank" Better or not, the king's heart is exposed before the Mousetrap ("How smart a lash that speech doth give my conscience," etc, as he hides for the nunnery scene). (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Gurr Date: Friday, 24 Jan 1997 10:53:24 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0106 Re: Charles's Marginalia We shouldn't be so Shakespeare-fixated. Charles wrote changes into his copy of The Maid's Tragedy, improving the plot. Other Beaumont and Fletcher plays had his attention too. Try the early quartos in the Bodleian. There's an article on his changes to The Maid's Tragedy which I read years ago, I think in a Festschrift volume. Andrew Gurr. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:57:54 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0121 CFP: ENGLISH RENAISSANCE LITERATURE Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0121. Friday, 24 January 1997. From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 21:10:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: CFP Dear SHAKSPEReans: Attached is a call for papers from the chair of the English Renaissance Literature session at the Rocky Mountain MLA annual convention in October in Denver, CO: Regards, Evelyn Gajowski ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CALL FOR PAPERS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ENGLISH RENAISSANCE LITERATURE ROCKY MOUNTAIN MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOC. Proposals are invited for the RMMLA regular session entitled "ENGLISH RENAISSANCE LITERATURE." Please send 300 word abstracts before Feb. 15 either by e-mail to or by regular mail to Linda Lang-Peralta Department of English University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 455011 Las Vegas, NV 89154-5011 The 51st Annual Meeting of RMMLA will be held in Denver, Colorado, on Oct. 16-18, 1997. Presenters must be members of RMMLA by Apr. 1, 1997. No papers may be presented in absentia. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:59:59 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0122 Q: A Very Drab Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0122. Friday, 24 January 1997. From: Diana E. Smith Date: Friday, 24 Jan 1997 07:20:18 -0500 Subject: A Very Drab I wonder if someone could help me with Hamlet's lines "Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell,/Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words/And fall a-cursing like a very drab," Why the comparison to a whore exactly? How is his "unpacking" similar to a whore's? Are we supposed to consider the comparative "rightness" of their acts? Please help. Diana Smith ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:23:48 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0115 Re: Lady Macbeth Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0115. Friday, 24 January 1997. (1) From: David M Richman Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 16:57:53 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0107 Re: Lady Macbeth (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 12:50:01 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0104 Re: Lady Macbeth (3) From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 22:34:07 -0800 Subj: Lady M fainting (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 16:57:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0107 Re: Lady Macbeth In response to Tom Bishop on the "faint" may I note that Edgar's "climb" up Dover cliff is of a different order of feigning than that practised by the woman who says: "What, in our house?" Edgar is practising upon a newly blind and disoriented old man. Speaking both as a theatre director and as an often disoriented blind man, I can say that it is easy and amusing to deceive the blind. As Edgar leads Gloucester, he can "fake" difficult terrain on the flat stage. He can invent a "hill" simply by gradually (or steeply) raising his arm or shoulder--which Gloucester is holding. "Poor Tom shall lead thee." The audience will laugh at all this--at least they did in our production--and then feel guilty afterwords at participating in the abuse of the disabled. The scene can make for delicious farce tinged with unease. Deceiving the blind is an old motif. Consider Rebekah and Jacob deceiving poor old Isaac. Two cheers for laughter. David Richman University of New Hampshire (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 12:50:01 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0104 Re: Lady Macbeth T. Hawkes writes, >The question 'Did Lady Macbeth really faint' is not my invention. Nor is it a >joke. It appears as Note DD in A.C.Bradley's momentous 'Shakespearean Tragedy', >published in 1904. Bill Godshalk's stratagem, crediting it to myself, is >clearly an attempt to curry favour. It will not succeed. Nor will poring over >the letters of Abelard and Heloise (oh dear, the sadness of that 'again'!). Of course, Bradley asked the question, and obviously other spectators have asked the question. And T. Hawkes asks the question--recurrently--or should I write, sadly, 'again'? I did not mean to imply that he is the only one who has asked or will continue to ask about Lady's fainting. And, of course, it makes no difference what Hawkes "means" when he asks the question. I take it as a scholarly joke. And don't we all agree that meaning is in the brain of the reader, not in the brain of the "author-function"--no matter what the "author-function" says? And, obviously, Hawkes understands my comments as an attempt to curry favour. With whom, he does not say. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 22:34:07 -0800 Subject: Lady M fainting Tom Bishop's note sent me scurrying off for my copy of _Shakespearean Tragedy_. Should anyone be interested, the concluding paragraph of note DD reads as follows: Shakespeare, of course, knew whether he meant the faint to be real: but I am not aware if an actor of the part could show the audience whether it was real or pretended. If he could, he would doubtless receive instructions from the author. Cheers, Sean. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:29:53 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0116 Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0116. Friday, 24 January 1997. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 13:09:21 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0101 Re: Ideology (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 22:22:08 +0000 (GMT) Subj: British/English & the National Curriculum (3) From: Harry Hill Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 17:55:39 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0111 Re: Teaching British to the Englanders (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 13:09:21 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0101 Re: Ideology I wrote: >>I don't think anyone can have it both ways. If entities and actions are not >>innately meaningful, then they are not innately meaningful. Full stop. And Roger Schmeeckle says: >And, if it is postulated that there is no innate meaning, does that apply to >the statement that there is no innate meaning, thereby rendering it >meaningless, and leading to the conclusion that there is or might be innate >meaning, that to deny it is self-contradictory, and therefore untenable? I, of course, did not imply that my comment was meaningless. I was commenting on "innate" meaning. My comments are meaningful in a certain human context. We humans create (or construct, or fashion) the context in which statements are meaningful. Were all humans to disappear from the universe, my comments would be meaningless, whereas "innately meaningful" comments would still be meaningful because they need no context in order to mean. I assume that, were innately meaningful sentences possible, they would not have to be read and construed. Innately meaningful sentences would simply "be"--something like Plato's "ideas." And, yes, I believe that some responsible humans believe in innate meaning. I happen not to. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 22:22:08 +0000 (GMT) Subject: British/English & the National Curriculum Jonathan Hope writes > John Lee is more correct when he writes of the > 'English' education system than Gabriel Egan is when > he writes of the 'British' one: there is one system > in place in England and Wales, and another in > Scotland. The differences are quite > marked, and can be found throughout both school > and university education, administration, and course > contents. Not forgetting the Northern Ireland distinction where state sectarianism makes it very difficult for Catholic children to attend state schools (which are all Protestant). However, despite it admittance of regional variation the National Curriculum (which is what we were discussing) is intended to standardize the content of syllabi. John Lee writes > my larger question is whether Gabriel Egan's > willingness to use large and imprecise generalizations > is in part the product and in part the sustaining > practice of his chosen theory of ideology? The National Curriculum exists. It is not one of my generalizations. Its aims, as articulated by its authors, are a matter of record. The 'national' part of its title is intended to indicate that it standardizes across the four countries which make up the nation. Gabriel Egan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 17:55:39 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0111 Re: Teaching British to the Englanders A smaller point still: although in the fifties the Scottish Education Authority and the English one were largely independent of each other, university Final Honours papers --all five days' worth of them, testing the four years' worth of information and opinion--were exchanged between the countries in some cases, our own and Aberdeen, for instance, being read by Durham. Far from being being evidence of a sinister colonialsm, this double checking guarded against the personal whim and caprice that still characterized the puritan work ethic of the American higher education of the time. The Scots and their Sassenach cousins were often "graded" holistically and, most important of all, the secrets of their intellectual selves of all that preceded those Finals ignored. This is the first time I have made public that I failed Moral Philosophy and had to re-sit it in the summertime, there being quite properly so such animal as a prying transcript, which puritan list of early and insignificant triumphs and errors has always struck me rather like points on a driver's license that won't go away. Harry Hill Montreal ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:34:59 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0117 Re: Branagh Interview; Midwinter's Tale Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0117. Friday, 24 January 1997. (1) From: Cary M. Mazer Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 10:22:45 -0500 Subj: Branagh Interview (2) From: Thomas Bishop Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 15:29:15 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0110 Re: Midwinter's Tale (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Friends, I have an interview with Kenneth Branagh in this week's Philadelphia City Paper (for which I am theatre critic). If you're interested, you can read it on the on-line edition of the paper (the interview is at http://www.citypaper.net/rad/articles/article009.html#story1; the review is at http://www.citypaper.net/rad/articles/article010.html#story1) through next Wednesday, January 29. After that, it can be accessed (without the photographs) through the index of my theatre reviews at my web site: http://www.english.upenn.edu/~cmazer/cp.html. Cary (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 15:29:15 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0110 Re: Midwinter's Tale Richard Burt comments of Branagh's films: >It's worth noting that there is a gay character who plays the "Queen." The >director says that Shakespeare was probably bi. Also, the central chacracter >of Brangh's comedy _Peter's Friends_ turns out to be gay and has AIDS. There >also some gay moments in Branagh's performances of Henry V (the traitors, >especially Scroop) and Iago (he has anal sex with Emilia after she gives him >the handerkerchief). A ticklish business this, no doubt, but just what -is- it that makes for the inclusion of Iago's sexual attentions to Emilia in the above list? I dont recall the moment in the film well enough to know just how explicit this was -- anal sex as opposed to, say, intercourse "like the clean beasts, embracing fom behind" as A.D. Hope says. But even if it was very explicit, does this generate an assumption that it can therefore be placed in a list of "gay-related" moments in recent Shakespeare films? I'm a little troubled by what's implicit here. Tom ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:39:03 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0118 Re: WT Productions and Intermissions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0118. Friday, 24 January 1997. (1) From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 12:29:09 PST Subj: Winter's Tale at Ashland (2) From: David M Richman Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 17:12:53 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0108 Re: WT Productions and Intermissions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 12:29:09 PST Subject: Winter's Tale at Ashland Since Professor Louden has asked, I saw "The Winter's Tale" at Ashland last summer. One feature of the production attracted a lot of discussion. When Leontes would utter his jealous fantasies, his wife and his friend would be bathed in a reddish light, and they would kiss and grope each other, generally acting out Leontes' fantasies. In a manner that I think would have been clear even to an audience member who did not know the story, we were able to look inside Leontes' mind. I heard quite polarized opinions about this feature. In my view, it worked pretty well, because by showing us what Leontes thought he was seeing, it made it easier for us to understand his actions. On the whole, I thought the production was quite good. The Hermione played her role with great dignity, which is essential, though she was much too weepy in the last scene. The business about the sun god, which someone earlier described on this list, struck me as idiotic. But my tastes run strongly against emphasis on magical or supernatural aspects of Shakespeare's plays. I wonder if anyone on this list saw "The Winter's Tale" at Ashland in the late 1970s. James Edmondson played Leontes and Le Clanche du Rand played Hermione. It was the best production of any play I have ever seen. Best, Dan Lowenstein UCLA Law School (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Thursday, 23 Jan 1997 17:12:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0108 Re: WT Productions and Intermissions Why do theatrical performances in our time require intermissions? Several years ago, I heard Edward Albee remark half-jestingly, and consequently half-seriously that theatre is dangerous. It stimulates the bladder and the bowels. Many movies are bland, stimulating the god Morpheus. On a different not, try not to cut Cleomenes and Dion. You need a sense of he oracle's power and wonder before the trial scene. Cleomenes and Dion offer the first suggestion that this tale may move in a wondrous direction. Immodestly, I will note that I talk a good deal about this play and this subject in Chap. 3 of *Laughter, Pain, and Wonder* U. of Del. 1990. I have greatly enjoyed recent accounts on this list of *Winter's Tale* productions. David Richman ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 17:13:34 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0123 Re: WT Productions and Intermissions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0123. Sunday, 26 January 1997. (1) From: John Cox Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 11:03:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Ashland Winter's Tale (2) From: Lyn Wood Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 10:59:31 -0800 (PST) Subj: WT at USF (3) From: Katherine Hardman Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 19:38:20 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0108 Re: WT Productions and Intermissions (4) From: David Evett Date: Friday, 24 Jan 1997 15:16 ET Subj: SHK 8.0108 Re: WT Productions a (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cox Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 11:03:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Ashland Winter's Tale In response to Dan Lowenstein's inquiry about the 1970's Ashland Winter's Tale, I saw it too, and I agree about its extraordinary quality. Someone recently mentioned the possibility of using Albinoni's music for the statue scene; the Ashland production used Pachelbel's Canon in D, and it drew the soul out of everyone. That production was also effective in eliciting audience response to clues that Hermione was actually living in the statue scene. When I saw it, I could hear people gasping (literally) and laughing in delighted anticipation. It was just the response to "magic" that I think the play achieves at its best. For my money, though, the best interpretation of "Exit, pursued by a bear" was the 1986 production at Stratford on Avon, in the big theater, with Jeremy Irons in the title role. Irons was upstaged by the bear, which was a huge puppet, manipulated with wires from the top and sides. In the first part of the play, the puppet was an enormous bear rug, with its head facing the audience and its jaws open. All the action in Sicily took place on this rug. When the bear became a puppet, it was accompanied by animal roars that came from 360 degrees and practically shook the building. It wrapped Antigonus in its arms, and he was no more. John Cox, Hope College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lyn Wood Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 10:59:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: WT at USF At the Utah Shakespearean Festival last summer, Time was not presented as a single character. After the interval, cast members (minus Leontes, Polixenes, Camillo, Hermione and Paulina) came onto a bare stage and Time's lines were split up among them. Then the minimal scenery (wreaths of flowers hung from poles) for the Bohemia scenes was set up by the actors and Act 4 continued. It echoed the beginning of the play when the entire cast came onstage and sang a verse of "In the Bleak Midwinter", then took turns quoting significant lines like "It is required you do awake your faith", "Thou met'st with things dying, I with things newborn" and "What's gone and what's past help should be past grief". Overall it was a very nice production, emphasizing faith and forgiveness. There were a couple of rough spots, but I attribute that to the fact that what I saw was the opening night performance. The statue scene (V.iii.) was marvelous and moving. There was a major weak spot: Antigonus' encounter with the bear didn't go over well. As Antigonus put down the little cradle holding Perdita, a *polar* bear suddenly rose up behind him through a trap door and knocked Antigonus to the ground. Many people in the audience laughed out loud, which was weird and uncomfortable to hear while watching the mawling of Antigonus. But I did wonder if the costume department couldn't afford a brown bear suit. Or something. Lyn Wood (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Katherine Hardman Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 19:38:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0108 Re: WT Productions and Intermissions Hi there, I DID see the Ashland performance of Winter's Tale. My family and I saw it together and where extraordinarily impressed. The use, as some one else has mentioned, of the red lighting was I felt a huge addition. The lighting was red when Leontes "saw" his wife and friend "turning on him." During this time when the light was red Hermione and her "lover" would caress and act in suggestive manners while the other characters on stage silently laughed and pointed at a flustered, bewildered Layertres. When the lighting went back to normal, so did the action. It was VERY powerful and quite well done. Hope that helps! (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 24 Jan 1997 15:16 ET Subject: SHK 8.0108 Re: WT Productions a Audience endurance in the theater is to some significant extent a matter of expectation, a learned behavior. In my Shakespeare-going lifetime theaters have pretty generally moved from three intervals to two. Those who signed up for the one-day versions of _Nicholas Nickleby_ (8 hours total, 2 standard and 1 longer interval) and _The Mahabharata (ll hours total, 3 standard and l longer interval, with the final session nearly 3 hours long, though there was a brief break in the middle when you could stand and stretch) knew what was coming and, thus prepared, survived. Indeed, some of the pleasure was shared satisfaction at having participated in something heroic. To this list I hardly need say that early modern audiences were apparently conditioned to stand or sit for a longer time than we. Gamely, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 17:24:02 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0124 Re: A Very Drab Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0124. Sunday, 26 January 1997. (1) From: Tom Sullivan Date: Friday, 24 Jan 1997 21:25:46 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0122 Q: A Very Drab (2) From: David Knauer Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 09:23:02 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0122 Q: A Very Drab (3) From: Thomas Larque Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 16:46:42 -0800 Subj: Re : A Very Drab (4) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 12:40:50 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0122 Q: A Very Drab (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Sullivan Date: Friday, 24 Jan 1997 21:25:46 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0122 Q: A Very Drab >From: Diana E. Smith >I wonder if someone could help me with Hamlet's lines "Prompted to my revenge >by heaven and hell,/Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words/And fall >a-cursing like a very drab," > >Why the comparison to a whore exactly? How is his "unpacking" similar to a >whore's? Are we supposed to consider the comparative "rightness" of their acts? >Please help. In the context of the scene, he seems to me to be upbraiding himself for his failure to "fat all the region's kites." He has mearly been yelling "Oh, vengence" and (in some productions) playing with a wooden sword. He is indeed "an ass." The soliloquy seems to me to be like the others where Hamlet compares himself to someone recently observed -- to the actor in tears over Hecuba, or to the army of Fortinbras on its way to Poland. Here he compares his ranting and raving to the curses of a whore. Why a whore? Because, as a woman, she would not have the same recourse to action that a nobleman of the period would have. A whore, wronged, could probably not do much more than hurl curses. Not a question of "rightness" but of position, power, and obligation. More is expected of him (and by him). Just a guess. Tom (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Knauer Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 09:23:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0122 Q: A Very Drab One interpretive possibility to consider here is the Renaissance association of a woman's volubility with unchastity. A woman who talked a lot was usurping male discursive power, hence one could extrapolate that she usurped other male power, like sexual assertiveness. Peter Stallybrass writes that, "The connection between speaking and wantonness was common to legal discourse and conduct books" and cites Barbaro's _On Wifely Duties_: "It is proper . . . that not only arms but indeed also the speech of women never be made public; for the speech of a noble woman can be no less dangerous than the nakedness of her limbs" ("Patriarchal Territories: The Body Enclosed" in Margaret Ferguson's _Rewriting the Renaissance_, 126-27). I'm reversing Hamlet's causal chain here, but I think it can run both ways: if volubility is a sign of unchastity, then whores must be most talky. David Knauer (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Larque Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 16:46:42 -0800 Subject: Re : A Very Drab Diana E. Smith asks if someone can explain the whore references in Hamlet's lines "Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell,/Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words/And fall a-cursing like a very drab". I may very easily be wrong, but this makes me think of the scene in 2 Henry IV when Doll Tearsheet (the whore) has a confrontation with Falstaff's ensign Pistol. Not only does Doll let loose a long string of vicious oaths and invective - "Away, you bottle-ale rascal, you basket-hilt stale juggler you? ... God's light, with two points on your shoulder? Much!" (is this "a-cursing like a very drab"?) - but it soon becomes clear that this is the poor whore's only possible response to the violent behaviour of armed males. When Pistol draws his sword, Doll falls suddenly silent - and in the end is forced to appeal to Falstaff to throw Pistol out of the house. So, on this basis, could it be that whores were not only reknowned for swearing and cursing those who crossed them - but that this was all that they could do? Since they lacked male strength, and (perhaps also) the social sanction of the law? So "cursing like a ... drab" is not only vulgarly expressed anger - but impotent anger, without the power or strength to carry out any of the threats made. From this perspective, Hamlet is saying "I should be like a man, and seek my own revenge with action. Instead of standing like a wronged whore screaming angry words about those who have crossed me, and doing nothing." Can anybody provide any other support for this theory? Or prove that it is completely wrong? I would be interested to know. THOMAS LARQUE. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 12:40:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0122 Q: A Very Drab Diana Smith asks about "drab", and without reference to the Schmidt's my first impulse is to say that it refers to the way prostitutes advertised themselves in Southwark in those days. If times were tough, they'd be more than willing to sell their wares by pleading poverty, family tragedy, etc., to coax in customers. Not a pretty image, but then again Southwark was not a very pretty place. Rennaisance Faires in the U.S. usually feature roving women in period 'drab' who cling to unsuspecting visitors, pleading child support among other things -- 'where've you been, Charlie?', etc. As amusing as this act is now, there was a precedent that was a good bit more sad and true. Andy White Sunny, warm Arlington, VA ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 17:32:00 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0125 Re: Cordelia and the Fool, and Doubling Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0125. Sunday, 26 January 1997. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 24 Jan 1997 22:32:40 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0119 Cordelia and the Fool, and Doubling (2) From: Thomas Larque Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 16:42:35 -0800 Subj: RE : Cordelia and the Fool (3) From: Derek Wood Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 17:39:49 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0119 Cordelia and the Fool (4) From: Pat Dunlay Date: Sunday, 26 Jan 1997 09:17:12 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0119 Cordelia and the Fool (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 24 Jan 1997 22:32:40 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0119 Cordelia and the Fool, and Doubling Marie Myers sent me three interesting references, re: doubling, offlist, and with her permission, I list them here: Alois Brandl, "'Doubling' in Shakespeare," T.L.S. (13 Feb 1931). Robert Y. Turner, "Significant Doubling of Roles in Henry VI, Part Two," Library Chronicle 30:2 (Spr 1964). Stephen Booth, "Speculations on Doubling in Shakespeare's Plays," reprinted in King Lear, Macbeth, Tragedy and Indefinition (1982). I like Syd Kasten's suggestion that Cordelia and the Fool are not just doubled; Cordelia has disguised herself as the Fool, just as Kent has disguised himself as Caius and Edgar as Poor Tom. I think that could be dramatically effective on stage, and as Theodore Spencer wrote back in 1942: "in the world of Lear, goodness has to hide." So the Fool disappears from the play because he is played (in the fictional world of the play) by Cordelia who then assumes her former role. Sounds good to me. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Larque Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 16:42:35 -0800 Subject: RE : Cordelia and the Fool I have always been fascinated by the idea that Cordelia and the Fool might have been doubled, and was (secretly) disappointed when in my own studies I came across the evidence about Armin which seems to prove fairly conclusively that it wasn't done. Never-the-less, there seems no reason why such a doubling shouldn't be used in modern productions ... and I am hoping soon to find a production that actually uses this doubling to see how well it works in practice. Normally I read about productions using this doubling after they finish, and am annoyed at having missed them. The idea that Cordelia and the Fool might be the SAME person isn't a new one. I remember reading something about a new play called CORDELIA (based on KING LEAR) which suggested that Cordelia - like Kent - returned in disguise to help her father. This might have appeared at last year's Edinburgh Fringe Festival. Within the play itself, however, it is fairly clear that this was not what was intended. Since Shakespeare's theatre used doubling, Cordelia (if playing the SAME CHARACTER in different costume) would have needed a little speech to tell the audience that this is what was happening. Kent transforming to Caius, and Edgar changing into Poor Tom, both get these speeches. Even more problematic for this interpretation are the Knight's lines in Act 1, Sc. 4. "Since my young Lady's going into France, Sir, the Fool hath much pined away". This seems to make clear that people knew the Fool BEFORE Cordelia went to France (in order to make the comparison between his moods). Why would a Royal Princess disguise herself as the Court Jester while still her father's favourite? Besides, wouldn't anybody have noticed? Kent and Edgar have both been driven away from the Court before they return as their disguised characters. Imagining prevevious events, it seems unlikely that Cordelia could disappear in the middle of a Royal Banquet to return disguised as the Fool on a regular basis. There are also problems about the consummation of the marriage between Cordelia and France, and the arrival of the French army - but these are (theoretically) not insurmountable. That Cordelia disguises herself as the Fool is an interesting theory, but (I think) one for use in adaptations rather than interpretations of the play. Shakespeare probably intended the paralells between Cordelia and the Fool, but I don't think they can have been meant to be the same person. THOMAS LARQUE. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Derek Wood Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 17:39:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0119 Cordelia and the Fool Syd Kasten wondered about Cordelia doubling with the Fool. How do we deal with, "Since my young Lady's going into France, Sir, the Fool hath much pined away?" The fuss with Goneril seems to have begun when Lear struck some one "for chiding of his Fool." So Cordelia cross-dressed pretty smartly and Shakespeare cheated us a little whhile he played fair with Caius and Poor tom. Mind you, Syd's insight would give a whole new dimension to feminist studies of WS if the queen of France is allowed by her husband into service as a clown, unaccompanied by her ladies. And would he overlook some of her filthy humour? I always thought Cordelia was a problem for feminist readings anyway, if she organised the whole CIA type infiltration of English ports by special agents and then led an invading army into the country i.e. those readers who claim that powerful women are demonised in Shakespeare: Gonerils and Mrs Macbeths and the like. But if Cordelia organised the raising of the army, its logistics, embarkment and supplies from her unprivileged position in Goneril's house, she would be something of an administrative genius. Eat your heart out, Portia. Her congratulation of Kent for his goodness (4.7) smacks a little of self-praise, though and is her recollection of her cross dressing distasteful if she is commiserating with Kent when she says, "These weeds are memories of worser hours; I prithee, put them off." I hope we are not getting into the same world as Lady Macbeth's children, are we? Best wishes, Derek Wood. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pat Dunlay Date: Sunday, 26 Jan 1997 09:17:12 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0119 Cordelia and the Fool In response to Syd Kasten, I have read numerous essays and heard lectures that s suggest that the Fool and Cordelia are one, but have never heard such a concise and plausible explanation. Disguise is a major theme in Lear, so why wouldn't Shakespeare round out the play with a third character disguise. I guess in this case, it would really be an exchange as we must believe that the Fool did really exist in Lear's court prior to Cordelia's banishment. Does the Fool's calling Lear "nuncle" suggest any possibility of actual relationship? Could that have been the reason that Cordelia could disguise herself as the fool - because they are cousins, or(darest I throw this one out) half siblings? It would be within the character of Corelia to remain so loyal to Lear that she literally shadowed him. There have been a number of productions that have cast the two with the same actor, which would certainly create the illusion of another disguise. I like the idea and am eager to hear the ensuing discussion. Pat Dunlay ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 17:45:03 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0126 Re: Gayness Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0126. Sunday, 26 January 1997. (1) From: Jan Stirm Date: Friday, 24 Jan 1997 10:29:04 -0600 Subj: Gay Moments? (2) From: Richard A Burt Date: Friday, 24 Jan 1997 21:39:28 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0117 Re: Branagh Interview; Midwinter's Tale (3) From: Ian Doescher Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 00:03:29 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0117 Re: Branagh Interview; Midwinter's Tale (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jan Stirm Date: Friday, 24 Jan 1997 10:29:04 -0600 Subject: Gay Moments? Dear Shaksperians, Recently Richard Burt noted that There also some gay moments in Branagh's performances of Henry V (the traitors, especially Scroop) and Iago (he has anal sex with Emilia after she gives him the handerkerchief). ---- Why does Iago/Emilia's anal intercourse in Branagh's *Othello* need to be coded "gay"? I'm not trying to lose the sodomitical aspect of the moment, but to question why that moment gets labeled (as it so often does--I don't mean to put Richard Burt on the spot) as a men's moment. By saying that anal intercourse is "gay," do we exclude women from discourses of sodomy, queerness, transgressive sexuality? I think it might be more useful to consider this moment in terms of multiple desire(s), deflected or redirected desire(s), thus making us think about not only Othello and Iago, but Emilia (and Desdemona? Cassio?) Thanks to Richard Burt for starting my brain gears this morning! --Jan Stirm JStirm@wpoff.monm.edu (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A Burt Date: Friday, 24 Jan 1997 21:39:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0117 Re: Branagh Interview; Midwinter's Tale More on Branagh's Othello. Of course, one should be troubled Gayness is nearly always signified through connotation, as D.A. Miller and others have pointed out. That said, the connotations here are rather evident (perhaps to some only one second look). In the scene I mentioned, Branagh / Iago flips Emilia over on her stomach (and then penerates her--she lets out a cry that is meant to suggest that he has just penetrated her ass. Earlier in the film when getting Cassio drunk, Branagh keeps fondling Cassio's groin. Oddly (or tellingly, perhaps) the report of Cassio's dream is played straight. Whereas we get lots of soft-core porn versions of Othello fantasizing about Cassio making it with Dedemona, here there iis no visual equivalent of Branagh's lines. Compare the same moment in Zeffirelli's Otello, where Iago's report is intercut with shots of Cassio nude, backlit and masturbating (his genitals are just off screen). I take it that the interpretation of Iago as "gay," however anachronisitc, is nothing new. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ian Doescher Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 00:03:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0117 Re: Branagh Interview; Midwinter's Tale Tom Bishop writes: >A ticklish business this, no doubt, but just what -is- it that makes for the >inclusion of Iago's sexual attentions to Emilia in the above list? I dont >recall the moment in the film well enough to know just how explicit this was -- >anal sex as opposed to, say, intercourse "like the clean beasts, embracing fom >behind" as A.D. Hope says. But even if it was very explicit, does this generate >an assumption that it can therefore be placed in a list of "gay-related" >moments in recent Shakespeare films? I'm a little troubled by what's implicit >here. I agree that jumping to the conclusion that anal sex means homosexuality is wrong, but the moment is indeed explicitly suggesting that Iago's preference for anal sex is not a whim. Another scene in the movie that shows Branagh is trying to express Iago's homosexuality is a scene in which Iago and Roderigo sit under a wagon, discussing the romantic encounters of Desdemona and Cassio (I think the text is II.i). Couples are having sex above and to both sides of them, and in order to "heighten" the intense sexual feeling, Iago's hand starts to wander up Roderigo's thigh and eventually reaches the promised land, at which point Roderigo finally bursts into a moment of rage against Cassio and Desdemona, determined once more to do Iago's dirty work. This is another signal given to us of Iago's homosexuality, and a much more explicit one than the anal sex. Ian ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 17:47:22 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0127 CFP: (RSA 1988) Early Modern Incest Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0127. Sunday, 26 January 1997. From: Theresa D. Kemp Date: Friday, 24 Jan 1997 16:17:00 -0500 Subject: CFP: (RSA 1988) Early Modern Incest This message has been cross-posted; please excuse any duplication. ALL IN THE FAMILY: EARLY MODERN INCEST NARRATIVES Papers are sought for a proposed session on the representation of incest during the early modern period for the 1988 Annual Meeting of the Renaissance Society of America to be held in College Park, Maryland, March 26 through March 29, 1988. Interdisciplinary focus welcomed, including (but not limited to) literary, historical, psychoanalytic, anthropological, legal, medical, theological, and sociological readings of early modern incest. Possible topics might include an examination of the discursive practices by which early modern incest narratives are constituted; incest as a means of negotiating sexual subjectivity; incest as a transgression and/or perpetuation of prevailing kinship structures. Please send 2-page abstracts or completed papers by March 7, 1997, to: Theresa D. Kemp University of Alabama at Birmingham English Department 900 South 13th Street Birmingham, AL 35294-1260 e-mail: tkemp@uab.edu Phone: (205) 934- 8596 or (205) 934-4250 FAX: (205) 975-8125 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 10:25:36 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0128 Re: Theatre; Interview; Assorted; MND edition Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0128. Monday, 27 January 1997. (1) From: Richard A. Burt Date: Friday, 24 Jan 1997 15:31:50 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.01114 Qs: Theatre of Blood (2) From: Richard A. Burt Date: Friday, 24 Jan 1997 21:47:40 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0117 Re: Branagh Interview (3) From: Michael Friedman Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 11:12:22 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0117 Re: Branagh Interview; Midwinter's Tale (4) From: Andrew Murphy Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 12:52:11 +0000 (GMT) Subj: MND edition (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A. Burt Date: Friday, 24 Jan 1997 15:31:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.01114 Qs: Theatre of Blood Try contacting Ken Rothwell at Univ. of Vermont. He'd probably know. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A. Burt Date: Friday, 24 Jan 1997 21:47:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0117 Re: Branagh Interview There were also two Branagh radio interviews earlier this month. On NPR Morning edition January 7 and on Fresh Air January 10. Transcripts of the former are available through 202 414 3232 and an audiotape of the latter at 1 800 934-600 (for 15.45). Also, on McNeil Lehrer January 23 (transcripts and videotapes available) aired a conversation about the new Shakespeare films with Charlton Heston, David Kastan, and Micahel Kahn (the Shakespeare Theater director in Washington, DC). (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 11:12:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0117 Re: Branagh Interview; Midwinter's Tale Having been away from my computer for a while, I just read a whole batch of messages and have some brief comments to make on several threads: It strikes me as strange that no one has yet commented on the fact that, although Hamlet claims before and after The Mousetrap that its purpose is to "catch the conscience of the king," during the play itself, his attention seems to be focused much more closely on Gertrude and her response than on his uncle's. My students' papers on this topic taught me a thing or two last semester. G.K. Hunter, in his introduction to the Arden edition of *All's Well*, notes "the words `Monsieur Parolles' written against the title of our play in the `catalogue' of Charles I's copy of the second folio now preserved in Windsor Castle" (xlvii). I am intrigued by Syd Kastan's suggestion that we are to understand that Cordelia has disguised herself as the Fool, but I have a couple of problems with that reading that he or others may want to address. First, both Kent and Edgar, who clearly disguise themselves, are given speeches in which they explain this situation to the audience (the opening lines of 1.4 and 2.3 respectively). If we are to see Cordelia performing a similar act, why is she not given a similar speech? Second, what are we to assume that the King of France feels about his new bride, for whom he stuck his neck out, staying behind while he goes back home? Did she not, like Desdemona, marry the man to live with him? Michael Friedman University of Scranton (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Murphy Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 12:52:11 +0000 (GMT) Subject: MND edition Perhaps the edition Eric Armstrong mentions is T.O. Treadwell's in the 'Shakespearean Originals' series, general editors Graham Holderness and Bryan Loughrey. The texts in the series are published by Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 10:36:16 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0129 Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0129. Monday, 27 January 1997. (1) From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 09:17:11 -0500 Subj: Teaching British to the Englanders (2) From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Sunday, 26 Jan 1997 11:43:30 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0116 Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 09:17:11 -0500 Subject: Teaching British to the Englanders John Lee still hasn't got it right. It is of course absolute nonsense to say of Wales that 'half the country has a different language'. Most Welsh people cannot speak Welsh. All those who can speak Welsh can also speak English (though they may choose not to do so). He should also make clear which 'system' of education he's referring to: the public one, or the no less diverse private one to which entrance is obtained by money. This latter system's access to the levers of power (via its quaintly named 'public' schools) ensures that it remains a major dimension of modern British culture. T. Hawkes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Sunday, 26 Jan 1997 11:43:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0116 Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders >>>I don't think anyone can have it both ways. If entities and actions are not >>>innately meaningful, then they are not innately meaningful. Full stop. > >And Roger Schmeeckle says: > >>And, if it is postulated that there is no innate meaning, does that apply to >>the statement that there is no innate meaning, thereby rendering it >>meaningless, and leading to the conclusion that there is or might be innate >>meaning, that to deny it is self-contradictory, and therefore untenable? > >I, of course, did not imply that my comment was meaningless. I was commenting >on "innate" meaning. My comments are meaningful in a certain human context. >We humans create (or construct, or fashion) the context in which statements are >meaningful. Were all humans to disappear from the universe, my comments would >be meaningless, whereas "innately meaningful" comments would still be >meaningful because they need no context in order to mean. > >I assume that, were innately meaningful sentences possible, they would not have >to be read and construed. Innately meaningful sentences would simply >"be"--something like Plato's "ideas." And, yes, I believe that some >responsible humans believe in innate meaning. I happen not to. > > Yours, Bill Godshalk I acknowledge my hasty reading and misrepresentaion of your meaning. With regard to your statement that we humans create the context in which statements are meaningful, I agree that there is an arbitrary, artifical element in all languages, notwithstanding the claim of some that God spoke Hebrew or Arabic, but I believe the propensity to construct languages is innate in human nature, i.e. not a construct. Sincerely, Roger Schmeeckle ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 10:42:21 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0130 Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0130. Monday, 27 January 1997. (1) From: Ron Macdonald Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 10:45:28 -0500 (EST) Subj: Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" (2) From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Sunday, 26 Jan 1997 16:49:28 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Feigning and Fainting (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Macdonald Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 10:45:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" In his very interesting remarks about Edgar's "climb" up "Dover Cliff," David Richman seems to take it for granted that the audience is privy to Edgar's well-intentioned deception from the beginning, and hence the scene becomes a kind of farce tinged with uneasiness. But is it necessarily so? In a theater without physical scenery, dependent on verbal scene-setting (as many believe at least Shakespeare's public venues were), doesn't an audience assume the scene is where the characters say it is unless and until contradictory evidence is forthcoming? I think it was Harry Levin who long ago remarked that until Edgar reveals his deception, we in the audience are just as "blind" as Gloucester, utterly dependent, as he is, for cues from Edgar about the surroundings. This means, at least as I read the scene, that we are fully engaged by Edgar's vertiginous description of the downward perspective from the top of the "cliff" ("How fearful / And dizzy 'tis, to cast one's eyes so low!"), but disengaged from his later description of the view up from the "beach" ("Look up a-height, the shrill-gorg'd lark so far / Cannot be seen or heard"). --Ron Macdonald (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas G. Bishop Date: Sunday, 26 Jan 1997 16:49:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Feigning and Fainting David Richman's comments about fooling the blind make good sense, and I suppose one can get an easy laugh out of Edgar's feigning the climbing of the hill. But I am also interested in the (for me) more provocative possibility that an audience might be kept in the dark about whether this was a "real" fake hill or a "fake" fake hill. Presumably at least some in a modern performance will not know in advance, and none in Jacobean performances. The scene is at least set up to suggest such questions at one point: Edgar's speech describing the top of the cliff is, at least on the page (I suppose one can variously undermine it on stage) a good approximation of what one might indeed say. Its effect can be very powerful. A few years ago, in a class working on this scene, Edgar bad farewell to Gloster and then, without thinking about it (he assured me), stepped over the imaginary edge of the cliff. The class gave an audible squeak, followed by a collective sigh as they realized that this was a "fake" fake line, not a "real" fake line. A fascinating moment for everyone in the room that made us all think again about everything that had gone before. In a play like Macbeth, so concerned with how to read what one sees and how to cover (and uncover) false faces, the issue seems to swirl around Lady Macbeth's faint with some point. Tom ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 10:54:01 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0131 Additions to Shakespeare Spinoffs; MND Study Guide Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0131. Monday, 27 January 1997. (1) From: Thomas Larque Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 21:20:33 -0800 Subj: Additions to Shakespeare Spinoffs (2) From: Amy Ulen Date: Sunday, 26 Jan 1997 01:11:51 -0800 Subj: AMND (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Larque Date: Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 21:20:33 -0800 Subject: Additions to Shakespeare Spinoffs I have just received the Shakespeare Spinoff Bibliography, which I found very interesting. Here are a few additional Shakespeare poems, books and plays that I have come across. Also Arnold Wesker's THE MERCHANT (already on the main list), now seems to have had its title changed to SHYLOCK. HAMLET - John Cargill Thompson, *Hamlet II - Prince of Jutland*, 1984 / 1995, Monologue. Tom Stoppard, *Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead : THE FILM*, 1991, Film Script - very different from the play. Hunter Steele, *Lord Hamlet's Castle*, 1987, Novel. John Wain, *Feng*, 1975, Poem. Richard Brautigan, *The Rape of Ophelia*, 1970, poem. Richard Brautigan, *The Castle of the Cormorants*, 1970, poem. KING LEAR - Elaine Feinstein & The Women's Theatre Group, *Lear's Daughters*, 1987, Play. MACBETH - John Cargill Thompson, *Macbeth Speaks*, 1991, Monologue. Terry Pratchett, *Wyrd Sisters*, Comic Novel. Stephen Briggs (based on the novel by Terry Pratchett), *Wyrd Sisters*, Play. Jean Binnie, *Lady Macbeth*, Play. MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM - Pete Brooks, *If We Shadows*, Play. RICHARD II - Eugene Ionesco, *Exit the King*, Play. ROMEO AND JULIET - John Cargill Thompson, *Romeo and Juliet : Happily Never After*, 1995, Short Play. Michael Redmond & Nola York, *Wild Wild Women*, Musical. MISCELLANEOUS - Vlady Kociancich, *The Last Days of William Shakespeare - A Novel*, Translated by Margaret Costa, 1990, Novel (Shakespeare is not a character). Yours, THOMAS LARQUE. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amy Ulen Date: Sunday, 26 Jan 1997 01:11:51 -0800 Subject: AMND The Midsummer study guide has been updated and moved to http://www.ivgh.com/amy/shakespeare/ . Items of interest include the text cut for performance and annotated with production photos, a summary (with lines from the text), a brief bio. (from a handout for junior & senior high students), teaching Shakespeare through performance ideas (hyperlinked paper that I wrote after the 1994 National Institute on Teaching Shakespeare), photo album (London, 1991 - Shakespeare's Globe Museum, 1991 - Shakespeare Tour, 1991: Warwick Castle, Anne Hathaway's Home, Shakespeare's Birthplace & Museum (including BBC costumes) - Folger Shakespeare Library, 1996), links to other Midsummer productions, and a discussion page! You may also be interested in "The Undiscover'd Country" at http://www.ivgh.com/amy/trek.html (this is my tribute to Shakespeare as seen in the Star Trek universe). Amy Ulen amy@ivgh.com http://www.ivgh.com/amy/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 10:57:29 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0132 Qs: Sir John Gilbert; Continuous Copy Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0132. Monday, 27 January 1997. (1) From: Malcolm Keithley Date: Sunday, 26 Jan 1997 08:20:54 -0800 Subj: Sir John Gilbert (2) From: Andrew Murphy Date: Sunday, 26 Jan 1997 13:03:40 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Q: Continuous Copy (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Malcolm Keithley Date: Sunday, 26 Jan 1997 08:20:54 -0800 Subject: Sir John Gilbert I am searching for biographical information about Sir John Gilbert, English illustrator that did a series of pen & ink illustrations for Shakespeare's plays. Any help would be appreciated. Malcolm Keithley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Murphy Date: Sunday, 26 Jan 1997 13:03:40 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Q: Continuous Copy Would anyone on the list happen to have the basic references for Dover Wilson's notion of 'continuous copy' readily to hand? I'm interested to read his original working through of the idea and subsequent responses. Please feel free to respond off-list, if more appropriate. Thanks in advance, Andrew Murphy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 11:02:11 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0133 Re: WT Productions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0133. Monday, 27 January 1997. (1) From: John King Date: Sunday, 26 Jan 1997 17:43:53 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0108 Re: WT Productions and Intermissions (2) From: Norm Holland Date: Sunday, 26 Jan 97 22:04:59 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0123 Re: WT Productions and Intermissions (3) From: Kenneth Adelman Date: Sunday, 26 Jan 1997 22:40:19 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0108 Re: WT Productions and Intermissions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John King Date: Sunday, 26 Jan 1997 17:43:53 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0108 Re: WT Productions and Intermissions >>has anyone ever seen the doubling of Antigonus and Autolycus? What are your >>thoughts on cutting the Cleomenes/Dion scene? When I was in the play at Arizona Shakespeare Festival a few years ago, we doubled Antigonus with FLORIZEL, which gave the actor playing the roles- who was blessed with a great face which made him convincing both as an older man and as a young prince- a real chance to show his versatility; it also worked very well to tie the two characters together in a sort of karmic symmetry, the first being an unwilling betrayer of Perdita, and the second redeeming that betrayal with his love, assuming the role of protector that Antigonus was forced to abandon. I was Autolycus, and was doubled in the first half as Archidamus, as well as one of Leontes' lords- and the bear. As for the Cleomenes/Dion scene, we did originally cut it. But during rehearsals it became apparent that the play needed that moment of quiet awe, which the scene provides, at that point in the action. So, much to the delight of the actors playing those roles, we reinstated it, albeit with some cuts. If you are interested in what those were, you can e-mail me privately and I'll try to dig up my script. John King (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Sunday, 26 Jan 97 22:04:59 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0123 Re: WT Productions and Intermissions Whoever changed the bear to a dragon was not doing justice to Sh's wit. Right after Antigonus' bear-pursued exit, the old shepherd notes that we have here, "a barne, a very pretty barne." "Barne" (=child) is an old past participle of "bear." In effect, the play has Antigonus "bear" the child and then, perhaps because the processes of birth have been so disrupted by his master's jealousy, he is done in by a "bear." So don't change it to a dragon, unless you want to have Antigonus drag in the baby. --Best, Norm Holland (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Adelman Date: Sunday, 26 Jan 1997 22:40:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0108 Re: WT Productions and Intermissions The Utah Shakespeare Festival's production of "Winter's Tale" last summer was phenomenal, but then again we're faithful atendees to that Festival. For 8 years our family has made a "pilgrimage" to the Festival -- last year having an assorted group totalling 53 in our party -- since we believe that the productions, setting, and leadership of USF are the best anywhere. We've been to Stratford, Conn. and Stratford, Ontario and left each a bit disappointed. But that has NEVER been the case with USF. Hence if you're looking anywhere for a family outing with tremendous productions, next-day seminars which can't be beat (the "Ace & Jerry" show, lead by two scholars with a lot of audience participation) make sure you get to Cedar City this summer. You won't regret it. No-one we've ever brought there has! Ken Adelman ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 11:10:19 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0134 Re: Lady Mac; Branagh's Ham; Norfolk; A Very Drab Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0134. Monday, 27 January 1997. (1) From: Dale Lyles Date: Sunday, 26 Jan 1997 08:22:09 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0115 Re: Lady Macbeth (2) From: Chris Gordon Date: Sunday, 26 Jan 97 20:27:46 -0600 Subj: Branagh's _Hamlet_ (3) From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Monday, 27 Jan 97 10:22:00 GMT Subj: Norfolk (4) From: Charles Ross Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 09:18:52 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0122 Q: A Very Drab (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Sunday, 26 Jan 1997 08:22:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0115 Re: Lady Macbeth I had assumed Bill Godshalk was attempting to curry favour with *me*, but I could be wrong. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Gordon Date: Sunday, 26 Jan 97 20:27:46 -0600 Subject: Branagh's _Hamlet_ I don't have a great deal to add to Norm Holland's wonderful review of this film, but I found it compelling enough to have seen it twice in two days and would happily return again and again if time and money allowed. I thought the performances ranged from good to brilliant and that the film overall was a wonderful interpretation of the text. Everyone I've spoken with who has seen it ("professionals" and amateurs, and ranging in age from 14 to 50+) has loved it. I have one or two quibbles, but they're hardly worth mentioning (and I won't at this point, since I'd like other people to see and respond in general before we get into particulars, though I hope we will do that). Just one small comment: as someone who played a cross-gender cast Horatio in several high school excerpts from the play three decades ago, it was wonderful to see this character in full--and Nicholas Farrell was great! Happy viewing everyone! Chris Gordon, who feels like they shot the film here in Minnesota where I waited in -10 (fahrenheit) temperatures for the theater to open (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Monday, 27 Jan 97 10:22:00 GMT Subject: Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk might perhaps make more impact than you'd expect. The Duke of Norfolk was traditionally the Earl Marshal of England, and therefore responsible for tournaments, the heraldic side of coronations, etc. Consequently, his own coat of arms was probably the best known after the monarch's. In armorial circles it still sometimes serves virtually as a symbol for heraldry itself: at the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds, for instance, their mock-up of a Tudor joust has the Howard arms prominently displayed. It was so famous not only because of the dukes' position but because after the reign of Henry VIII it bore what was known as 'the Flodden augmentation', after the Earl of Surrey (Norfolk's heir) defeated the Scots King James IV at Flodden. Basically, the Flodden augmentation showed the Scottish lion getting an arrow rammed down its throat. Essentially, therefore, anybody with even the faintest knowledge of such things - and I think that would be a substantial part of the population of London - would know the Howard arms, recognise the Duke of Norfolk, and understand his part in the establishment. (I'm eliding here some differences between the Ricardian position of the Howards and the late Tudor one - what strikes me mainly is that there is probably a figure on stage clearly visible as an important military and ceremonial official.) Interestingly, the McKellen film, as far as I can recall, doesn't have Norfolk. Instead, it plays up the part of Lord Stanley and makes much of his RAF uniform. I think the point made though could, in a way, be the same - using a uniform/coat of arms as signal. Lisa Hopkins Sheffield Hallam University L.M.Hopkins@shu.ac.uk (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Ross Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 09:18:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0122 Q: A Very Drab I just read an interesting discussion about Hamlet's line on unpacking his heart like a whore in Gary Taylor's eminently readable book Reinventing Shakespeare (he was discussing the comparison between actors and whores and Shakespeare's apparent lack of sympathy with exploited women). Charles Ross Purdue========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 09:39:13 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0135 Re: Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0135. Tuesday, 28 January 1997. (1) From: Derek Wood Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 14:03:32 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0130 Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" (2) From: Roy Flannagan 614 593-2829 Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 12:35:32 -0500 (EST) Subj: RE: SHK 8.0130 Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" (3) From: Ed Friedlander Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 12:33:06 CST Subj: Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" (4) From: David Evett Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 17:16 ET Subj: SHK 8.0130 Edgar, Gloucester, a (5) From: David M Richman Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 21:31:28 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0130 Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Derek Wood Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 14:03:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0130 Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" > In his very interesting remarks about Edgar's "climb" up "Dover Cliff," David > Richman seems to take it for granted that the audience is privy to Edgar's > well-intentioned deception from the beginning, and hence the scene becomes a > kind of farce tinged with uneasiness. But is it necessarily so? In a theater > --Ron Macdonald I have always thought that the point of this scene was that the discrepancy between what is seen and what is said should be absolute. That is, Edgar should make no concession to Gloucester's other senses. The road is flat, there is no sea to be heard, no cliff: there are only lies. Even the apparent truths are lies: "in nothing am I chang'd But in my garments." Is that true or false? Presumably Edgar's voice "_is_ altered" so we can hear the lie he tells. The scene is like a control case in a medical experiment. In this case it is the placebo that is the successful cure. But the experiment must be carefully controlled. Nothing must be allowed to "contaminate" the lie. No truth, anyway. The whole play has been about people who mysteriously lack the equipment to protect them against the lie or the illusion. Kent and Cordelia have no problem diagnosing the lie for what it is; Lear and Gloucester do. So we have a test case. The only equipment necessary here to fragment Edgar's illusion is an eye. It's missing so the illusion works. And if we thought simplistically that lies were by definition bad, we get our come-uppance in this scene. The lie is done to cure the old man's despair and it does. So many lies are nourishing and supportive in the play, Caius's disguise for instance. Perhaps even Cordelia's answer to Lear in the love auction is of this kind. What is truth? Too much of that stuff would leave "the minds of a number of men poor shrunken things, full of melancholy and indisposition." More evidence that Bacon did write _Lear_, I suppose. Best wishes, Derek Wood. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roy Flannagan 614 593-2829 Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 12:35:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: SHK 8.0130 Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" On Gloucester's fall from the cliff of Dover. Is it Rumpole of the Bailey, Leo McKern, who does the scene in the BBC (or was it the Olivier-directed film?)? Anyway, he was directed to kneel, then, when he is supposed to jump, he falls forward on his face. It is a funny image, and the audience laughs (pretty necessary, considering the horror he and we have been through); but the audience also realizes the despairing and blind old man still believes he has jumped to his death. Roy Flannagan (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Friedlander Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 12:33:06 CST Subject: Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" Not a farce. It's the first time in the modern era that we're shown, on stage, that God is make-believe, and that our only help is the not- ubiquitous goodness of other human beings. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 17:16 ET Subject: