========================================================================= 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: SHK 8.0130 Edgar, Gloucester, a As I have observed in print (_Lit. and the Visual Arts in Tudor England_, Edmund's speech is, as far as I know, something quite remarkable: the first extended piece of landscape description in English organized _vertically_, and one much more visually accurate and acute (especially as regards spatial cues) than almost all previous surviving published versions of the various landscape topoi. As I didn't write then, but think now, the practical imperatives of the dramatic moment, the need to make the illusion _work_, on both on-stage and off-stage audiences (for I must say I like the idea that the theater audience is not in on the game), seems to have impelled a greatly gifted poet to transcend his models again. Spatially, Dave Evett (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 21:31:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0130 Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" It wasn't my intention to underplay the Edgar-Gloucester ambiguities either in my posting or my production. If I gave that impression, I apologize. Indeed, the ambiguities are a cause of the unease I referred to. Does the audience believe Gloucester's "Methinks the ground is even"--or Edgar's "Horrible steep." Is it the senses (the ground may indeed be even) or the "imaginary forces" that hold sway? "When we do talk of vertiginous depths, think you see them!" It is the disparity that makes the scene interesting. Another question: Gloucester thinks Edgar is better spoken, and Gloucester doesn't hear the sea. Edgar tells his father that his other senses suffer through his eyes' anguish. Granted that the audience knows, when Edgar tells it, that "Why I do trifle with his despair is done to cure it." Does the audience suspect Edgar of such trifling before he himself reveals it? As with most things, the questions are more interesting than answers that can never be determined with certainty. Thanks for this discussion. David Richman University of New Hampshire ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 09:44:37 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0136 Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0136. Tuesday, 28 January 1997. (1) From: John Lee Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 17:14:58 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0129 Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 22:14:35 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0129 Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Lee Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 17:14:58 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0129 Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders I'm not sure if I should be flattered to be corrected by Terence Hawkes without the usual humour. >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). I don't feel very corrected. I was careful not to say over half the Welsh speak Welsh. That would indeed be silly, as only about 28% of the population are primary Welsh speakers. Geographically, however, it is quite acceptable to say `half the country has a different language'. I feel similarly uncorrected about Hawkes next comment, though that is perhaps because he did not read the thread from its beginnings. >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. A large part of my objection to Gabrial Egan's use of the British system was to introduce just such discrinations. And, as I believe a review of this thread will show, I pointed out the English system itself was a variety of systems. So my point is not to refer to _a_ system; it's to say, along with Hawkes, that things are more complicated than that. The basic point is still that I don't think Egan is correct to say that Shakespeare isn't studied whole in the British (Scottish/English/English etc) educational system (I raised doubts as to what was meant by 'whole' earlier. I think he might be referring to key stage 3 (of the 4 key stages) in the National Curriculum, which refers to ages up to 14 (?). Ignoring such points of fact, however, the argument also fails to convince. if Egan's argument is that the Conservative government is chopping up Shakespeare (as opposed to trying to insist that students at least read some) to make the world safer for their own brand of ideology, then should it follow that fee-paying schools teach even smaller gobbets? And if so, do they? (I'd still like to hear what Hawkes made of his head to head with the Government minister.) John Lee (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 22:14:35 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0129 Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders Roger Schmeeckle writes: >I believe the propensity to construct languages is innate >in human nature, i.e. not a construct. And you are in very good company in this belief. Yes, it does seem likely that we humans have a language-gene. However, I think it's less likely that we have a category-gene, and categories are contexts. We create categories with language in our desire to make our lives meaningful. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 10:32:31 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0138 Re: WT Productions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0138. Tuesday, 28 January 1997. (1) From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 12:48:39 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0118 Re: WT Productions and Intermissions (2) From: Thomas Bishop Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 15:09:41 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0133 Re: WT Productions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 12:48:39 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0118 Re: WT Productions and Intermissions >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. The practice of realizing onstage Leontes' vision of adultery is not original to the Ashland production. Trevor Nunn's 1969 production did the same thing, though he chose to bathe them in a blue light, and it too caused a bit of a stir, though I'm not sure what the objections were. I have heard of college productions also adopting the idea--to the extent that it almost seems to be becoming de rigeur for that scene. I am interested--what did the detractors at Ashland object to about it? David Skeele (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 15:09:41 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0133 Re: WT Productions Norm Holland is right about the need to keep the bear a bear. A Bear has his own special poetics, and a Dragon's violence is poetically very different from a Bear's, tending to be more apocalyptical and less natural. Bears are clumsy, chaotic, rather muddle-headed. Dragons are calculating, malicious and as sharp as needles. A Dragon kills no one "by the way" as this bear seems to. (Antigonus is not Siegfried. Or even Mime.) Again, people have been killed, even recently, by bears, and they do live in uneasy harmony with pastoralists, and they have been the subject of hunts. These things are not I think, true of Dragons, who are the subject of Quests, which are very different. Bears are naturally occurring and were once reasonably widespread in Europe, even on the seacoasts of Bohemia. Perhaps most important, bears sleep during the Winter. If this bear is awake and hungry, it may be that we are supposed to infer that Winter is now ending, and that Spring may be a-springing. That's a bit of information you can't get across with a Dragon. Tom Bishop Case Western Reserve University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 10:18:12 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0137 A VERY Important Announcement from SHAKSPER's Editor Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0137. Tuesday, 28 January 1997. Name: Hardy M. Cook Date: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 Subject: A VERY Important Announcement from SHAKSPER's Editor Dear SHAKSPEReans, Within the next 60 to 90 days, the e-mail account that I have used for the past nine years or so will no longer exist. This is the account that I have used to edit SHAKSPER since I became its editor. Within the next two months, I will need to develop entirely new procedures for editing the SHAKSPER digests as a result of this change. Once I feel comfortable with these new procedures, I will begin editing from another account and will announce its address at the appropriate time. In preparation for the demise of my old VAX -- variously known as HMCook@boe00.minc.umd.edu, HMCook@boe00.bsu.umd.edu, and HMCook@boe00.BowieState.edu -- I would ask that ALL subsequent postings for SHAKSPER be sent DIRECTLY to the list address: SHAKSPER@ws.BowieState.edu and NOT to HMCook@boe00.minc.umd.edu. I can receive personal mail at Hardy.Cook@BowieState.edu, but this will NOT be the account that I will edit SHAKSPER digests from so please do NOT send postings to this address as it will simply create more work for me. I would also like to announce at this time that I hope to upgrade LISTSERV to the latest version (1.8c) within a week or two. This upgrade will port many of the features that were in the mainframe version. Most notable of these is an update of the Database Function that will permit keyword searches of the SHAKSPER logs of the past seven years. I sincerely hope that these changes will go smoothly; nevertheless, I ask your patience in advance during this period of transition. Hardy M. Cook SHAKSPER@ws.BowieState.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 10:44:59 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0139 Re: Cordelia and the Fool Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0139. Tuesday, 28 January 1997. (1) From: Edward Pixley Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 14:43:50 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0128 Re: Assorted (2) From: Edward Pixley Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 15:03:27 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0119 Cordelia and the Fool (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward Pixley Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 14:43:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0128 Re: Assorted I, too, am fascinated by the many wonderful insights introduced by Syd Kaston's thread on Fool/Cordelia equations. But, like Michael Friedman's reference to Desdemona's commitment to life with her husband, I wonder what we do with Cordelia's own I.1 statement, "Sure I shall never marry like my sisters, / To love my father all." (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward Pixley Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 15:03:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0119 Cordelia and the Fool Caveat! Before anyone jumps on me for now recognizing that the last part of the Cordelia speech I quoted is not in the first folio, we still have her earlier lines from the same speech: "Why have my sisters husbands if they say / They love you all?" For her to go into the disguise of the Fool following these lines not only fails to give her the spoken entries to the disguise that we see in Kent and Edgar, it suggests a deception more akin to what we find in Edmund. Though even Edmund revels in the deception of his disguise. Though the thread has revealed marvelously evokative Cordelia/Fool parallels, and actual disguise seems to defy the conventions for disguise that Shakespeare uses elsewhere in the play. If I might add to the thread about Edgar's feigning hill climbing, I think it was in _Shakespeare our Contemporary_ that Jan Kott got such wonderful mileage out of this being a scene which could work only on that bare platform stage, because illusionistic scenery would have to show us whether it is a hill or whether it is a plain, and all the ambiguity is, thus, gone. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 10:54:17 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0140 Re: Drab; John Gilbert; Branagh's Ham; Iago Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0140. Tuesday, 28 January 1997. (1) From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Monday, 27 Jan 97 09:57:00 GMT Subj: A Very Drab (2) From: Judy Kennedy Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 15:22:26 -0400 (AST) Subj: Re: Sir John Gilbert (3) From: Eric Armstrong Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 22:29:44 -0500 Subj: Re: Branagh's Ham (4) From: Brad Morris Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 18:47:22 -0500 (EST) Subj: Iago, Homosexuality and Psychosis (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Monday, 27 Jan 97 09:57:00 GMT Subject: A Very Drab You could try Kay Stanton, 'Hamlet's Whores', in _New Essays on Hamlet_, edited by John Manning and Mark Thornton Burnett (AMS Press, 1994). Lisa Hopkins Sheffield Hallam University L.M.Hopkins@shu.ac.uk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Judy Kennedy Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 15:22:26 -0400 (AST) Subject: Re: Sir John Gilbert Sir John Gilbert (1817-1897) is listed in the Encyc Brit 11th ed ( the only ref I have at home), and I'm sure he's in the DNB, Bryan's Dictionary, Thieme/Becker, and Benezit, all of which should be in a university library. Hodnett, in *Five Centuries of Book Illustration* (1988) has something on him. I believe the Folger fairly recently purchased the originals of his illustrations for Staunton's ed. Judy Kennedy jkennedy@stthomasu.ca (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 22:29:44 -0500 Subject: Re: Branagh's Ham I was pleased to see that the Duke of Marlborough (the Marlboro man as the audience members around me joked) got a role in exchange for the use of his magnificent palace. The credits ripped by SO fast that I could catch WHAT he played. I am right in thinking that Elsinore and Brideshead Revisited are one and the same, no? Eric Armstrong (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Morris Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 18:47:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Iago, Homosexuality and Psychosis I have often wondered myself about Iago's sexuality, but being in Oklahoma, finding someone with which to discuss the issue borders on the impossible. I'm no Shakespeare scholar, but it seems to me that Iago's sexuality is almost immaterial. I believe him to be-- plain and simple-- a psychotic, nasty bastard. John Mortimer wrote that Iago is not "a nineteenth-century politician scheming for power." Also, JM states simply, "By behaving as he does, Iago makes the play work." I would tend to agree. Rather than being driven by a frustrated homosexual desire for Othello (a case for which can certainly be made, I can't deny that), I have always thought of him as, well, the Classic Asshole, if you'll excuse the expression. He's just plain nuts, and I think Shakespeare was among the first to create such a character. I wonder if we as 20th-century citizens believe wackos of Iago's sort didn't exist until recently. I'm sure many will disagree with me, but that's my opinion. I could be wrong. Brad Morris ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 11:18:53 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0141 Early Modern Literary Studies; SSE '97 Tour Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0141. Tuesday, 28 January 1997. (1) From: Joanne Woolway Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 18:38:46 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Early Modern Literary Studies - New Issue (2) From: The Shenandoah Shakespeare Express Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 15:00:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: SSE '97 Sweet Smoke of Rhetoric Tour (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Woolway Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 18:38:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Early Modern Literary Studies - New Issue The December issue of Early Modern Literary Studies (2.3) is now available at http://purl.oclc.org/emls/emlshome.html and at our Oxford mirror site at http://purl.oclc.org/emls/UK/emlshome.html The new issue contains material listed in the contents page below as well as links to electronic resources, interactive EMLS (including calls for papers, conference programs, work in progress and electronic papers), and to several other projects. Submissions and enquiries should be directed to Joanne Woolway Oriel College, Oxford emls@english.ox.ac.uk Raymond G. Siemens Joanne Woolway Editor Co-Editor Articles: * Popular Hermeneutics: Monstrous Children in English Renaissance Broadside Ballads. Helaine Razovsky, Northwestern State University. * Production Resources at the Whitefriars Playhouse, 1609-1612. Jean MacIntyre, University of Alberta. * "Ay me": Selfishness and Empathy in "Lycidas." Jean E.Graham, The College of New Jersey. Note: * Reflections on Milton and Ariosto. Roy Flannagan, Ohio University. Reviews: * Robert Weimann. Authority and Representation in Early Modern Discourse. Ed. David Hillman. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP,1995. Anthony Johnson, Abo Akademi University. * Thomas H. Luxon. Literal Figures Puritan Allegory & the Reformation Crisis in Representation. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1995. David Gay, University of Alberta. * Rebecca W. Bushnell. A Culture of Teaching: Early Modern Humanism in Theory and Practice. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1996. Charles David Jago, University of British Columbia. * Graham Parry. The Trophies of Time: English Antiquarians of The Seventeenth Century. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1995. F. J. Levy, University of Washington. * Simon Jarvis. Scholars and Gentlemen: Shakespearean Textual Criticism and Representations of Scholarly Labour, 1725-1765. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1996. Bryan N.S. Gooch, University of Victoria. * Susan Bennett. Performing Nostalgia: Shifting Shakespeare and the Contemporary Past. New York: Routledge, 1996. Robert Grant Williams, Nipissing University. * Garry Wills. Witches and Jesuits: Shakespeare's Macbeth. Oxford and New York: Oxford UP / NY Public Library, 1995. Michael T. Siconolfi, Gonzaga University. * Naomi Conn Liebler. Shakespeare's Festive Tragedy: The Rituals Foundations of Genre. New York: Routledge, 1995. Jeffrey Kahan. * Gordon Williams. A Dictionary of Sexual Language and Imagery in Shakespearean and Stuart Literature. 3 vols. London and New Jersey: Athlone P, 1994. Douglas Bruster,University of Texas, San Antonio. * W. S. "A Funeral Elegy for Master William Peter." Compact disk recording read by Harry Hill. Dir. Paul Hawkins. Text Ed. Donald W. Foster. Montreal: Concordia University, 1996.Sean Lawrence, University of British Columbia. * Sir Thomas More. Utopia: Latin Text and English Translation. Eds. George M. Logan, Robert M. Adams and Clarence Miller.Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. Romuald I. Lakowski. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Shenandoah Shakespeare Express Date: Monday, 27 Jan 1997 15:00:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: SSE '97 Sweet Smoke of Rhetoric Tour The Shenandoah Shakespeare Express has recently begun its '97 Sweet Smoke of Rhetoric Tour, which includes Love's Labor's Lost, I Henry IV, and A Midsummer Night's Dream. Shakespeareans can look for us at the Folger Shakespeare Library in May and at the SAA conference in Washington D.C. on March 27. At the conference, we will perform Love's Labor's Lost, co-directed by Tom Berger and Ralph Cohen, and offer a forty-five minute workshop. Come join us for an afternoon of high-spirited play. For more information, please contact our offices at (540) 434-3366, e-mail us at SShakespea@aol.com, or check out our website at http://www.shakespeare.com/ShenandoahExpress ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 10:50:40 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0142 Re: Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0142. Wednesday, 29 January 1997. (1) From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 10:34:50 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0135 Re: Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" (2) From: John Boni Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 13:37:12 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0135 Re: Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" (3) From: Wes Folkerth Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 12:02:19 -0500 Subj: Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" (4) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 03:02:08 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0135 Re: Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 10:34:50 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0135 Re: Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" " In this case it is the placebo that is the successful cure." But it doesn't work At the end of IV vi, still seeking death, Gloucester tries to run on Oswald's sword.His endurance and acceptance are very fragile.When he learns of Edgar's true identity, caught without warning between two 'truths' he dies smilingly -- but he dies. Mary Jane Miller, Brock University, (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 13:37:12 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0135 Re: Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" I agree with Ed Friedlander's assertion that Edgar's actions in *Lear* reflect the emphasis on humans to aid (or hurt) other humans--in contrast to Albany's continued assertions that the gods will reward, punsih, defend, etc. (This view constitutes a basis for the assertion that Edgar, not Albany, properly closes the play, an earlier topic of exchange.) Edgar loses his identity, assumes a number of shapes, and helps several of the principals, most notably the father to whom he owes little, except the "bond" of family, and humanity. Edgar's lies are generous, not unjurious, even his lie to the mortally wounded Edmund, which, to me, paints an inspirational portrait of Gloucester's death, one successfully designed to achieve Edmund's conversion, "exchange forgiveness with me...." As Derek Wood writes, "too much truth" is problematic. "Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say." John M. Boni, (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wes Folkerth Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 12:02:19 -0500 Subject: Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" Hi all, Early on in the "The Gutenberg Galaxy," Marshall McLuhan argues that Shakespeare in this scene gives us the first poetic representation of three-dimensional space, with Edgar's description of the cliff. I'm writing a chapter on sound and the Shakespearean theatre, and would like to consult the list members concerning the viability of one of my ideas, which is that, given Shakespeare's translation of the technique of perspective from the visual to the poetic medium, and that he has Edgar use this technique to trick Gloucester into believing he's positioned somewhere other than where he actually is (and, according to some of the previous messages concerning this scene, the audience can be taken in as well) -- could Shakespeare be experimenting with a kind of verbal anamorphism in this scene? I welcome any feedback, positive or negative, on this one. Yours, Wes Folkerth tfolke@po-box.mcgill.ca (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 03:02:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0135 Re: Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" I'd like to consider the recent question David Richman asks--"does the audience think the ground is flat or that it is 'horrible steep'?"--in terms of genre. If we "believe" the ground is flat, then the scene becomes 'comic' (like its precursor with the Gobbo's in MV); if we accept Edgar's version (or 'lie'), then we accept tragedy--the idea of the fortunate fall, for instance--(and this can comment on the LEAR plot too--the idea of a larger than life character shaking of the superflux). In a sense, the blind Gloucester becomes is the audience who, initially skeptical of tragic machinations, comes to accept them---or, Gloucester represents the part of the audience that NEEDS the tragic lie, Edmund's recognition of this need for tragedy in the part of his audience may be seen metadramatically. Edmund is actor-playwright--but the dual perspective (like Pyramus and Thisbe's snug-the-joiner-lion) does not resolve itself into an either/or dichotomy. The ground IS flat, even if that flatness is necessarily the "ground" (or material base) of the theatre (in the round globe). But I do not think that Edgar's lie CURES G's despair (contra Derek Wood, and others)---if anything, it suspends it, keeps it temporarily at bay, but does not have a lasting influence.... chris stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 11:02:08 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0143 Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0143. Wednesday, 29 January 1997. (1) From: Dale Lyles Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 11:30:12 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0136 Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders (2) From: Eric Armstrong Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 10:08:27 -0500 Subj: Re:SHK 8.0136 Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders (3) From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 19:33:35 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0136 Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders (4) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 17:56:53 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0136 Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 11:30:12 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0136 Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders Bill Godshalk writes: "However, I think it's less likely that we have a category-gene, and categories are contexts." All recent evidence points to the fact that indeed we do have a "category-gene," if by that we can mean that humans are impelled by their brains to sort and classify the jumble of the universe. It's a definite survival skill, if you think about it: big furry objects with pointy teeth = bad... small furry objects = tasty... This is how we learn, by creating those category/contexts, and then when new information disturbs our senses, either fitting the new information into those categories, or adjusting the categories. We need, seek, and create contexts. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company and an education consultant to boot (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 10:08:27 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0136 Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders Bill Godshalk writes: >And you are in very good company in this belief. Yes, it does seem likely >that we humans have a language-gene. > >However, I think it's less likely that we have a category-gene, and categories >are contexts. We create categories with language in our desire to make our >lives meaningful. Since I have been reading Steven Pinker's remarkable _The Language Instinct_ for the past 6 months every night before bed(I am SUCH a slow reader!), I feel that this statement is possibly contradicting itself. (Though I am no linguistic expert, and taking on Bill Godshalk, whose e-opinions I greatly admire, is a daunting task...) If language is part of our make up, and category making is part of how our brains make sense of the world (dividing the world into "noun phrase" chunks and "verb phrase" chunks, recognizing concrete objects compared to action,) we must group things, actions and ideas as a basic step of developing language. This allows us to make sense of our world, and more importantly to communicate that world view with one another. It is instinctual, and as such I think it is much more complicated than "having a language-gene", though "-gene" seems like a pretty common short form for instinct these days, I must say. Categories do create contexts, I agree, but whether we desire to make our lives meaningful or whether we can't help BUT make out lives meaningful is, I think, my quibble. I might rephrase it, "We make our lives meaningful with language in our desire to understand our categories."I am willing to concede it might be a chicken-and-egg-like scenario... Eric Armstrong (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 19:33:35 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0136 Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders At the risk of boring the non-British members of the list: the crucial point about the National Curriculum in Britain is precisely that it is applied only to schools in the State sector. 'Private' (i.e. 'public' in the curious nomenclature that history has given us) schools do not have to follow it. The assumptions that power this peculiar divide are symptomatic of exactly what is wrong with the British education system - that private schools are assumed to be providing the 'best' education, and so can be left alone to get on with it, whereas the teachers in the state sector, infected by nasty leftist ideology from the 60s have to be told what to do. I could bang on at inordinate length about the poisonous implications of the private-state divide in British education, but it's scarcely relevant to this list. David Lindley University of Leeds (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 17:56:53 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0136 Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders John Lee writes > If Egan's argument is that the Conservative government > is chopping up Shakespeare (as opposed to trying to insist > that students at least read some) to make the world safer > for their own brand of ideology, then should it follow that > fee-paying schools teach even smaller gobbets? And if so, > do they? When 'ideology' is used to mean 'dogma' (as here) there can be little useful exchange with someone like me who insists on using it to mean 'world-view'. We are back at the beginning of the thread, which started with Godshalk's quotation of Kavanagh's definition and a request for comments. There is no simple proportionality between the size of units into which Shakespearian texts are broken and the degree of usefulness to a conservative agenda. One notes that claims such as 'Shakespeare was a tory' supported by quotation of a couple of lines can be made to look silly by placing those lines in context. The National Curriculum not only requires the teaching of decontextualized extracts, but also focusses attention on a fragment of the Shakespeare canon. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 11:43:15 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0144 Re: A Very Drab Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0144. Wednesday, 29 January 1997. (1) From: Patricia Southard Gourlay Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 11:38:57 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0122 Q: A Very Drab (2) From: Don Foster Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 15:23:00 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0122 Q: A Very Drab (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patricia Southard Gourlay Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 11:38:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0122 Q: A Very Drab The whore has no power or status, and no way to respond to wrongs (like abuse or= being cheated?) except by screaming and cursing. Hamelt could be expressing both self-contempt and his sense of helplessness. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Foster Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 15:23:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0122 Q: A Very Drab Re: Diana Smith's query. cf. "...get thee hence, and pack like a lout. *Huf.* Adieu like a whore." "like a whore in changeable array, / With painted cheeks / And coral lips,..." "I came running to see them, who like a whore spoils every good thing that comes into his hand." Middleton has a satirical account of an encounter with a gorgeous and effeminate cross-dressed male drab. See "Ingling Pyander," in T.M., *Six Snarling Satires* (1599). Also of interest: John Taylor's, "A Comparison betwixt a Whore and a Book." Don Foster ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 11:59:20 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0145 Re: WT Productions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0145. Wednesday, 29 January 1997. (1) From: Peter Greenfield Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 12:04:52 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0138 Re: WT Productions (2) From: Edward van Aelstyn Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 09:13:18 +0100 Subj: WT (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Greenfield Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 12:04:52 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0138 Re: WT Productions David Skeele asks of the 1996 production of WINTER'S TALE by the Oregon Shakespeare Festival: >The practice of realizing onstage Leontes' vision of adultery is not original >to the Ashland production....I am interested--what did the detractors at >Ashland object to about it? I regularly lead a tour to Ashland, and of some 60 alumni and friends of the university, only about 5-10 of them liked this feature of the production. Somee who didn't know the play were confused: were Hermione's and Polixenes' gyrations under the red light merely a realization of Leontes' fantasies? or were they seeing a flashback to actions that had actually occurred previously offstage? Others found the acting-out of Leontes' fantasies superfluous--the language is so powerful that no one was in doubt as to what Leontes was thinking, even if they didn't understand every word--and would have preferred the contrast between L's infected imagination and the innocence of Hermione's actual behavior in the scene. On the other hand, this production included a wonderful visual addition to the final scene. Hermione's statue stood in a kind of sculpture garden, surrounded by statues of Mamillius, Antigonus and the bear. The visual reminder of those who have died and will not revive deepened the joy of reconciliation. At the end, everyone exited except Leontes and Hermione, who remained briefly and then went out past the statue of Mamillius. Hermione, glimpsing the statue, nearly collapsed, and had to be held up by Leontes as they left. At the performance I saw, the audience had to swallow hard before the applause started. Peter Greenfield (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward van Aelstyn Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 09:13:18 +0100 Subject: WT Winter's Tale becomes more interesting and teaches a better message if one can take Leontes' suspicions about Hermione to be accurate. When I directed the play, there was sufficient by-play between Hermione and Polixenes to support Leontes. What-did-happen should at least be ambiguous. Leontes' saving, then, is not into sanity but into forgiveness. An insane Leontes makes the play trivial. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 12:15:04 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0146 Re: Iago, Homosexuality, and Psychosis Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0146. Wednesday, 29 January 1997. (1) From: John Cox Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 14:11:20 -0500 (EST) Subj: Iago (2) From: David Skeele Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 17:16:15 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0140 Re: Iago (3) From: Ian Doescher Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 20:22:36 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Iago, Homosexuality, and Psychosis (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 22:46:39 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0140 Re: Iago (5) From: Kirk_Hendershott-Kraetzer@jackson.cc.mi.us Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 13:43:08 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0126 Re: Gayness (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cox Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 14:11:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Iago Brad Morris wonders out loud if "Shakespeare was among the first to create such a character [as Iago]." Actually, he wasn't. As Bernard Spivack argued some forty years ago, Iago is a direct descendant of the Vice, a sixteenth-century dramatic invention that was unique to English theater. Spivack's argument is flawed in many ways, but his basic insight is sound, and his book, *Shakespeare and the Allegory of Evil* remains useful. John Cox, Hope College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 17:16:15 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0140 Re: Iago >Rather than being driven by a frustrated homosexual desire for Othello (a case >for which can certainly be made, I can't deny that), I have always thought of >him as, well, the Classic Asshole, if you'll excuse the expression. He's just >plain nuts, and I think Shakespeare was among the first to create such a >character. I wonder if we as 20th-century citizens believe wackos of Iago's >sort didn't exist until recently. > >I'm sure many will disagree with me, but that's my opinion. I could be wrong. > >Brad Morris Though I imagine many actors and directors find it useful to think of Iago as a prototype for the 20th-century sociopath (I certainly have in playing him for auditions), I don't think we can look at Iago as some sort of ground-breaking psychological study by Shakespeare. I think it has been more convincingly argued that Iagos had been seen on stage for quite some time in the form of the Vice (Or "Classic Asshole," if you will) of the medieval morality play. Of course, this kind of non-explanation of Iago's behavior ("he behaves this way because it is *his function*") is rather unexciting, and not very helpful to a modern actor seeking a motive for the malignancy, hence the serial-killer angle. David Skeele (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ian Doescher Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 20:22:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Iago, Homosexuality, and Psychosis I find the question of Iago's sexuality very interesting, especially since I am going to be playing the "psychotic, nasty bastard" (Brad Morris' interpretation) soon. Are there any books, public papers, etc. on the topic? I'd be grateful for information. Ian Doescher (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 22:46:39 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0140 Re: Iago Brad Morris wants to see Iago as a sociopath (if I may paraphrase bastard and Asshole in this way). And Bruce Smith argues that he is not presented in the script as a homosexual. But there are Shakespeareans who believe that the marriage of Othello and Desdemona would end as it does--without the help of Iago. Iago's conniving and plotting is basically ineffectual--they say. It's the malignant culture that does in the marriage. Yours, Bill Godshalk (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kirk_Hendershott-Kraetzer@jackson.cc.mi.us Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 13:43:08 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0126 Re: Gayness On 1/26, Richard Burt wrote: >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. I think that the connotations are less evident on second look. The Iago/Emilia scene, which takes place starting about 52 minutes into the film, procedes in this order: Iago is face down on a bed. Emilia enters, and lays face down to his right. She touches his side, hip, thigh, and ear. He rolls over onto his back. She is now to his left. He rolls on top of her: they're face to face. He grinds his hips against her pelvis and nuzzles her neck while stroking her right arm. He flips her over toward the camera, onto her stomach. She cries out. (With alarm? suprise? arousal? or perhaps some combination of the three?) He is now resting on her back. He tugs twice at her skirts. Each time she gives slight cries -- again, their emotional inflection is unclear. He lifts the handkerchief with his right hand. She makes a slight sound. He sits up quickly, pushing at the small of her back as he does so. She grunts. Cut to a MS of Iago, directly addressing the camera. Iago doesn't penetrate anything. He can't, since he's fully clothed. And I'm not certain that her cries are *meant* to suggest any one particular thing. They're cries, and are open to interpretation. The scene is sexual, but it's not at all clear whether the implied sex is anal, vaginal, virtual, or something else entirely. Nor, in the drinking scene (at about 30 minutes into the film), does Iago fondle Cassio. At one point, he puts his hand between Cassio's legs, but since C's groin is out of frame, and since Iago's hand and arm are angled away from his groin, I doubt there's any fondling going on. The other times Iago touches Cassio in this scene are: holding him by the right arm when, standing, Cassio stumbles; clapping Cassio's shoulder; pulling him away from Montano; checking Cassio's chest for wounds; and hugging him, during which his visual attention is into the camera. On that same day, Ian Doescher noted that, >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. Iago does make a grab, but again, I'm not sure that the implication is that Iago is overtly (or covertly) homosexual. Since he's talking about Cassio and Desdemona at that point, the grab may be to alert Roderigo to what he wants to use on Desdemona -- which would be in keeping with Iago's view of sexuality anyway -- and which Cassio, as Iago tells it, *is* using. None of this denies that gayness is frequently suggested through connotation, whether visual or verbal. These scenes may be homoerotic, or have homoerotic overtones, but as visually stated Iago's homosexuality is at best an iffy proposition. Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 12:36:04 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0147 Qs: Fonts; Quotation Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0147. Wednesday, 29 January 1997. (1) From: Harry Rusche Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 10:16:18 -0500 (EST) Subj: Fonts (2) From: Alan Somerset Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 17:15:58 -0500 (EST) Subj: Identify Quotation? (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Rusche Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 10:16:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Fonts Does anyone have, or know where to acquire, a true-type font based on the text of the first folio? A friend asked me about this, and I told him I had no idea, but that if it were available someone out yonder would know! Harry Rusche (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Somerset Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 17:15:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: Identify Quotation? A colleague has asked me for help, about a quotation that occurs in a short story, "Oedipus", by the Canadian writer Sheila Watson: 'See,' he said. He had scrawled a few lines on the back of a telephone bill. I have often heard her say she gave me suck And it should seem by that she dearly loved me Since Princes seldom do it. Puss said, 'When you read the Elizabethans you always get what you want and you aren't always detected. My colleague wishes to identify the lines of verse. My Shakespeare concordance doesn't turn them up, and I don't recognize them, so I would be very glad if anybody can do so. Alan Somerset University of Western Ontario somerset@julian.uwo.ca ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 12:39:07 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0148 Re: Sir John Gilbert; Places (Branagh *Hamlet*) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0148. Wednesday, 29 January 1997. (1) From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 97 09:38:00 PST Subj: Sir John Gilbert (2) From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 19:17:22 GMT Subj: Re: Places (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 97 09:38:00 PST Subject: Sir John Gilbert In reply to Malcolm Keithley who asked for information on Sir John Gilbert, there is a small but good article in "The Dictionary of British Book Illustrators and Caricaturists 1800-1914" by Simon Houfe (Antique Collectors' Club, 1981). (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 28 Jan 1997 19:17:22 GMT Subject: Re: Places Brideshead Revisited was filmed, I believe, at Castle Howard in Yorkshire - a quite different place. David Lindley ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:02:49 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0149 Re: Iago, Homosexuality, and Psychosis Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0149. Thursday, 30 January 1997. (1) From: Al Cacicedo Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 14:02:55 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0140 Re: Iago (2) From: John King Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 16:41:03 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0146 Re: Iago, Homosexuality, and Psychosis (3) From: Tom Sullivan Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 17:03:21 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0146 Re: Iago, Homosexuality (4) From: David Jackson Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 23:13:28 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0146 Re: Iago, Homosexuality, and Psychosis (5) From: Richard A. Burt Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 06:54:08 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0146 Re: Iago, Homosexuality, and Psychosis (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Al Cacicedo Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 14:02:55 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0140 Re: Iago If Iago really is a "bastard," that might go towards explaining his behavior -- consider Shakespeare's other "bastards!" Has anyone thought of Iago's role in the ultimate death of the Moor as an echo of the Spanish Sant-Iago Matamoros? Santiago, St. James, is the patron saint of Spain, of course, and was often invoked during the reconquest in precisely the role of Moor-killer. In a new-world context, by the way, the good saint is sometimes represented as Santiago Mataindios, Indian-killer. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John King Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 16:41:03 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0146 Re: Iago, Homosexuality, and Psychosis >Though I imagine many actors and directors find it useful to think of Iago as a >prototype for the 20th-century sociopath (I certainly have in playing him for >auditions), I don't think we can look at Iago as some sort of ground-breaking >psychological study by Shakespeare. I think it has been more convincingly >argued that Iagos had been seen on stage for quite some time in the form of the >Vice (Or "Classic Asshole," if you will) of the medieval morality play. Of >course, this kind of non-explanation of Iago's behavior ("he behaves this way >because it is *his function*") is rather unexciting, and not very helpful to a >modern actor seeking a motive for the malignancy, hence the serial-killer >angle. I agree that Shakespeare's creation of Iago certainly derives from previously existing theatrical traditions, and that his actions are motivated as much by plot requirements as they are by anything else. But, one of the many great things about Shakespeare is that even his stock characters tend to be fleshed out in a remarkable way, even if they only have a couple of lines. If his motivations were irrelevent, why would he drop tantalizing and contradictory hints about them all through the play? He states right out front that he is bitter about his lack of advancement and jealous because he suspects Othello with Emilia, but neither of these are enough to motivate the monstrous actions he takes in any "normal" person; perhaps he believes that these are his reasons, and there is an underlying motivation of which even he is unaware; perhaps he doesn't care about these things at all and merely puts them forward to cover his real purpose (therefore making him dishonest even with the audience- an idea which appeals to my sense of completeness). Whatever the case, I think that, although Shakespeare was writing a stock character out of necessity to the story, he intentionally improved upon that formula (as he did on all the others he used) by making that character an enigma, littering the play with dead-end clues that create questions about Iago's motivation, but never answering any of them. As for his sexuality, there are certainly lines which point up this possibility, but there are just as many that point in the opposite direction. Shakespeare seems to be telling us there is no real answer, and appropriately he leaves Iago behind a veil of silence, with his vow never to speak again. With this in mind, I think the best thing an actor tackling this role can do is to be open to all possibilities, and remember that part of the fun of the play for the audience is to try to figure out Iago for themselves. If an actor answers all of these questions and makes those answers clear in his performance, the audience can only judge Iago, and they miss the thrill of trying to unravel him. This is all, of course, just my opinion, and I know there are many thousands of others about this subject out there. But I do think that Shakespeare was enough of a practical theatre technician to want to do as much as he could to stimulate his audience's interest, and that many of these kinds of debates about questions of motivation, etc. can be answered at least partially by looking at them with this in mind. John King (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Sullivan Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 17:03:21 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0146 Re: Iago, Homosexuality If homosexual love for the Moor is the motive for Iago's villainy, then I'm surprised no one has mentioned the last scene (Branaugh's portrayl), when Iago, wounded, crawls to the bed and apparently dies at the Moor's feet. Isn't this final act of devotion more significant than all the humping and crotch grabbing so meticulously analyzed thus far? Tom (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 23:13:28 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0146 Re: Iago, Homosexuality, and Psychosis Thanks to Kirk Herndershott-Kratezer for checking the material and providing the detailed "blow-by-blow". The obvious lesson is: check your source before jumping to conclusions based on recollection. Secondly, he points up the key fact that Iago as played by Branagh is what he is; why is it necessary to try to simplify by striving for some classification (e.g. "the reason that he behaves the way he does is because ... oh, that's it--he's gay! ... And here's the evidence ... (based on interpretation of vague recollection of what one thinks one saw in the movie)"). What was interesting to me was the demonstration of how Iago uses Emilia (while apparently talking to us), and that was far more telling to me than what his latent sexual orientation might be (since it could be any number of variations, based upon what we see in the film). Categorization leads to narrow-minded, self-serving, questionable analysis. And I state that categorically. David Jackson (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A. Burt Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 06:54:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0146 Re: Iago, Homosexuality, and Psychosis I must say I am surprised by the amount of response my note about Branagh's gay Iago has generated. I am even more surprised that some have found such a claim for Branagh's performance controversial. Now one person suggests that Iago's homosexuality in the Parker film is an "iffy proposition." It appears that this person would grossly gape on and behold Casssio / Emilia topped. Of course there is not going to be any literal evidence of Iago's gayness in this film or any other. We are talking the conventions of an R rated mass marketed film. Within those conventions, no penetration will be shown in any sex scene (in addition to the heterosexual sex scenes in this Othello, see also the sex scene with Hamlet and Ophelia in Branagh's Hamlet or the sex scene with Rivers in McKellen's Richard III.) And within those conventions, gay sex is implied, not shown. So of course we don't see Iago's hand on Cassio's dick. Of course we don't see Iago's dick in Emilia's ass. (Even in Zeffirelli's soft-core porn version of Cassio's dream, we don't see Cassio's dick, as I noted in an earlier message). In the Parker film, the fact that neither hand on dick nor dick in ass is shown implies that both acts are occuring off screen. If Branagh's hand goes steadily up Cassio's thigh but does not touch his dick, why not continue show the groin area? Why is it suddenly off screen? If Cassio is not having sex with Emilia, why not continue to show both of them? Why does the camera at the moment Emilia cries out, close in on Iago alone? Do I really need to answer these questions? I don't think so. I'll just say that my note was based on a reading of the conventional ways in which popular mall house films signify gay sexuality. I should add too that the fact that Emilia is fully clothed is no argument that she isn't having sex with Iago (such an argument is based, it seems to me, on a rather strange idea of sex). The scene with Emilia begins with Iago lying apparently asleep (Emilia can't see Iago's face, we can) in bed. Emilia comes to bed and obviously wants to get laid. Iago does not respond--not until she mentions the handerkerchief. This excites him. He gets up, she turns on her back, lying down. The obvious (I think it really is obvious) unstated arrangement here is that Iago has to fuck Emilia in return for her having gotten him the handerkerchief. The fact that she remains clothed is another measure of his disinterest in doing so. His flipping her over on her stomach signals both is disinterest in sex with her and a compromise--he'll fuck her alright, but he'll fuck her the way he wants to--in her ass. Of course, a husband sodomizing a wife does not mean the husband is gay. Within the conventions of mass-marketed film, however, it generally does, and it does in this case (the explicit sex scenes with Cassio and Desdemona and with Othello and Desdemona imply no sodomy whatsoever). All of this to defend a rather modest claim about the way the film signifies Iago's sexuality and Branagh's interst in a Shakespeare gayly done. I make and have made no claim about (a) anal sex and sexuality / sexual identity in general or (b) what the Parker film does with a gay Iago. I am interested in a queer rather than a gay Shakespeare. This discussion has made me appreciate, however, why Leo Bersani titled his book "Homos." It's gay sex that remains, for some, hardest to imagine. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:40:00 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0150 Re: Places (Branagh *Hamlet*) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0150. Thursday, 30 January 1997. (1) From: Norm Holland Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 97 17:36:08 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0140 Re: Branagh's Ham (2) From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 97 16:15:00 GMT Subj: Elsinore (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 97 17:36:08 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0140 Re: Branagh's Ham Re: Branagh's Elsinore (=Blenheim Castle). Wasn't Brideshead Revisited shot at Castle Howard? --Best, Norm Holland (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 97 16:15:00 GMT Subject: Elsinore Eric Armstrong asks if Elsinore and Brideshead are the same; I think not. I haven't seen Branagh's _Hamlet_ yet, but doesn't it use Blenheim for Elsinore? Brideshead was Castle Howard, in Yorkshire. Lisa Hopkins Sheffield Hallam University L.M.Hopkins@shu.ac.uk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:45:33 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0151 Re: WT Productions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0151. Thursday, 30 January 1997. (1) From: Jeff Myers Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 23:34:45 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0145 Re: WT Productions (2) From: Mark Mann Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 19:10:14 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0145 Re: WT Productions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 23:34:45 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0145 Re: WT Productions >Winter's Tale becomes more interesting and teaches a better message if one can >take Leontes' suspicions about Hermione to be accurate. When I directed the >play, there was sufficient by-play between Hermione and Polixenes to support >Leontes. What-did-happen should at least be ambiguous. Leontes' saving, then, >is not into sanity but into forgiveness. An insane Leontes makes the play >trivial. I doubt that women who are suffering from the effects of a husband with the insanity we call jealousy would find the play trivial because Leontes' suspicions are unfounded. I find your use of the supposed "by-play between Hermione and Polixenes" to find the former guilty of infidelity rather illuminated by Jane Anger's "Protection for Women . . .": "Let us look, they will straight affirm that we love." For an excellent example of this kind of prosecutorial mode, see Battenhouse's chapter on "The Rape of Lucrece." It insinuateth me of insanie! (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Mann Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 19:10:14 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0145 Re: WT Productions >>Winter's Tale becomes more interesting and teaches a better message if one can take Leontes' suspicions about Hermione to be accurate. When I directed the play, there was sufficient by-play between Hermione and Polixenes to support Leontes. What-did-happen should at least be ambiguous. Leontes' saving, then, is not into sanity but into forgiveness. An insane Leontes makes the play trivial. >> This interpretation, I believe, runs counter to the intent of the play...I agree that Leontes is not insane, but rather insanely jealous, and it is his redemption and true repentence that Hermione awaits for 16 years ( as well as news of her daughter's reappearance). "It is required you do awaken your faith"...and he does, over 16 years of pilgrimage to her "grave", and while this may seem an excessive amount of time for hermione to wait, remember it is a tale, and bears many marks of classic fairy tales, in which we must suspend rational and realtime motives...besides, the judgement of the Oracle states that Hermione is chaste, and Leontes a jealous tyrant, and the Oracle's word was absolute truth, within the reality of the play. It is also, when Leontes has profaned the Oracle, that Mamillius dies, bringing further judgement upon him. I believe Hermione is a saint of the first rank, and loyal beyond mortal bounds, to wait so long and still return to her husband. In our production, Hermione stood on the pedestal holding an hourglass (which appeared throughout the show), and when she "animated", she turned it over, handed it to Paulina, and extended her hand to Leontes. When she descended to stage level, they held each others gaze for what seemed an eternity, with the gulf of a lost sixteen years between them, which made the reconciliation far more bittersweet. Lastly, this idea of "teaching a better message" is one who's time should pass, and pass quickly. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:51:53 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0152 Re: Ideology: Category Genes Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0152. Thursday, 30 January 1997. (1) From: Thomas Bishop Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 12:16:59 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0136 Re: Category Genes (2) From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 13:12:39 PST Subj: Category-genes (3) From: Harvey Wheeler Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 97 18:26:12 UT Subj: RE: SHK 8.0143 Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 22:21:32 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0143 Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 12:16:59 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0136 Re: Category Genes Bill Godshalk writes: > Yes, it does seem likely that we humans have a language-gene. > >However, I think it's less likely that we have a category-gene, and categories >are contexts. We create categories with language in our desire to make our >lives meaningful. This is an important argument. It may be that we do have an innate aptitude for forming categories, though different learnings and different cultures may form different ones. It may even be that some very basic categories are indeed hard-wired into neural circuitry, since they seem to manifest themselves before any possibility of acculturated learning. Even casual observation of small infants will show that they discriminate very effectively between "primary care-giver" and "not care-giver" and communicate that discrimination loudly and vigorously. This looks like an innate category discrimination to me, and an absolutely explicable one in Darwinian terms. A more complex instance would be "things that make me smile". Smiling is a fascinating activity here: a behavior which infants overwhelmingly acquire at an early age, which is imitated from adults, certainly, but which is not taught by them and cannot in any useful sense be included under the rubric of "culture". In other words, the impulse to imitate in this way, and the knowledge of exactly how to do it, and, even more interestingly, of what it "means" to do it, is also hard-wired into the infant brain, again for good Darwinian reasons. Tom (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 13:12:39 PST Subject: Category-genes I was pleasantly surprised to learn that there is someone out there who is apparently a slower reader than I am. Sanford Pinker's book is so readable that even I was able to go through it fairly quickly. It is both entertaining and informative to one, such as myself, who knows very little about linguistics. The only reservation that I have is that it seems to be very much a brief for Chomsky's ideas, which I believe are still quite controversial. Is there an anti-Chomskyite out there who can write an equally delightful rebuttal to Pinker's book? I agree very much with those who have said humans contain category-genes, though I think to say we are "hard-wired" for categories is a more apt metaphor (or, as one of the others on this list suggested, we have a categorizing instinct). There is a qualification, however. Analytical philosophy, and the various social sciences to the extent they imitate analytical philosophy, assume that all categories (or all worthwhile categories) are logical categories, with fixed boundaries. Work in a number of disciplines over the last several decades suggests strongly that logical categories are only one category of the categories, and not the most frequent or most important one, that characterize human thought. To take one example, whereas in logic an item either falls within a category or it does not, in actual human thought categories are matters of degree. Chickens and robins are both birds, but ask people to name a type of bird and they are far more likely to name robins than chickens, despite the fact that most of us have far more frequent contact with chickens (albeit dead ones) than with robins. The locus classicus for this type of stuff is George Lakoff's superb book, "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things." This ties in with the other aspect of this thread, the question of teaching students bits and pieces of Shakespeare rather than whole plays. Using bits and pieces is not inherently conservative, though it may be conservative in fact, because it would be easy to select extracts from Shakespeare that would support a conservative or a radical view of society, and probably nearly anything else in between. Aside from intellectual laziness, the impulse to extract bits and pieces may be related to the overly abstract mode of thought that results in too rigid notions of what categories are. That is, the impulse reflects the view that the play as a whole is simply a container of certain ideas, and it is the ideas that are important. I see the same thing in my own discipline, law. In the last three decades or so, the U.S. Supreme Court has wanted to reduce broad constitutional principles to abstract rules and subrules. The result is that studying the doctrine of, say, the First Amendment, is akin to studying the tax code. What tends to be obscured is what ought to be the strength of the common law method of adjudication--case by case decision-making, each step of which is influenced by a holistic consideration of all the circumstances of the particular controversy. So it is with literature, in my opinion. I certainly am not arguing that ideas in literature are nonexistent or unimportant. But they are not CONTAINED in literature, just waiting to be extracted. Rather, they are dissolved in literature, a part of the very substance of the whole work, and the only way to ingest them is to drink the whole mixture. Best, Dan Lowenstein UCLA Law School (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harvey Wheeler Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 97 18:26:12 UT Subject: RE: SHK 8.0143 Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders On the language gene -- doesn't Chomsky deny this - calling language "innate" rather than genetic? Genetic potential but not determined - ? (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 22:21:32 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0143 Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders Eric Armstrong writes: >Since I have been reading Steven Pinker's remarkable _The Language Instinct_ >. . . I feel that this statement {re: language and categories} is possibly >contradicting itself. Okay, Eric, et al., I was shooting from the hip when I wrote that. I've read George Lakoff's Women, Fire and Dangerous Things as well as Pinker's book, and I guess categories are as wide-spead as language among our species. I wonder if categories could be constructed without language. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:56:07 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0153 Re: Dover Cliff; A Very Drab Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0153. Thursday, 30 January 1997. (1) From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 13:38:09 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0142 Re: Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" (2) From: Ian Lancashire Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 13:48:48 -0500 (EST) Subj: "drab" again (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 13:38:09 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0142 Re: Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" Addendum on the "cliff" If the audience knows the 'ground' is flat and at the same time that Gloucester thinks it is steep, surely people unfamiliar with the play are asking themselves why Edgar is doing this? At that point - or no later than Gloucester's grotesque 'fall'- would not the clash of the two 'realities' snap an audience into being conscious that it is sitting in the Globe watching a play? and might that self-reflexive moment either detach a viewer emotionally or ( more likely to me) make Gloucester's world subsume for a moment the wider globe we all live on. This potential does not exist for a version made for film or television but it does, I think work in the theatre. Mary Jane Miller, Brock University, (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ian Lancashire Date: Wednesday, 29 Jan 1997 13:48:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: "drab" again More on drabs from Renaissance dictionaries: John Palsgrave (English-French), Sir Thomas Elyot (Latin-English), Thomas Thomas (Latin-English), John Florio (Italian-English), and Randle Cotgrave (French-English). The reference citations are to lexicographer, date, and letter number in the total database: e.g., PL_1530 @ 196203. Each item should be a complete entry. Ian Lancashire Toronto " drab": Palsgrave (PL_1530 @ 196203) Drabbe truande, loudiere s fe. " drab": Palsgrave (PL_1530 @ 196302) Drabbe a slutte uilotiere s fe. " drab": Palsgrave (PL_1530 @ 345980) Hore a drabbe putayn s fe. " drab": Elyot (ET_1538 @ 7455338) Spilumenes, a sluttyshe drabbe. " drab": Elyot (ET_1538 @ 8179783) Ambubeiae, dronken drabbes, whiche wander about the stretes. " drab": Th.Thomas (TT_87 @ 10279659) Ambunbaiae, Horat. Dronken drabs that wander about streetes. " drab": Th.Thomas (TT_87 @ 16890776) Scortum, ti, n. g. A harlot, a common strumpet, a drab, a queane. It is also taken for puer meritorius: properly it is the hide or skin of a beast. " drab": Th.Thomas (TT_87 @ 16892241) Scraptia, vel Scrapta, ae, f. g. Fest. A worme found in leaues: also a stinking drab, a driueling queane. " drab": Th.Thomas (TT_87 @ 17201719) Spilumenes, ae, f. g. * A sluttish drabbe. " drab": Florio (FL_1598 @ 19916855) Draba, an hearbe hauing a tust like elder at the top. " drab": Florio (FL_1598 @ 21959589) Paterina, a queane or a drab. " drab": Cotgrave (CT_1611 @ 27645511) Bonnette: f. The bonnet of a sayle. Bonnette traineresse. A drabler; a peece added vnto the bonnet, when there is need of more saile. " drab": Cotgrave (CT_1611 @ 32073339) Gaultiere: f. A whore, punke, drab, queane, gill, flirt, strumpet, cockatrice, made wench, common hackney, good one. " drab": Cotgrave (CT_1611 @ 34505252) Paillarde: f. A whore, punke, drab, strumpet, harlot, queane, courtezan, callet. " drab": Cotgrave (CT_1611 @ 35021069) Pimbesche: f. A willie queane, subtile wench, cunning drab; one that can finely execute her Mistresses knauish deuises. " drab": Cotgrave (CT_1611 @ 35583700) Putain: f. A whore, queane, punke, drab, flurt, strumpet, harlot, cockatrice, naughtie pack, light buswife, common hackney. Effronte en putain. As bold, or brasen-faced, as a whore. Putain fait comme la corneille, plus se lave & plus noire est elle: Pro. A queane and Crow alike doe fare, the more they wash the fouler they are. Assez fait qui fortune passe, & plus encor qui putain chasse: Pro. as vnder Fortune. Fils de putain ne fit iamais bien: Prov. Neuer did sonne of a whore doe well. " drab": Cotgrave (CT_1611 @ 35586136) Putier: m. ere: f. Whorish, drab-like, impudent, immodest, light; lasciuious, wenching, whore-hunting. " drab": Cotgrave (CT_1611 @ 35842174) Rebut: m. The reffuse, offalls, outcasts, or leauings of better things; also, a foyle, repulse, reiecting, putting backe. Brebis de rebut. Drapes, Cullings, or Kebbers; old, or diseased sheepe which be not worth keeping. Madame de rebut. A loathsome queane, rascallie drab, ouerworne punke, pockie whore; {whence}, Les pasles couleurs de Madame de rebut. The Pocks. " drab": Cotgrave (CT_1611 @ 36298155) Rifflarde: f. A rauenous, or a rifling drab; one that loues, or liues by, the spoyle of them she conuerses with. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:57:54 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0154 JTD 2 (1996) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0154. Thursday, 30 January 1997. From: Avraham Oz Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 09:51:42 +0200 Subject: JTD 2 (1996) JTD - Journal of Theatre and Drama, published annually by the Department of Theatre, University of Haifa, announces the appearance of vol 2 (1996) The contents of JTD (vol. 2, 1996) include: Articles: Linda McJannet, "Mapping the Ottomans on the Renaissance Stage" Robert Boerth, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean world on the Stage of Marlowe and Shakespeare" James C. Bulman, "On Being Unfaithful to Shakespeare: Miller, Marowitz, and Wesker" John Picker, "Revision and Transformation in Marowitz's Variations on "The Merchant of Venice" and Wesker's Shylock" Maurice Charney, "Shakespeare's Hamlet in the Context of the Hebrew Bible" Reuven Snir, "Palestinian Theatre as a Junction of Cultures: The Case of Samih al-Qasim's Qaraquash" Dwora Gilula, "Nathan Alterman's Contribution to the Hebrew Stage" Darko Suvin, "Deity vs. Warrior No Plays: Revelation, Not Conflict" Michal Kobialka, "Historical Events and the Historiography of Tourism" Erella Brown, "The Lake of Seduction: Silence, Hysteria, and the Space of Feminist Theatre" Reviews: Linda Ben Zvi (ed.) Theatre in Israel (reviewed by Linda Marcus) Alex Aronson, Shakespeare and the Ocular Proof (reviewed by Michael Yogev) Price: US$ 10.00 per copy (including surface mail delivery). For Airmail delivery overseas, please add US$ 1.50. To order the issue, please contact: JTD Glendyr Sacks Department of Theatre University of Haifa Mount Carmel 31905 Haifa Israel By fax: +972-4-8240128 By e-mail: glendyr@research.haifa.ac.il Please browse JTD's home-page at: http://research.haifa.ac.il/~theatre/jtd.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 15:00:30 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0155 Re: Quotation Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0155. Thursday, 30 January 1997. (1) From: Stanley Wells Date: Thursdat, 30 Jan 1997 11:06:37 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0147 Qs: Quotation (2) From: Martha McNair Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 12:09:19 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0147 Qs: Quotation (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stanley Wells Date: Thursdat, 30 Jan 1997 11:06:37 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0147 Qs: Quotation In reply to Alan Somerset's query - Hello, Alan! It's Giovanni in Webster's 'White Devil', 3. 2. Best wishes, Stanley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martha McNair Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 12:09:19 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0147 Qs: Quotation Those lines loosely allude to Lady Macbeth's speech in Act I, scene vii: I have given suck, and know How tender 'tis to love the babe that milks me; I would, while it was smiling in my face, Have plucked my nipple from his boneless gums, And dashed his brains out, had I so sworn as you Have done to this [murder of Duncan]. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 19:52:26 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0156 Re: Fonts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0156. Friday, 31 January 1997. (1) From: Tom Gandy Date: Friday, 31 Jan 1997 11:22:52 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0147 Qs: Fonts (2) From: Genevieve Juliette Guenther Date: Friday, 31 Jan 1997 13:59:24 -0800 Subj: Fonts (3) From: Steven Brock Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 13:22:01 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0147 Qs: Fonts (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Gandy Date: Friday, 31 Jan 1997 11:22:52 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0147 Qs: Fonts A freeware font based on the first folio is available from the Illinois Shakespeare Festival. You can download the font at http://orathost.cfa.ilstu.edu/shakespeare/ISFfont.html. I've used the Mac version, and it is a beautiful facsimile. Text from the Illinois Festival's download page follows. "Macintosh version of ILShakeFest Font - includes both Type 1 and Truetype versions. This version has been tested by me and others and works just fine. Windows Truetype version of ILShakeFest Font - There were originally some problems with the PC/Windows version of the font, mostly because I don't have, either to use and test it out. I am greatly indebted to Dave Reifsnyder, who found our web pages, downloaded the fonts, discovered the problem, fixed it, and sent it back to me (TWICE!). Dave, it turns out, acted in the Festival in productions of AmMidsummer Night's Dream, King Lear, and Cymbeline in 1985, and also in productions of The Playboy of the Western World, and A Flea in her Ear at Illinois State Theatre. I still haven't heard from anyone who has tried out the Type 1 version for PC, which is included in this package. If you download this version, it also includes the Truetype version that wasn't working, so you may want to ignore that. The ILShakeFest font was selected as "Font of the Week" on America OnLine (Macintosh DTP) for the week of 12/10-15, 1995." (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Genevieve Juliette Guenther Date: Friday, 31 Jan 1997 13:59:24 -0800 Subject: Fonts There is a site on the WWW that features folio-type fonts to be downloaded. Unfortunately, I don't have the address handy at the moment; but you can find it as a link on my homepage (the address of the page is "http://garnet.berkeley.edu/~vive/" -- and the link is the second-to-last "will" in the string of quotation from sonnet 136). My apologies for not being able to point you directly to the site. Yours, Genevieve Guenther (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Brock Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 13:22:01 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0147 Qs: Fonts The Illinois Shakespeare Festival offers a free true-type font based on the first folio at the following URL: http://orathost.cfa.ilstu.edu/shakespeare/ISFgift.html It is of limited use as it includes no numerals and few special characters. The spacing of characters is often poor. The accompanying information indicates that further development is in the works. As is, it would perhaps be somewhat useful for titles and promotional materials. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 20:05:13 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0157 Minimal Civility Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0157. Friday, 31 January 1997. From: Kevin J. Donovan Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 15:21:13 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Minimal Civility Am I the only one distressed at the kind of language used in recent postings on Branagh's Iago? I'll probably be attacked as a prig, but I don't think educated scholars should use vulgar obscenities in public, professional discourse. Not everyone has been desensitized to the shock effect of public obscenity (despite the pervasive assaults of pop culture). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 20:27:38 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0158 Re: Iago, Homosexuality, and Psychosis Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0158. Friday, 31 January 1997. (1) From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 13:27:17 -0500 (EST) Subj: Iago (2) From: Lysbeth Benkert-Rasmussen Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 97 14:19:00 CST Subj: RE: SHK 8.0149 Re: Iago, Homosexuality, and Psychosis (3) From: Billy Houck Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 16:23:41 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0149 Re: Iago, Homosexuality, and Psychosis (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 13:27:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Iago I suppose this reveals a native-English-speaker's naivete, but: I've known since I took Spanish in high school that "Diego" is James in Spanish, as in "San Diego," and even "Santiago." But it did not dawn on me until I recently purchased the Anonymous 4's CD of medieval hymns to/about "Sant'Iago" that Iago was James, too. Othello and James. Which leads me to wonder if Truffaut's _Jules and Jim_, even if it is based (my info is from Pauline Kael's, _I Lost It at the Movies_) on an autobiographical novel, might not be seen as a modern reworking of *Othello*, with a Desdemona who WAS adulterous, and despairing? I haven't seen the film in years -- nay, decades. In another thread, we SHAKSPERians have been talking about meaning derived from contexts, or creating contexts. Kael's 35-year-old review of _Jules and Jim_ begins by citing the Legion of Decency's (remember that?) condemnation of the film: "the statement read [she writes]: the story has been developed 'in a context alien to Christian and traditional natural morality.'" The substance of this condemnation aside, I find it interesting that somehow the story ITSELF was not blamed, but THE CONTEXT in which it was "developed." Is this the context created in/by the narrative of the film, or the context of society in the very early '60's, or the particular artists who created it, or ...? There are, of course, no stories (or anything, for that matter) WITHOUT context, but this has always been a slippery area. Moral absolutists always run the risk of tarring themselves with their own brush. Like the old jokes about the vice squad's review of confiscated movies, one wonders if the Legion's members felt they had sinned in screening such a film for review? (They condemned _Baby Doll_, too, leading pastors to denounce it from pulpits across the country.) What part of the "context" could have been changed to make it a "clean" and "moral" story -- one like *Othello*, in which we watch Desdemona die like one of St. Ursula's "virgin martyrs," making it all OK? Just thinking out loud here. Jim Schaefer (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lysbeth Benkert-Rasmussen Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 97 14:19:00 CST Subject: RE: SHK 8.0149 Re: Iago, Homosexuality, and Psychosis On another note, one thing that my students pointed out to me in class discussion was that Iago acts precisely in the way that an abusive husband would act--as anyone who has heard the horror stories of a women's shelter can attest. An abuser is often irrationally jealous (suspecting even the wife who, despite the fact that she is forbidden to leave the house, still gets the crap beat out of her because she didn't answer the phone on the first ring--she must have been in bed with another man) So there is a third option in addition to seeing Iago either as pure evil, or seeing him as gay. Lysbeth Em Benkert Northern State University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 16:23:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0149 Re: Iago, Homosexuality, and Psychosis I had read a review of the new film version of "Othello" that played up Iago's homosexuality before I saw the film...so I was prepared to see this interpretation, BUT IT JUST ISN'T THAT OVERT IN THE FILM. I very unscientifically polled the audience members around me after the film (this was in Berkeley, California...not a real conservative town) and they didn't see it either. I have since shwon a video of this film to a group of hormonally overcharged teenagers, and THEY didn't think Iago was particularly gay. I do agree, however that Iago's final death tableaux was symbolic of some kind of special relationship with Othello, be it sexual, loving, honorable or jealous. I suppose one finds what one goes looking for. Billy Houck Arroyo Grande High School ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 21:08:05 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0160 Re: Ideology (Various) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0160. Friday, 31 January 1997. (1) From: Paul Hawkins Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 14:26:47 -0500 (EST) Subj: The Banality of Shakespeare (2) From: Thomas Bishop Date: Friday, 31 Jan 1997 14:03:11 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0152 Re: Category Genes (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 14:26:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: The Banality of Shakespeare In SHK 8.0096 (21 Jan 97) Gabriel Egan responded to Louis Swilley: "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?)" While I don't necessarily want to revive the relativism debate, and at the risk of being both banal and simplistic, I offer the following response. It strikes me that the overwhelming questions--is Shakespeare the most transcendent writer who ever lived, or is he at the very least transcendent at all, or is someone else, or can anyone be--are really only questions of taste and sensibility. Do we feel, when confronted with the literature and art of the past, alienated from it, separate, distinct? Do we feel a radical discontinuity between "it" and "us"? Presumably, some scholars, critics, teachers, and actors, perhaps traumatized by having Tory ministers recite Shakespeare at them, will always answer those questions, "yes." And some others will always say, "no." Members of the second group might imagine what it would be like to live in Shakespeare's England, or Plato's Athens, will walk among the extant buildings, or the ruins of buildings, or the reconstructions of either place indulging their imagination, and will read the works of either writer feeling themselves their contemporary. In the case of Shakespeare's plays, such readers will participate in the imagination that made them, and will probably feel that the human dramas and flights of language that the plays contain speak vitally and immediately to them, and will sometimes marvel that these things are 400 years old, and will lead their lives comfortably believing that Shakespeare's works, and the past, are alive. To the first group, Shakespeare is time-bound; to the second he can only be timeless. I hope there will always be readers capable of recognizing the merit in both experiences of the text and of the past. Paul Hawkins (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Friday, 31 Jan 1997 14:03:11 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0152 Re: Category Genes Dan Lowenstein writes of the plasticity of categories and the need to maintain different ideas of categories for different purposes that: >The locus classicus for this type >of stuff is George Lakoff's superb book, "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things." It's worth noting that the last chapter of Book 2 of Aristotle's Metaphysics made the same point somewhat earlier. Tom ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 21:16:58 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0162 Places: Elsinore, Brideshead, and Helsingborg Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0162. Friday, 31 January 1997. (1) From: Peter Seary Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 16:57:06 -0500 Subj: Places: Elsinore, Brideshead (2) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 22:10:25 -0500 (EST) Subj: Helsingborg (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Seary Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 16:57:06 -0500 Subject: Places: Elsinore, Brideshead The architect for Blenheim and Castle Howard was the same: Sir John Vanbrugh (1664-1726), the playwright. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 22:10:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: Helsingborg Having been to Elsinore, or Helsingborg as I believe the Danes call it, I was fascinated by details of the town and castle which fit in nicely with the play, and which lead me to believe that Shakespeare and his company really knew the place when they set out to produce Hamlet. To begin with, there's a private spiral staircase which is situated not too far from the great hall, where performances were/are held. Once down those stairs, it's an equally short walk to the castle's Chapel. Hard not to think of Claudius' itinerary after the play when I saw that. In addition, the "arrasses" are not just decrative tapestries; they are portraits of the historic and legendary kings of Denmark, stitched well beyond life-size and hung at that time throughout the castle, by the score. One in particular, King Abel, is a masterpiece; no matter where you are in the room, he appears to be looking at you and walking toward you. This creates quite a few possibilitites for the scene with Gertrude; Hamlet stabs an arrass of his father's image? Thinking his Uncle may be behind it? And uses it in his subsequent diatribe 'look on this, and on this', with his uncle's image only in little and his father's image much, much larger indeed. One more thing; the graveyard at Elsinore is just a few minute's walk from the Castle. In those days, it represented the city limits. There is a large wall separating the graveyard from the rest of town, so that it's an ideal place to meet in private; beyond the graveyard, contemporary drawings indicate nothing but countryside. There's also a high hill there, from which one can look down into the city and castle. I've always wondered why Hamlet and Horatio would just happen to be walking there, after his return from England. The fact that they're also in the potter-s field (where miscreants and comics are buried) makes me wonder even more why there isn't more conversation between the two of them there, to establish the purpose of their walk. These are musings, which helped me to prepare my productions of the past couple years; I'd be curious to see if anyone has been to Elsinore and come away with the same or different impressions. Andy White Arlington, VA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 21:12:46 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0161 Qs: R3 and St. Paul; Scansion Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0161. Friday, 31 January 1997. (1) From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 16:51 ET Subj: Query: R3 and St. Paul (2) From: Dale Coye Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 16:54:06 -0500 (EST) Subj: Scansion Query (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 16:51 ET Subject: Query: R3 and St. Paul As he encounters Henry VI's hearse accompanied by Anne, and threatens the guard with death if they will not set it down, Richard Crookback twice swears by St. Paul. He calls on St. Paul 3 more times in the course of the play (1.3.45, 3.4.76, 5.3.16)--the only character in all the canon who invokes Paul. Can anybody suggest any reasons? The first scene strikes me as a diabolical parody of the road to Damascus--Richard encountering a saintly corpse whose wounds recall Christ's, and receiving not blindness and conversion, but dreadful insight into the hearts of others, which enables him to spread his bad-spel and convert followers to worship him. There might also be a geographical joke--Anne has just stated that the body is being taken from St. Paul's toward London Bridge and Chertsey, and a jerk of the thumb would place the scene in the shadow of the cathedral. But I wonder if there are any customary associations with the name of Paul, or any special allegiance of the historical Richard to this saint, that would account for his invocations. Dave Evett (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Coye Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 16:54:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Scansion Query R2 3.3.18 Reads I know it, uncle, and oppose not myself. Cercignani, Koekeritz, and the OED2 make no mention of oppose being stressed on the last syllable or myself on the first. So how does this scan? Is there an anapest in the fourth foot with oppose carrying the two weak stresses? Also how about RJ 3.2.87 All forsworn, all naught, all dissemblers Was it headless with a broken back? or what? Dale Coye The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Princeton, NJ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 21:03:48 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0159 Re: WT; Quotation; Dover Cliff; Cordelia and the Fool Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0159. Friday, 31 January 1997. (1) From: Dale Lyles Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 13:11:44 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0145 Re: WT Productions (2) From: Michael Friedman Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 14:27:06 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0147 Qs: Quotation (3) From: Michael Skovmand Date: Friday, 31 Jan 1997 12:18:14 MET Subj: Re: SHK 8.0153 Re: Dover Cliff (4) From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Friday, 31 Jan 1997 14:29:23 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0125 Re: Cordelia and the Fool, and Doubling (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 13:11:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0145 Re: WT Productions I don't think I can agree with Edward van Aelstyn's assessment that Hermione's innocence *must* be ambiguous. Shakespeare is usually straightforward about these things, and in WT everyone (including Apollo) tells Leontes he's crazy to think that Hermione is unfaithful. If Leontes is in doubt, no one else in Sicilia is. The difference in WT is that no one is practicing on him as is usual in the other plays about deception. Leontes deceives himself. The theme is not just forgiveness, it's *grace*, which is the unmerited bestowal of forgiveness. I think it works better if Leontes' jealousy is without justification; otherwise, if he had real reason to accuse everyone around him, what's to forgive? And boy I wish I had thought of the statuary garden idea! How beautiful! Did they use the performers, a la Hermione, or did they have actual statues? The latter would seem to me to be a "giveaway" about Hermione. Dale Lyles<---wondering how he would have convinced his 7-year-old son to stay for the end of the show and get back into his costume for the final scene Newnan Community Theatre Company (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1997 14:27:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0147 Qs: Quotation Alan, I'm not sure that the lines of verse to which you refer are quoted from a play. They sound more like a modern allusion to Lady Macbeth's "I have given suck, and know / How tender 'tis to love the babe that milks me" (1.7.54-55). Michael Friedman University of Scranton (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Skovmand Date: Friday, 31 Jan 1997 12:18:14 MET Subject: Re: SHK 8.0153 Re: Dover Cliff To Mary Jane Miller et al., on the cliff in Lear: MJM reiterates Ian Kott's idea from his 'King Lear or Endgame* in *Shakespeare Our Contemporary* to the effect that "in film and in prose there is only the choice between a real stone lying in the sand and and an equally real jump from the top of a chalk cliff into the sea. One cannot transpose Gloster's suicide attempt to the screen, unless one were to film a stage performance."(p.115). Peter Brook, heavily influenced by Kott, took Kott's word for it and did a totally anti-illusionist Dover cliff scene in his 1971 Lear, filmed on the flat sands of Northern Jutland. Interestingly, however, the 1983 TV production, directed by Michael Elliott, featuring Laurence Olivier as Lear, manages to reproduce the theatrical double whammy - and how? Very simply, by keeping the camera on Edgar and Gloucester, without showing the ground they're standing on! As Gloucester hits the ground, Elliott cuts to a high angle shot of G. lying on the flat sands. The camera, in other words, does not have to reproduce the world unambiguously . Its selectivity - in this case not showing the ground - parallels the function of the stage, which can be anything we pronounce it to be. Michael Skovmand U. of Aarhus, Denmark. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Friday, 31 Jan 1997 14:29:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0125 Re: Cordelia and the Fool, and Doubling It would seem that the fool's pining away is conclusive evidence against the fool and Cordelia being the same person, unless one is prepared to believe his behavior is part of an elaborate deception. Is there any example elsewhere in Shakespeare of such an impersonation without Shakespeare giving a clue to it? Cordelia's lines: "...when I shall wed, That lord whose hand must take my plight shall carry Half my love with him..." imply that Cordelia would be mindful of her duties to her husband. The fool and Cordelia have different functions: the fool provides a rational commentary on Lear's actions; Cordelia represents a more than natural saving function, characterized by forgiveness, and leading to reconciliation. Compare the friar in R&J. He provides a rational commentary on Romeo: "Art thou a man? Thy form cries out thou art; Thy tears are womanish; thy wild acts denote The unreasonable fury of a beast....." etc. Note that the friar combines the functions of the fool and Cordelia, providing both a radical commentary and a more than natural attempt to help Romeo and Juliet while bringing about a reconciliation of their families. He fails in one while achieving the other, just as in Lear, Cordelia fails to save Lear on the physical, temporal level, while bringing about personal reconciliation. Cordelia seems to clearly be a Christ figure. Roger Schmeeckle========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 13:06:45 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0163 Re: Civility, Iago, Fonts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0163. Saturday, 1 February 1997. (1) From: Steven Marx Date: Saturday, 01 Feb 1997 08:17:38 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0157 Minimal Civility (2) From: Wes Folkerth Date: Saturday, 01 Feb 1997 00:11:05 -0500 Subj: Iago and Fonts (not related) (3) From: John Velz Date: Saturday, 1 Feb 1997 03:55:23 +0200 Subj: Mataindios (4) From: Peter Paul Schnierer Date: Saturday, 1 Feb 1997 13:07:13 +0100 (MEZ) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0149 Re: Iago, Homosexuality, and Psychosis (5) From: Eric Johnson-DeBaufre Date: Saturday, 1 Feb 1997 10:54:59 -0500 Subj: Re: Iago and Homosexuality (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Marx Date: Saturday, 01 Feb 1997 08:17:38 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0157 Minimal Civility This is another shy vote for "minimal civility." Steven Marx (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wes Folkerth Date: Saturday, 01 Feb 1997 00:11:05 -0500 Subject: Iago and Fonts (not related) Hi all, In response to James Schaefer's note that Iago is Spanish for "James," it could also be noted that St. James was celebrated in medieval times (on the pilgrimage circuit) for -- killing Moors. The best early modern font I've found is Adobe's Caslon series, which includes all the goofy characters, ligatures, and even some of the swashes. I'm not sure if it's available in TrueType format though. Bye for now, Wes Folkerth tfolke@po-box.mcgill.ca (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Saturday, 1 Feb 1997 03:55:23 +0200 Subject: Mataindios Al Cacicedo wrote: >by the way, the good saint [Santiago de Compostella] is sometimes >represented as Santiago Mataindios, Indian-killer. This is in effect synonymous with "Matamoros", as all of North Africa and much of the Levant were sometimes called "India" in sixteenth-century travel books. See, for instance *The Voyage and Travaile of M. Caesar Frederick Into the East India, the Indies, and beyond the Indies* at sig. L3r.17 North Africa and the Middle and Near East are there alluded to as "those parts of India". Sorry I do not have the date of this book handy, but it is mid-to-late 16th c. as I recall it. John Velz (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Paul Schnierer Date: Saturday, 1 Feb 1997 13:07:13 +0100 (MEZ) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0149 Re: Iago, Homosexuality, and Psychosis When I read excerpts of Richard Burt's piece on Iago et al. to my Shakespeare class yesterday there was unanimous admiration for his grasp of early Jacobean anatomy. What is at issue, therefore, is not bad language (although I find myself in agreement with Kevin J Donovan) but an essentially medieval approach that has supplanted scholarship: Take a source text that is sufficiently old and difficult (*Othello*, the *Nicomachean Ethics*, whatever), discuss a de rigueur interpretation of it (Branagh's film, your fellow monks' anatomy of passions, and so on), emphasize what that interpretation could do if it were what it isn't (explicit homosexual acts, Christian virtues extolled to the detriment of others), and locate that in the original. There you are. Aristotle is now a Church Father, and Shakespeare "queer rather than gay". We work by wit, and not by witchcraft. Peter Paul Schnierer (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Johnson-DeBaufre Date: Saturday, 1 Feb 1997 10:54:59 -0500 Subject: Re: Iago and Homosexuality Contrary to Richard Burt's position that "it's gay sex that remains, for some, hardest to imagine," as his own recent post makes manifestly clear it is, in fact, quite easy to imagine even when the sexual behavior in question may signify many other things. It is not, I think, because of any unwillingness or inability to entertain thoughts of Iago's "gayness" that several listmembers have challenged Professor Burt's reading of Branagh's Iago, but that the scenes themselves are somewhat ambiguous and can be read in several ways. For example, Iago's penetration of Emilia from behind---a scene which can, as one person on this list put it, be read as suggesting anal, vaginal or virtual sex---while it could signal Iago's gayness, could also be read as a continuation of the rather bestial vision of sexuality that Iago puts forward from the play's first moments and that are contained in such references to the sexual act as "tupping," "making the beast with two backs," etc. Reading the scene in this way places it within the general coarsening of sexuality that Iago advances and projects onto other characters throughout the play. Of course one could also point out, as I believe that someone else did, that anal sex is not an exclusively nor even a principally gay form of sexual expression, but this is beside the point. It is not that I disagree entirely with Burt's reading, in fact it has given me a lot to think about, only that his reading of these scenes as confirmations of Iago's gayness is not without its problems. But then neither is mine. Eric Johnson-DeBaufre ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:11:55 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0164 Re: Branagh's Hamlet; Iago; Helsingborg Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0164. Monday, 3 February 1997. (1) From: Elizabeth Blye Schmitt Date: Sunday, 2 Feb 1997 12:14:40 -0600 (CST) Subj: Branagh's Hamlet (2) From: H.R. Greenberg Date: Saturday, 1 Feb 1997 19:12:35 -0500 (EST) Subj: Music in "Hamlet" (3) From: Rick Kincaid Date: Saturday, 1 Feb 1997 10:55:21 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Branagh's Othello (4) From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Monday, 03 Feb 97 11:16:00 GMT Subj: Helsingborg and Matamoros (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth Blye Schmitt Date: Sunday, 2 Feb 1997 12:14:40 -0600 (CST) Subject: Branagh's Hamlet My husband and I ventured out early last Sunday morning to see a 10am screening of HAMLET. The overall impression was not just favorable, but astounding. After so many years of seeing various cuts, my brain had trouble ackowledging that, yes, that IS where that speech goes, and that, quite logically, HAMLET makes a lot more sense after SEEING it all together and in the right order. Without spoiling the experience I would like to note that it was nice/pleasant/appreciated to see a)Ophelia deliver the speech about Hamlet with doublet unbraced without benefit of flashback; b)casting Gerard Depardieu as Reynaldo--hey, Laertes is in France, have a Frenchman spy on him; c)having a closet scene without Gertrude literally being jumped on by her son and causing the great Oedipaal debate to break out; d)no shots of Ophelia drifting downstream--although with the snowstorm that was raging outside, it might have been hard to gather those flowers; e)well, I think you get the idea... I would like to know why Branagh felt it necessary to take the "how all occasions do inform against me" speech and turn it into Hamlet's version of St. Crispin's Day. His tendency to go for volume over intimacy was, at times, annoying, but he is the director. I recommend an investment in the companion volume which contains screenplay, introduction (Branagh) and film diary (partial and by Russell Jackson). The cost is $17 and it has lots of photos. Toss up question for the crowd, do you think Branagh's choices for Fortinbras at the end of the fillm may have been influenced by the Ingmar Bergman production (within last 5 to 10 years) where "Go bid the soldiers shoot" was quite literally aimed at Horatio? Elizabeth Schmitt Dallas, TX (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: H.R. Greenberg Date: Saturday, 1 Feb 1997 19:12:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Music in "Hamlet" I haven't been following the "Hamlet" thread, but has there been any mention of the score, especially in comparison with Walton's music for Olivier's film? I have not heard so much bad, bathetic music playing so constantly, and often so loudly underneath a narrative since Hollywood Forties' B pictures. The result was often terribly disruptive, notably in the "How all occasions do inform against me..." soliloquy, set against Fortinbras' troops marching towards Poland, which terminates the film's first section. I do not know whether Branagh intentended it so, but the execrable music was brought up so loud as to virtually drown out this very important speech (at least at the Paris theater in NY).. Perhaps the director intended to further dwarf Hamlet's lame protest against the reality of Fortinbras' "stirring with great intent". Comments on the music in general, and its specific use in the latter instance would be appreciated. H.R. Greenberg (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Kincaid Date: Saturday, 1 Feb 1997 10:55:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Branagh's Othello If I'm not mistaken, Branagh played Iago in the film, but it was not his movie. He did not make the cuts in the text, or direct or edit the film. He was, in this case, an actor playing a role. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Monday, 03 Feb 97 11:16:00 GMT Subject: Helsingborg and Matamoros Barbara Everett, in her book _Young Hamlet: Essays on Shakespeare's Tragedies_, points to similarities between Helsingborg and the Elsinore of the play, including the tapestries of the kings. In the same book, she also discusses the Santiago Matamoros idea at some length. A number of other people have written about the real Helsingborg, perhaps most notably Martin Holmes in _The Guns of Elsinore_. Lisa Hopkins Sheffield Hallam University L.M.Hopkins@shu.ac.uk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:22:52 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0165 Re: Minimal Civility; Difficult Texts Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0165. Monday, 3 February 1997. (1) From: Diana E. Smith Date: Saturday, 1 Feb 1997 14:35:00 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0157 Minimal Civility (2) From: Joanne Walen Date: Sunday, 2 Feb 1997 12:33:42 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0163 Re: Civility, Iago, Fonts (3) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 01 Feb 1997 15:32:31 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0163 Re: Civility, Iago, Fonts (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Diana E. Smith Date: Saturday, 1 Feb 1997 14:35:00 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0157 Minimal Civility No, you are not the only one. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Walen Date: Sunday, 2 Feb 1997 12:33:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0163 Re: Civility, Iago, Fonts Add yet another vote for "minimal civility," or, perhaps, audience- and place-appropriate language choices (public, professional discourse). Joanne Walen (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 01 Feb 1997 15:32:31 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0163 Re: Civility, Iago, Fonts Peter Paul Schnierer writes: >Take a source text that is sufficiently old and >difficult (*Othello*, the *Nicomachean Ethics*, whatever), discuss a de rigueur >interpretation of it (Branagh's film, your fellow monks' anatomy of passions, >and so on), emphasize what that interpretation could do if it were what it >isn't (explicit homosexual acts, Christian virtues extolled to the detriment of >others), and locate that in the original. There you are. Aristotle is now a >Church Father, and Shakespeare "queer rather than gay". How can we be absolutely certain what a difficult text "isn't"? We read from the present; we read everything from the present, including history and literature. So when he make an historical judgment, e.g., "They wouldn't have thought that way in the sixteenth century," we make that judgment according to our interpretation of past douments and/or archaeological sites. And we may be utterly wrong. I'm not trying to say that Renaissance texts mean whatever we now want them to mean, but there are historical limitations to our knowledge of the past. We may be able to draw a circle of limits around a disputed passage, e.g., "This is not about Martians," but we can only guess at the range of readings that may have been given to that passage by Renaissance people. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:41:42 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0167 Re: R3/St.Paul; Cordelia/Fool; Transcendence v. Historicism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0167. Monday, 3 February 1997. (1) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 01 Feb 1997 22:48:20 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0161 R3 and St. Paul (2) From: Syd Kasten Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 00:07:54 +0200 (IST) Subj: Cordelia and the Fool (3) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 3 Feb 97 11:13:20 GMT Subj: Re: Transcendence v. Historicism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 01 Feb 1997 22:48:20 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0161 R3 and St. Paul Regarding Richard III and St. Paul, John Harcourt, "Odde Old Ends, Stolne . . . King Richard and Saint Paul," Shakespeare Studies 7 (1974): 87-100, and Alistair Fox, "Richard III's Pauline Oath: Shakespeare's Response to Thomas More," Moreana 12 (1978): 13-23, comment on Richard III's use of St. Paul. Harcourt points out some interesting parallels. For example, St. Paul was supposed--in legend--to have been crippled. Both articles are noted in James Moore's Garland bibliography of Richard III. Yours, Bill Godshalk (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Syd Kasten Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 00:07:54 +0200 (IST) Subject: Cordelia and the Fool Since fifteen generations of directors and audiences have found the traditional reading of Lear sufficient to provide a gripping and evocative experience, I am grateful not to have been considered completely off the wall in seeing the Fool as Cordelia in disguise. Even the rejoinders have been gentle. I must admit though that the most serious text-based objection has not yet been mentioned. In Act 4 scene iii in which a gentleman describes Cordelia reading a letter, presumably from Kent and uttering comments that imply the events of the expulsion of Lear are new to her: "What, i'the storm? i'the night? Let pity not be believed!" However, this raises another question. A.W. Verity, editor of my highschool edition credits Bradley with "the acute criticism that there is no other character in Shakespeare who, appearing so little and speaking so little, makes so profound an impression". Surely the author could have found a way giving Cordelia a few more lines to show her state of mind without damaging her image of strength. Instead he gave them to an anonymous third party just as he did with the Fools introduction. If 4,iii is ommitted as in the folio version there is no problem. In the following scene when the messenger tells her of the state of her sisters' forces, her answer "T'is known before" refers to the information she has gathered herself. With the previous scene in place we can, according to the standard reading, take her to be referring to the contents of Kent's letter. But why not have her read the letter to us? The answer is, as I suggested in the previous posting, she is just finishing her costume change and isn't available. Thomas Larque and others take issue with my use of the Knight's lines in Act 1, Sc. 4. "Since my young Lady's going into France, Sir, the Fool hath much pined away". Larque says: "This seems to make clear that people knew the Fool BEFORE Cordelia went to France (in order to make the comparison between his moods)." First of all, in commenting that Cordelia was not a stranger to the jester's craft I didn't mean to imply that she was previously the court jester in disguise, only that she was a very good student and was equipped to accomplish the substitution. My estimate of Shakespeare is that, while possessing many words, he is stingy with them. The more I think of it, the knight's comment is a waste of words. In his own lines the Fool makes clear his view of things. Do we need to be told before we see him that he is sad about Cordelia's banishment? We all are! Well, maybe it can help explain his disappearance later on: he died of pneumonia contracted in the storm because of his weakened condition. But then his wasted condition would have to be acted all the way through. Indeed in the Granada production, Michael Elliot gave us our last view of John Hurt the Fool huddled away shivering. But do we really need the knight's comment for that? It seems to me that the concept 'Cordelia as the Fool' gives meaning to the knight's comment. My dictionary gives the following defintion for "pine": "to *waste away* with grief, anxiety, want etc; to *wither*; to desire eagerly." The context does not allow the last usage. Therefore it is clear that the knight is commenting not on the Fool's mood, nor on his behaviour, but on his appearance. He is not pining for anything; he has pined *away*. The Knight, for some reason is commenting on a change in the Fool's body volume. The success of the playwright depends on suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience. We haven't seen the Fool or even thought of him before he is announced, so the comment on his pining away isn't necessary for our acceptance of him. It does not matter to us that he has become slight of body and narrow of shoulder, but once it has dawned on us who is the owner of that body, we might be tempted to ask how come nobody on stage noticed, not the disguise - no one saw through Kent either, - but the fact that the Fool himself ought to look changed to the members of the court. The author has primed us to look for something special about the Fool, to make the discovery ourselves, and has given us the means to accept the acceptance of an altered fool by the other characters. Thomas Larque has also offered an interesting objection based on a lack of formal self-explication. "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." This attractive objection sent me back to the text, and I found once again to my amazement that the author has indeed provided the answer. Look at line 219 of the opening scene: Cordelia: ... If for I want that glib and oily art, To speak and purpose not; *Since what I well intend, I'll do't before I speak*,- Several have wondered how the King of France could allow his wife to return to England unchaperoned and disguised. Ask in any case how he could take off to France, leaving his to wife fight the crucial battle herself. I think France could be the subject of many pages of analysis and conjecture. He personifies right thinking and disinterestedness. He takes Cordelia not for her fortune or her but for her cleaving to the truth: "Thee and thy virtues I seize upon";"...My love should kindle to inflamed respect." "Thy dowerless daughter....is queen of us." This is no mere love talk. He really means it. He has already heard her say that her father will have half her loyalty and her husband the other half, and has accepted those terms. His leaving his forces under Cordelia's command (even though the Marshal of France is left as general, she is clearly in command) shows not only his faith in her but also that he has no designs on English territory. I feel that his assessment of her and the esteem in which he holds her is sufficient to trust her judgment and go along with any plan she might have to protect her father, including infiltration. Derek Wood asks "And would he overlook some of her filthy humour?" Holinshed gives the date of the Cordeilla's accession to "supreme gouernesse of Britaine" as being 54 years "before the bylding of Rome". I would imagine that women in those days were a tougher breed, having not yet been molded to their more fragile and dainty image. Thus I see Cordelia as a proto-Fidelio who uses a cross dressing disguise, not for self preservation, as did Viola and Rosalind, but to infiltrate the enemy camp to get close to her loved one at the risk of personal danger. She has taken the place of the Fool, who has been loyal to her, and who is presumably in France for Rest and Recuperation. Her purpose is not only to watch over her father but to gather information: not only do we have "'Tis known before" of Act 4, scene iv, there is an interesting little by-play in Act 1 Scene iv. After line 305 Lear Kent and attendants exeunt, but not the Fool. Goneril urges him out a few lines later with "You, sir, more knave than fool, after your master." Presumably he has hung back to glean whatever additional intelligence available. Incidentally, this cloak and dagger business brings to mind an other of the sterling cast in the Granada production I referred to (which indeed had Leo McKern as Gloucester). Regan was played by Diana Rigg, who in a previous incarnation was Mrs. Emma Peel, sidekick of Mr. Steed, in the TV Avengers, who weekly put herself in danger (and if rememeber correctly, black leather) for the sake of Good. Thanks for bearing with me. Now back to Iago, WT and categories. Best wishes Syd Kasten (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 3 Feb 97 11:13:20 GMT Subject: Re: Transcendence v. Historicism Paul Hawkins blurs the distinction between transcendence and historicity. He claims that those who don't dismiss transcendence can > imagine what it would be like to live in Shakespeare's England, > or Plato's Athens, will walk among the extant buildings, or the > ruins of buildings, or the reconstructions of either place indulging > their imagination, and will read the works of either writer > feeling themselves their contemporary. In fact those who claim transcendence for the Shakespeare texts have a good reason not to be concerned with reconstructions. Quite the reverse, in fact. If Shakespeare speaks to us down the centuries, if we our already 'his contemporary', then there is no need to reconstruct the material and intellectual context of the plays. One cannot be for transcendence and historicism. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:30:55 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0166 Qs: Parallel Scenes; Music from TN; Non Shakesperean Plays Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0166. Monday, 3 February 1997. (1) From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Saturday, 1 Feb 1997 16:17:13 -0500 Subj: Parallel Scenes (2) From: Jay Johnson Date: Saturday, 1 Feb 1997 15:46:08 -0700 Subj: Music From Twelfth Night (3) From: Michelle Haslem Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 12:49:33 +0000 Subj: Non Shakesperean Plays (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Saturday, 1 Feb 1997 16:17:13 -0500 Subject: Parallel Scenes A friend wants to present two parallel scenes at a spring celebration of Shakespeare for the entire college community. One scene would be from a Shakepeare play and the very same scene would be from a modern offshoot. . In addition to directing student-actors in the two scenes, she would like to show screened versions of the two scenes. What won't work are general offshoots that do not have a close parallel scene. For the modern scene, she will need a script and permission to use it. One obvious choice would be a scene from *Rom.* and a parallel scene from *Westside Story.* Scripts and films are available for both versions. But *Rom* and *West-Side Story* may be too familiar for the intended audience. Her question: what OTHER plays would work? Are there other "sets" where a Shn scene and an offshoot's scene would match? Are scripts available at a reasonable cost? Are videotapes available? If you can suggest not only particular offshoots but also particular scenes, that would be very helpful. Many thanks for your help, Bernice W. Kliman (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jay Johnson Date: Saturday, 1 Feb 1997 15:46:08 -0700 Subject: Music From Twelfth Night I am posting this for a colleague who is not yet a member of this list. Replies should be sent directly to her. >I am currently hunting information on the music of Twelfth Night for an >upcoming production at Bishop's University. Any info on original music >(including recordings, sheet music, or MIDI links) as well as music composed >for the show in any period/place of production would be a big help, as would >research hints (online and otherwise). >It would also be great to hear about the pieces chosen for other 12th Night >productions. Thanks! Laura Roald lauralogic@login.net (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michelle Haslem Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 12:49:33 +0000 Subject: Non Shakesperean Plays I am doing some research on the interchange between court drama / masques and the public theatre. The use of masques and dumb shows in Jacobean tragedies eg. "Women Beware Women" has been extensively discussed - likewise Shakespeare's use of the magic of the masque in his late comedies. I'm looking for some plays by other dramatists which make use of the masque, and don't really know where to begin. I'd be grateful for any suggestions or comments. Michelle Haslem U.C.C / University of Liverpool ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 09:59:26 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0168 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0168. Tuesday, 4 February 1997. (1) From: David Evett Date: Monday, 03 Feb 1997 16:50 ET Subj: SHK 8.0164 Re: Branagh's Hamlet (2) From: Tad Davis Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 14:17:24 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Branagh's Hamlet (3) From: Troy Swartz Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 17:52:29 -0500 Subj: RE: Music in "Hamlet" (4) From: Ed Peschko Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 18:00:46 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0164 Re: Branagh's Hamlet (5) From: Chris Gordon Date: Monday, 3 Feb 97 19:35:32 -0600 Subj: Branagh's Hamlet/music (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 03 Feb 1997 16:50 ET Subject: SHK 8.0164 Re: Branagh's Hamlet I for one loved almost all the theatrical elements of the production, and hated the more overtly cinematic--the Busby Berkeley staging of 1.2, until they got to the speeches and closeups, the not-very-persuasive special effects of the scenes with the Ghost, the first-half close (Greenland's icy shores?--certainly nothing within many leagues of Elsinore), the exiguous violence of Fortinbras' arrival, even the strip-poker approach to the duel, though it gives us a chance to see the results of Branagh's time in the weight-room. And, indeed, all that loud mediocre music. In the aftermath of that wonderfully delicate playing by Robin Williams I was ready to cheer; as I walked out I felt quite cross. Grumpily, Dave Evett (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Davis Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 14:17:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Branagh's Hamlet In a recent SHAKSPER message, Elizabeth Blye Schmitt writes: >I would like to know why Branagh felt it necessary to take the "how all >occasions do inform against me" speech and turn it into Hamlet's version >of St. Crispin's Day. His tendency to go for volume over intimacy was, at >times, annoying, but he is the director. And H. R. Greenberg writes: >I have not heard so much bad, bathetic music playing so constantly, and >often so loudly underneath a narrative since Hollywood Forties' B >pictures. The result was often terribly disruptive, notably in the "How >all occasions do inform against me..." soliloquy, set against >Fortinbras' troops marching towards Poland, which terminates the film's >first section. I've seen the film twice now, and I have to agree with the perception of this one scene. I don't agree with the perception of Branagh as going for volume over intimacy in general, or with the perception of the music as being bad or bathetic in general. But this one scene does not work. Branagh apparently felt the need for a rousing conclusion before the intermission, and his verbal interpretation of the soliloquy and its musical accompaniment reflect that. The music undercuts the emotion of the speech in a jarringly obvious way. As if to emphasize that this scene is somehow out of place, it is (unlike any of the other outdoor scenes) filmed on a stagey indoor set with what appears to be a matte painting in the background. The film has so much visual depth in all its other scenes that the lack of depth in this one is immediately apparent. Personally I wouldn't have minded if Branagh had chopped the whole speech, and ended the first part of the film with Rufus Sewell's wonderfully sinister Fortinbras "going softly on" into the snowy whiteout. There is at least some textual warrant for omitting the speech. I wonder if originally he intended to do so, and then relented to arguments that without it he could be accused of not doing the "whole play"; or if an original filming of the scene on location was found, too late, to have some flaw. As it appears in the movie, the scene looks and feels like an afterthought. But I should also note that this imperfectly rendered scene was my only complaint about the film. I loved it. I liked it even better the second time. I found myself haunted last night by a feeling of the whole: all of its twists and turns compounded into an overwhelming bodily sensation of dignity, loss, and sadness: "A man's life's no more than to say 'one.' ... The readiness is all." I even enjoyed Jack Lemmon's performance as Marcellus: he's gotten bad press, not all of it deserved, or at least not deserved to that degree. No one in the film sticks out as badly as Keanu Reeves in "Much Ado." And whatever the flaws of the other performers, Derek Jacobi's brilliant performance as Claudius is worth the price of admission several times over. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Troy Swartz Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 17:52:29 -0500 Subject: RE: Music in "Hamlet" In regards to the score for Branagh's "Hamlet": Unfortunately I have not seen the film yet, so the next best thing for me to do was to check out the website. It appears that the score was composed by Patrick Doyle. For some, this could be a fortunate event or, for those like me, an unfortunate event. My first encounter with Doyle was his score for "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein". At the time I thought it was excellent. However, after seeing "Dead Again" and "Henry V", I became disenchanted with Doyle's composing ablities. He tends to add too much 'gusto' to events in films that do not warrant such impacting sounds. I can handle the 'gusto' to a degree, but what I cannot handle is the fact that much of Doyle's music sounds the same. However, perhaps this film [Hamlet] is different. Granted, Doyle's music has won awards, but it still does not change the fact that the score is sometimes a bit too overbearing, masking the important events of a film, as well as also seeming to be recycled musical phrases and orchestrations. Well, that's my spiel. I'm sure there are plenty of you out there willing to disagree. >-- Troy Swartz (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Peschko Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 18:00:46 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0164 Re: Branagh's Hamlet >I haven't been following the "Hamlet" thread, but has there been any mention of >the score, especially in comparison with Walton's music for Olivier's film? I >have not heard so much bad, bathetic music playing so constantly, and often so >loudly underneath a narrative since Hollywood Forties' B pictures. The result >was often terribly disruptive, notably in the "How all occasions do inform >against me..." soliloquy, set against Fortinbras' troops marching towards >Poland, which terminates the film's first section. I do not know whether >Branagh intentended it so, but the execrable music was brought up so loud as to >virtually drown out this very important speech (at least at the Paris theater >in NY).. Perhaps the director intended to further dwarf Hamlet's lame protest >against the reality of Fortinbras' "stirring with great intent". Comments on >the music in general, and its specific use in the latter instance would be >appreciated. > > H.R. Greenberg Yeah... I thought that the music was overblown a bit -- and it kind of 'got in the way' of me enjoying the movie on the second viewing. Except for two places. One -- the scene with the second gravedigger, and the 'to be' soliloqy. In both cases, the music worked because it didn't take control of the scene, and was more of an 'undercurrent'. I tended to look at this version of Hamlet as sort of 'Hamlet Squared'. Most live performances I've seen, the actor who plays Hamlet kind of 'winds down' due to the emotional intensity of the role. In the movie, Branagh could go full-tilt the entire time (along with everybody else). Kind of exhausting... Ed (PS: I don't know about anybody else -- but I thought that Branagh's radio recording of Hamlet -- available from the BBC -- is much more subtle, and much better read overall. Although I *was* rather more fond of Kate Winslet's Ophelia, and the 'play within the play'. Anybody else wish to compare the two? (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Gordon Date: Monday, 3 Feb 97 19:35:32 -0600 Subject: Branagh's Hamlet/music I have to admit that I too was disappointed with the setting of Hamlet's "How all occasions" soliloquy when I saw the film; a discussion with my colleague Kris Michaelson today, however, made me reconsider: Kris is bright and well-read, but not especially knowledgeable about Shakespeare or _Hamlet_; her reading of the film was that one of the main points had to do with the futility of revenge, and she saw this scene as pointing that up by the very way in which it made Hamlet into a nearly insignificant figure in a vast landscape. I found that a very nice reading indeed; I have no idea whether that was a point Mr. Branagh was trying to make (since I, too, saw the scene as a somewhat overindulgent replay of the St. Crispin's day speech in _Henry V_), but her response did make me pause. As to the music: I must confess that I speak as a huge fan of Patrick Doyle (who, in addition to scoring Branagh's work, composed the scores for _Indochine_, _Into the West_, and _Sense and Sensibility_, among others). I had been listening to the soundtrack for more than a month before I saw the film and found it absolutely compelling. I thought the music in the film was used extremely well overall, though I thought it was overdone in the scene above. It's important to remember, however, that the composer is not the final arbiter of how the music is used, so if blame must be laid in this case, it must be laid at Mr. Branagh's feet. I've managed to see the film three times in two weeks, and still think it brilliant overall. Chris Gordon ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 10:40:52 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0169 Draft Texts on the Internet Shakespeare Editions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0169. Tuesday, 4 February 1997. From: Michael Best Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 12:19:57 -0800 Subject: Draft Texts on the Internet Shakespeare Editions Members of SHAKSPER will be interested to know that draft electronic versions of a number of early quarto and folio texts are now available from the site of the Internet Shakespeare Editions. The texts are available for teaching purposes, and can be downloaded in either HTML format as you browse, or as text files in what is variously known as "Interchange Format," "Rich Text Format," or "RTF" by ftp. Most word processors should be able translate the text files to provide basic formatting. The site for the Internet Shakespeare Editions uses the metaphor of a library as a principle of organization: From the *Foyer* you can access discussions about the aims of the ISE texts, a list of the Editorial Board, and some material on the principles of tagging that are being employed. The *Library* will contain the final editions (nothing there yet). All material in this section will be refereed. The *Annex* is an area for informal discussion and the posting of useful, but unrefereed materials. This is where the current texts can be found. We have chosen texts that are most likely to be useful for teaching: _Romeo and Juliet_ Quarto 1 Quarto 2 Folio _Hamlet_ Quarto 1 Quarto 2 Folio _King Lear_ Quarto 1 Folio The HTML formatting has been done automatically from draft texts tagged for the ISE editions. The Folio texts of _Hamlet_ and _Lear_ are linked to the graphic images of the Folio now available from the University of Pennsylvania. The texts in RTF format are available from . I welcome comments and corrections. Michael Best Department of English, University of Victoria Victoria B.C. V8W 3W1, Canada. (250) 598-9575 Coordinating Editor, Internet Shakespeare Editions ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:11:22 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0170 Re: Ideology Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0170. Tuesday, 4 February 1997. (1) From: David M. Richman Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 10:44:05 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0160 Re: Ideology (Various) (2) From: David Evett Date: Tuesday, 04 Feb 1997 12:40 ET Subj: SHK 8.0167 Re: R3/St.Paul; Cord (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M. Richman Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 10:44:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0160 Re: Ideology (Various) Oscar Wilde observed in *The Truth of Masks*, an essay that has interesting things to say about Shakespearean costume, that"a truth in art in one whose contradiction is also true." I have always read Ben Jonson's elegy as articulating two counter truths about Shakespeare. "Soul of an age" and "He was not of an age, but for all time." Jonson's imaginative response to the ancient writers was different from Shakespeare's, as Jonson was the first and last to remind his readers. After years in academic theatre, I still hold to the notion that Shakespeare's ability to hold the attention of audiences and readers of many times, places, cultures, and premises, suggests that there are things in his plays (we can debate over their nature and number) that do indeed leap beyond his time, place, and material circumstances. David Richman University of New Hampshire (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Tuesday, 04 Feb 1997 12:40 ET Subject: SHK 8.0167 Re: R3/St.Paul; Cord Paul Hawkins' division of readers into A and B, and even more so Gabriel Egan's response to it, polarize radically a field that like the iron filings on the paper above the magnet, has centers of density that are, nonetheless, connected by lines of force. There is a substratum of human bio-social uniformity from which all those infinitely various local inflections arise. A speech such as Leontes' "O, she's warm! / If this be magic, let it be an art / Lawful as eating" works through 5 substantives (she, warm, art, law, eating) that must have counterparts in any natural language and significance in the constructs of any human culture; I am nearly convinced that the sixth, magic, also belongs in the list. There are others (death/life, art/not art, the alienation and reconciliation of lovers) in the context that must be equally recognizable. They are grammatically and rhetorically and culturally inflected, of course--in many cultures there would be no question of the lawfulness of magic. I see no way to deny that the emotional force of the line resides chiefly in the collocation of so many powerful terms, which reach us across 4 centuries with unabated force--even while its intellectual appeal may reside in the historically conditioned difference between early modern and later modern attitudes toward magic, the place of the speech in the complex sexual and familial and political dynamics of the scene and play as a whole, maybe even the increasing archaism of "If this be" and "let it be" and the increased connotations of informality of the contraction "She's" for modern readers and audiences. I see no unbridgeable gulf here or elsewhere between transcendental and historical, but a dispersal of interest and emphasis varying with different features of the texts. I am also persuaded that Shakespeare commands our continued attention because the transcendental elements occur more frequently, and are grouped (as here) in more deeply urgent sets, than in other writers--which attracts us, then, to note and become curious about the historically distanced elements. Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:32:10 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0171 Qs: Jn. Film; Osric's Eggshell; Kline's Ham.; Brooks Lr. Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0171. Tuesday, 4 February 1997. (1) From: Malcolm Keithley Date: Monday, 03 Feb 1997 17:36:49 -0800 Subj: King John Film (2) From: Jameela Ann Lares Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 15:07:28 -0600 (CST) Subj: Osric's Eggshell (3) From: Sarah Werner Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 16:46:30 -0500 (EST) Subj: Kline Hamlet (4) From: Benjamin Sher Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 17:08:41 -0500 (EST) Subj: Peter Brooks' King Lear -- Video (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Malcolm Keithley Date: Monday, 03 Feb 1997 17:36:49 -0800 Subject: King John Film I am searching for information about the newly "discovered" 1899 film of "King John" by UK director Herbert Beerbohn-Tree. I recall some news about the film, but cannot find my original notes. Can someone help me with this? Thank you. Malcolm Keithley (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jameela Ann Lares Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 15:07:28 -0600 (CST) Subject: Osric's Eggshell Was there any particular style of hat intended for Osric in _Hamlet_ 5.2? Jameela Lares Univ. of So. Miss. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Werner Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 16:46:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Kline Hamlet In 1990 PBS broadcast a version of Hamlet directed by and starring Kevin Kline (based on his stage production of the play). I'd like to teach this to my students, but am having difficulty tracking down a video of it. Does anyone know where I could turn it up? Much thanks, Sarah Werner University of Pennsylvania swerner@english.upenn.edu (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Benjamin Sher Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 17:08:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Peter Brooks' King Lear -- Video Dear Everyone: Could someone help me find a copy of Brooks' 1971 King Lear with Paul Scofield? Several members of Shaksper were kind enough to suggest Writing.com and Facets, and yes, I found several other Shakespeare movies I wanted, but Brooks' King Lear is NO LONGER AVAILABLE from the distributors. Would someone have an extra copy they could sell me. Please no second generation copies. It must be the original. Thank you all so very much. Benjamin Sher sher07@bellsouth.net ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:46:53 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0172 Re: Cordelia and the Fool Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0172. Tuesday, 4 February 1997. (1) From: Thomas Larque Date: Tuesday, 04 Feb 1997 00:41:02 -0800 Subj: Re : Cordelia / Fool (2) From: Paul Campbell Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 10:16:13 +0800 Subj: Cordelia and the Fool (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Larque Date: Tuesday, 04 Feb 1997 00:41:02 -0800 Subject: Re : Cordelia / Fool I have enjoyed our discussion on Cordelia and the Fool, and am grateful to Syd Kasten for responding in such detail to my posting. I have to say that I am still firmly convinced that Cordelia cannot possibly have been meant to disguise herself as the Fool. There are still some major problems which Kasten has not overcome. In the first place Sid Kasten's arguments about Cordelia replacing the original (never seen) Fool, just do not sound right. No other character that I can think of in Shakespeare's plays disguises themselves as a real person (with the exception of the occasional bed trick - conveniently obscured by the darkness of the bed chamber). Shakespeare's characters cross-dress and take on false identities, but they do not impersonate other people - as far as I can remember. It is just possible that Lear's court would fail to recognise Kent or Edgar when smothered in mud or "Razed" (shaven?). It seems rather more likely that they would notice if the Fool they had all known for some time had suddenly shrunk, and turned into an entirely different person. Besides, if Cordelia and the Fool were being played by one actor, it would be a boy actor - so there is no reason to believe that the Fool (always referred to as boy) would have shrunk in any case. In the cross-dressing plays the woman in boy's disguise is often told how young and feminine she looks - the deceived viewer confusing feminine beauty with boyish youthfulness. The Fool must have been a boy if Cordelia is able to impersonate him successfully, so a change of stature would be unecessary. Even if we can interpret Cordelia's "I'll do't before I speak" as her announcement that she will return disguised, I fail to see how any audience (watching a live production of the play, and not already knowing of the Fool's later role) could possibly understand it as such. Most would have forgotten the line long before the Fool returned. Only when we have our texts open in front of us can we make textual analyses of this kind, and this strongly suggests that they are incorrect. Syd Kasten himself had to go "back to the text" to find this line, and in performance (with an audience that lacks both a written text, and a foreknowledge of the play) it would have been quite impossible to make this interpretation. If a theatre audience could not understand the hidden meaning of this line, it would be a very bad playwright who gave it such importance. In addition, Edgar and Kent (as Poor Tom and Caius) do not stop after their initial "I am disguising myself" speeches. Afterwards, they frequently step out of their assumed roles to speak soliloquies and asides in their own characters. These remind the audience that Poor Tom and Caius are Edgar and Kent in disguise, and - more importantly - allow us to eavesdrop on the genuine characters' thoughts and feelings. Which is surely the entire point of a play. If Shakespeare HAD intended Cordelia to disguise herself, she would be the single most important disguised character within the play. A daughter's loyalty is far more important (and intimate) than the loyalty of a subject; and Cordelia is central to the MAIN plot, while Edgar is only central to the SUB-plot. Why do we not get any speeches from the disguised Cordelia about how painful it is to watch her father suffering in this way? The Fool provides a running commentary, but he often seems to mock and echo rather than openly sympathise with Lear. Poor Tom behaves similarly, competing with Lear in madness, but beneath his disguise (despite not even being related to the King) Edgar is deeply moved - and turns aside to let the audience know this. "My tears begin to take his part so much, / They mar my counterfeiting" (3.6.59-60). At the end of the scene, Edgar turns to us again and gives us another (fairly long) soliloquay about his disguised state. If Cordelia were disguised and present, I would personally be much more interested to hear what SHE had to say about her father's suffering. The fact that we hear from Edgar instead seems to prove fairly conclusively that she isn't there. We also lack any sort of explanation for Cordelia's strange behaviour (dressing up as the jester). Edgar explains (when disguised and fooling his father) "Why I do trifle thus with his despair / Is done to cure it" (4.6.32-33), similarly Kent at his first appearance explains the reasons for his disguise - "my good intent / May carry through itself ... / thy master, whom thou lov'st, / Shall find thee full of labours" (1.4.2-7). Even if the audience knew that Cordelia had disguised herself as the Fool, they would want an explanation as to why she had done it. Some might be able to guess, but many would have been left puzzled (and therefore, probably discontented) throughout the rest of the play. Again, this would be a bad move for any experienced playwright. If Cordelia's love and duty to her father was such that she was willing to undergo such a degradation (changing from female princess to a hireling boy) Shakespeare would have been missing a chance for some wonderful lines about it. Besides, this would have become one of the most important aspects of the entire play - and it is extremely unlikely that Shakespeare would simply ignore it within his text. There are still many problems with the marriage to France, also. Theoretically there is no reason (from a modern point of view) that France should not allow his bride to wander unaccompanied disguised as a boy around a violent and increasingly dangerous country. However, I suspect that a Renaissance audience would have expected him to make sure that his wife was accompanied by at least one servant / bodyguard. In the earlier (anonymous) play version of the Lear story KING LEIR, the King of France (the Gallian King) is himself disguised as a pilgrim when he meets Cordelia (Cordella), but is of course accompanied by one of his courtiers (Mumford - also in disguise) as befits his Royal rank. From a Renaissance perspective, it would be a poor husband (let alone a King) who let his wife wander into danger without company or protection. Also a Renaissance marriage was no marriage unless it was consummated. It is possible that France (who apparently left "in choler" the next day) could consummate his marriage in that one night, but would he then leave his wife (perhaps pregnant) to play the part of a young boy? She would risk not only the dangers of unsupervised childbirth, but - after a few months - fairly rapid discovery. If Syd Kasten is right, of course, France's "choler" suggests that he was not quite as happy at leaving his wife behind in England as Kasten suggests he would be. This may all seem to stray towards the "How many children did Lady Macbeth have?" school of criticism, but this sort of speculation is only an addition to the firmer text and performance based arguments we have already discussed. Kasten compares Cordelia's actions to those of Rosalind, Viola etc. These other examples of women disguised as boys certainly show that Shakespeare would have been very happy to use a cross-dressing Cordelia / Fool if he had wanted to - but all these women make very clear that they are putting on disguises, discuss their feelings about their disguised state ("disguise, thou art a wickedness" - Viola, quoted from memory) and make continual asides and comments in their own characters. Cordelia, if she was one of their number, should have done the same. Like Syd Kasten, I disagree with Derek Wood's suggestion that Cordelia would not be allowed to make dirty jokes. Rosalind and Portia crack enough of them, and I don't think we can question either of their reputations for maidenly virtue. (Or perhaps we can. Any comments anybody?) However Kasten's response, suggesting that Cordelia's pre-Roman heritage might explain such earthiness, is a little far fetched. Whenever Shakespeare set his plays, they were all written for Renaissance audiences who interpreted them on the basis of their own time's morality and social expectations. In the same way that many of Shakespeare's foreign characters seem suspiciously English in their behaviour, Cordelia is (I feel) very much a Renaissance woman. Yours, Thomas Larque (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Campbell Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 10:16:13 +0800 Subject: Cordelia and the Fool >First of all, in commenting that Cordelia was not a stranger to the jester's craft I didn't mean to imply that she was previously the court jester in disguise... >It seems to me that the concept 'Cordelia as the Fool' gives meaning to the knight's comment. Without necessarily getting into the issue of theatrical doubling, it seems to me that the fool and Cordelia do have much in common. Or to be more precise, that Cordelia's refusal to flatter and her blunt truth-telling early in the play are true to the traditional 'office' of the fool. Ben Jonson provides an apt description of 'the fool' in Volpone: "Fools, they are the only nation/ Worth men's envy, or admiration;/...All they speak or do is sterling./ ...And he speaks truth, free from slaughter"(I.ii.66-75) Thus the role of the fool, apart from playing the entertainer, is to speak the truth (supposedly free repercussions (slaughter)). I wonder whether we might simply read the Knight's comments: "Since my young Lady's going into France, Sir, the Fool hath much pined away" (I.iv.72) as suggesting that since Cordelia's banishment there is less 'truth' being spoken in Lear's court? Paul Campbell ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:52:09 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0173 Re: Parallel Scenes Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0173. Tuesday, 4 February 1997. (1) From: C. David Frankel Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 20:55:02 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0166 Qs: Parallel Scenes (2) From: Hugh Davis Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 21:28:26 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0166 Qs: Parallel Scenes (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 20:55:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0166 Qs: Parallel Scenes If you're doing musicals, there's lots to work with, of course: Kiss Me Kate, The Boys from Syracuse among others. Although not exact parallels, I think that Phillip Barry's _Philadelphia Story_ contains echoes of _A Midsummer Night's Dream_. As for music for 12th Night, David Amram wrote incidental music for the play which he later developed into an opera; the setting for "And that I was and a tiny little boy. . . ." particularly sticks in my mind for its wistful melancholy. cdf C. David Frankel University of South Florida (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hugh Davis Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 21:28:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0166 Qs: Parallel Scenes On the subject of parallel scenes, I suggest using comparable scenes from Chimes at Midnight by Welles (the script is available in Rutgers Films in Print series) and Van Sant's My Own Private Idaho (I know a "Script City" script is out there; there may be others). The trouble might come in trying to get tapes of both. Chimes can be hard to grab at times. I'm currently working on a thesis on both these films, and I'd be interested in what you might do with them. --Hugh Davis UNC-Chapel Hill ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:57:45 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0174 Re: Civility; Elsinore; R3 and St. Paul Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0174. Tuesday, 4 February 1997. (1) From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 17:33:03 +1100 (EST) Subj: Re: Minimal? Civility? (2) From: Michael Skovmand Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 11:18:20 MET Subj: Re: SHK 8.0164 Re: Helsingborg (3) From: Jesus Cora Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 17:53:20 UTC+0100 Subj: SHK 8.0161 Qs: R3 and St. Paul (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 17:33:03 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: Minimal? Civility? I enjoyed both the posting and the language it was written in. One vote in favour from Australia. Let's not forget that what constitutes civility and the idea of civility itself are also culturally determined. In an academic context we can surely agree not to get bogged down in unseemly bienseance. SHAKSPER/Shakespeare is neither the court of Louis XIV (or thankfully any other king) nor the dining room of Hyacinth Bouquet. (Do you think I meant count...ry matters? O Seigneur Dieu, ils sont les mots de son mauvais, corruptible, grosse et impudique, et non pour les Dames d'Honneur d'user. Tut tut.) Adrian Kiernander (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Skovmand Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 11:18:20 MET Subject: Re: SHK 8.0164 Re: Helsingborg Allow me , as a Dane to the country born, to make a few corrections in the discussion about Elsinore Castle: Elsinore (Castle) is *not* Helsingborg (the Swedish city across the Sound) but Helsingcr (with the Danish crossed o) (Slot). Helsingcr Slot, built in the 1580's, has no "dreadful summit of the cliff/That beetles o'er his base into the sea" (Ham.I.4.70-71) - the beach area north and east of the castle is fairly flat. It was a heavily fortified castle whose cannon would cover the northern entrance to the Sound - the passage where the custom duties (the so- called yenresundstold) were collected. To my knowledge, the tapestries now hanging at Elsinore are not part of the original castle - the castle was sacked by the Swedes, and most of the original tapestries, paintings etc. are still in Sweden. Michael Skovmand Dep't of English U. of Aarhus. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Monday, 3 Feb 1997 17:53:20 UTC+0100 Subject: SHK 8.0161 Qs: R3 and St. Paul Dear David Evett, I can't recall the exact reference as I haven't got my Bible with me right now, but wasn't it St. Paul who said "It is better to marry than to burn." That would be a link with his wooing of Anne. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 16:00:16 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0175 Fahrenheit Theatre Company's Romeo and Juliet Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0175. Tuesday, 4 February 1997. From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 03 Feb 1997 22:29:32 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0166 Fahrenheit Theatre Company's Romeo and Juliet Fahrenheit's production of Romeo and Juliet will open at the Jarson-Kaplan Theater in the Aronoff Center for the Arts in beautiful downtown Cincinnati (Walnut Street between 6th and 7th Streets) on Thursday, February 6, at 8:00 PM. The show is directed by Warner Crocker, Artistic Director of Pegasus Players in Chicago, and features dueling Juliets: Marni and Lisa Penning. It runs until February 16, Wed-Sat 8PM, Sun 7PM, Sat matinee 2PM. For more information check: http://www.iac.net/~marjason. For tickets call 513-214-SHOW. Yours, Bill Godshalk========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:22:38 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0176 Milton Transcription Project Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0176. Friday, 7 February 1997. From: A.E.B. Coldiron Date: Monday, 03 Feb 1997 08:15:16 -0500 Subject: Milton Transcription Project (Please cross-post this call for volunteers.) Dear Readers of SHAKSPER, THE MILTON TRANSCRIPTION PROJECT (MTP) is dedicated to making all of John Milton's poetry and prose available for public access on the Internet. Although most of Milton's poetry is available in modernized forms, the MTP is preparing more accurate electronic facsimiles of the early editions of Milton's poems. In addition, most of the English and Latin prose--along with a great deal of fascinating Miltoniana--remains to be done. We invite you to join us in providing accurate scholarly transcriptions of these texts. Volunteers may transcribe as much or as little as they wish; each transcription will be proofread, formatted, checked, and refereed. We shall acknowledge any significant contribution, and all accepted transcriptions will be credited by name. The MTP, currently supported by Milton-L, _Milton Quarterly_, the Department of English at Texas Tech University, the Computer Writing and Research Laboratory at the University of Texas at Austin, and the University of Richmond's web-server, is the joint creation of volunteers from more than 24 colleges and universities in half a dozen countries. In order to volunteer or to receive more information, please contact either Professor Hugh Wilson (MTP Editor; dithw@ttacs.ttu.edu) or Professor A.E.B. Coldiron, (MTP Internet Liaison; coldiron@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu). The only requirements are diligence, concern for accuracy, and the ability to type with one or more fingers. Volunteer: earn the intangible reward of "those whose publisht labours advance the good of mankind" (_Areopagitica_, 1644). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:31:52 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0177 Re: Ideology (Various) Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0177. Friday, 7 February 1997. (1) From: Paul Hawkins Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 14:11:02 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0167 Transcendence and History (2) From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 05 Feb 1997 10:12:43 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0167 Re: Transcendence v. Historicism (3) From: Ed Pixley Date: Wednesday, 05 Feb 1997 14:51:04 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0152 Re: Ideology: Category Genes (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 14:11:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0167 Transcendence and History In order to maintain his position (which for convenience he labels in his recent post generically "historicism"), Gabriel Egan seems to need to convert defenders of Shakespeare's transcendence into deniers of history. I am sorry not to oblige him. The distinction in my post is between different relationships to history, one that seems to mark those who claim that Shakespeare is time-bound, one that I imagine underpins those who affirm Shakespeare's timelessness. To assert that Shakespeare transcends his time does not mean that one denies he was there in the first place. And it sets no limit on one's curiosity about the past or one's belief in its critical importance. Similarly, to believe in "common humanity," "human nature," "human universals," is not to deny cultural difference. Paul Hawkins (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 05 Feb 1997 10:12:43 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0167 Re: Transcendence v. Historicism > One cannot be for transcendence and historicism. Actually, Gabriel, Sartre's view of consciousness transcending itself proceeds by a rather linear process from Heidegger's insistence on the historicity of Dasein. Cheers, Sean. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pixley Date: Wednesday, 05 Feb 1997 14:51:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0152 Re: Ideology: Category Genes Thank you Dan Lowenstein for a clear and concise description of the relationship between ideas and the plays which embody them. I was also intrigued by your comparison to the field of law. However, you may want to be aware that teachers have other reasons for highlighting "bits and pieces" of Shakespeare in the classroom, as opposed to always dealing with whole plays, than to focus on the ideas revealed in those "bits and pieces." One may do it to examine a particular dramaturgical technique. I, for example, frequently focus on the events surrounding the murder of Duncan to explore what effects are achieved by Shakespeare's curious plotting choice of not staging the killing, the single event of the story which cannot be omitted and still retain the essence of the story. By doing so, with a play which most of my students already know, my students can readily see how the artist's choice of what to show and what to tell about allows him to direct our attention not to the killing but to the mind of the person doing the killing. I might also take a scene to explore varieties of ways of staging the scene and what values are derived through such choices. I frequently devote a class period or more to language, choosing scenes which provide prose, blank verse, rhymed couplets, and mixtures, scenes with stichomythia,assonance, alliteration, etc., as well as commonplaces and soliloquys. I'm sure others could provide you with many more values to be gained from a "bits and pieces" approach. Nevertheless, I thank you again for a well stated position on the play/idea relationship. Ed Pixley SUNY-Oneonta ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:05:40 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0178 Various Announcements Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0178. Friday, 7 February 1997. (1) From: Karen Bamford Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 13:24:41 -0400 Subj: Call for Papers (2) From: Irene Ludman Date: Wednesday, 5 Feb 1997 13:23:29 GMT Subj: CALL FOR PAPERS : IWCS'97 (3) From: Libby G Bradford Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 19:30:58 -0500 (EST) Subj: CFP: Conference on Gender (4) From: Alan Dessen Date: Wednesday, 5 Feb 1997 08:08:12 -0500 (EST) Subj: ACTER Currently in Illinois (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Bamford Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 13:24:41 -0400 Subject: Call for Papers ************ CALL FOR PAPERS ********** Proposed topic for a special session at the MLA Convention in Toronto, Dec. 1997: *War and Gender in the Plays of John Fletcher* How does Fletcher represent gender--including the eroticization of male bonds--in relation to the military world? 2-page proposals or 12-page papers by 15 March. (PLEASE CROSS-POST) Karen Bamford Mount Allison University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Irene Ludman Date: Wednesday, 5 Feb 1997 13:23:29 GMT Subject: CALL FOR PAPERS : IWCS'97 CALL FOR PAPERS 1st INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON COMPUTATIONAL SEMIOTICS 26th - 27th May, 1997 Pôle Universitaire Léonard de Vinci PARIS - LA DEFENSE - FRANCE TOPICS SEMIOTICS OF TEXT : Suzanne Bertrand-Gastaldy, University of Montreal Computers are increasingly used to assist text analysis for cognitive, literary, anthropological, sociological, documentary, etc. research. The workshop will focus on actual realisations, on the possibilities and limits of methodologies and existing tools to take into account the complex and multidimensional nature of texts, allowing multiple points of views for a variety of user needs. Issues such as desirable features of text analysis software, robustness and conviviality of implantations, interaction between corpora and users, constraints that actual tools put upon kinds of analyses and coding choices, the ability to elaborate models of electronic analytical tools suited to different semiotic theories, semiotical foundations of markup languages are examples of possible debates. SEMIOMETHODOLOGY : Claude Vogel, Léonard de Vinci University Several genres are currently under investigation for semiotic studies : electronic mail, news, corporate information, Web publishing. The flood of full text is overflowing semantic analysis, and this major paradigm break leads us to reconsider our approach of text processing. The size of these new corpora, the lack of consistency of information, the physical scattering of the basic units of texts, make the classical documentary solutions very uncomfortable. Instead, the semiotic based analysis seems to be a highly compelling perspective. It is focused on chronology; it provides a way to build transitive narratives throughout large amounts of data, and it does not require the understanding of the details of each local grammatical sentence in order for a global plot to be elaborated. This promising trend may give a second wind to ethnomethodology. For this reason, it is more appropriate to use the term "semiomethodology" when evoking this attempt to rationalize the computational approach of the symbolic dynamics which underlie collaborative production. ORGANIZATIONAL SEMIOTICS : Kathleen Carley, Carnegie Mellon University Organizational semiotics is the semiotics of organizations and organizational dimensions of textual semiotics. The objective of this workshop is to define the boundaries of this new specialty. Specifically, we will address the issue of : "How can semiotic analysis of interpersonal and corporate exchanges be used to reveal, evaluate, and contrast the underlying organizational logics and changes in these logics over time ?" Recent advances in textual analysis are facilitating this endeavor and creating new opportunities for understanding organizational behavior. Critical issues in the area of organizational semiotics include : 1) how to quickly and reliably analyze large quantities of texts, 2) how to reduce textual data to an empirical form that can be combined with other types of data and analyzed statistically, 3) how to identify corporate texts (those representing the "view" of the organization as an entity) and address issues of authorship, and 4) how to identify institutional constraints on the production and maintenance of corporate texts. New and innovative computational methods for empirically analyzing texts are being developed to address these and related concerns. These techniques have the potential to move textual analysis beyond counting words or locating a few themes or concepts. This section will focus on the issues involved in performing organizational semiotics with particular attention to the new computationally based techniques for facilitating organizational analysis that increase the ease, speed or reliability of coding texts and generate information that can be analyzed statistically. BIOSEMIOTICS : Jean-Claude Heudin, Léonard de Vinci University Recently, algorithms and architectures based on models derived from biological systems have been receiving an increasing amount of interest. This section will explore how such new approaches and techniques could be used for managing large amount of information exchanges on Internet or Intranet. Topics of particular interest include, but are not limited to, applications of agent-based systems, autonomous and evolving agents, genetic algorithms and programming, neural networks, cellular automata etc. to text stream analysis and in the more general framework of semiotics analysis. SUBMISSION OF PAPERS Send four copies of an abstract (approximately 500 words) in english or email it to : Irène Ludman - IWCS'97 Pôle Universitaire Léonard de Vinci 92916 PARIS-LA DEFENSE-CEDEX, FRANCE Phone: (33) 01 41 16 73 05 Fax : (33) 01 41 16 73 35 Email : irene.ludmann@devinci.fr DEADLINES Submission of abstracts by 1st April 1997 Acceptance notification to authors by 15th April 1997 Submission of full papers by 12th May 1997 ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Claude Vogel (chairman) Suzanne Bertrand-Gastaldy Kathleen Carley Jean-Claude Heudin PROGRAM COMMITTE Pierre Boudon (canada) Guillaume Deffuant (France) Evelyne Lutton (France) Joe Porac (USA) Carl Roberts (USA) J. Sebeok (Canada) Peter Stockinger (France) Bill Turner (France) For more information please visit the following Web page : http://www.devinci.fr/home/actua.htm (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Libby G Bradford Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 19:30:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: CFP: Conference on Gender The Center for Gender Studies at Radford University cordially invites you and your colleagues to attend our Second Annual Student Research Conference on Gender. The conference will include presentations by both undergraduate and graduate students, and is multi-disciplinary, centering on issues and knowledge related to gender. Submissions on research concerning gender in ALL academic fields are invited for papers, posters, and symposia for the upcoming Student Research Conference. The aims of the conference are to showcase the excellent research that students are doing, to provide students with the opportunity to receive feedback on their work, and to give all of us the opportunity to share information about current research on gender. For consideration, please send THREE copies of a completed proposal cover sheet AND of a 500-700 word abstract postmarked by FEBRUARY 14, 1997 to: Student Research Conference The Center for Gender Studies Box 6946 Radford University Radford, VA 24142 For more information and copies of the proposal cover sheet and registration forms, please contact us at (540)831-6129 or (540)831-6644 or you may E-mail us at: adelling@runet.edu or hlips@runet.edu Thanks for your interest and we hope to see you at the conference at Radford University on April 12, 1997!!! (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Dessen Date: Wednesday, 5 Feb 1997 08:08:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: ACTER Currently in Illinois The 1997 Spring Tour of ACTER's *Romeo and Juliet* is currently at Illinois Wesleyan University with performances Feb. 6-8 (Thurs-Sat); contact Jared Brown at jbrown@titan.iwu.edu or 309-556-3011 for info. Feb. 10-16 they will be at Western Illinois with performances Feb. 13-15 (Thurs-Sat). Contact Gene Kozlowski at 309-298-1543 for info. Feb. 17-23 they will perform at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, MI Feb. 19, 21, and 22 (Wed. Fri., Sat.). for more info on the tour, email csdessen@email.unc.edu or look at our website: http://www.unc.edu/depts/acter/ This production of *Romeo and Juliet* is passionate and inventive even by ACTER's standards. Our audience here was full of middle-high schoolers who responded to the high energy level of all the actors with a standing ovation. Don't miss it! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:27:32 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0179 Re: Parallel Scenes; Drab; Branagh's *Ham*; Osric's Hat Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0179. Friday, 7 February 1997. (1) From: Norman J. Myers Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 10:06:38 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0166 Parallel Scenes (2) From: Paul Worley Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 23:45:31 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0124 Re: A Very Drab (3) From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Wednesday, 5 Feb 1997 11:50:21 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0168 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 05 Feb 1997 22:03:59 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0171 Qs: Osric's Eggshell (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norman J. Myers Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 10:06:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0166 Parallel Scenes >A friend wants to present two parallel scenes at a spring celebration of >Shakespeare for the entire college community. One scene would be from a >Shakepeare play and the very same scene would be from a modern offshoot. . In >addition to directing student-actors in the two scenes, she would like to show >screened versions of the two scenes. What won't work are general offshoots that >do not have a close parallel scene. For the modern scene, she will need a >script and permission to use it. > >One obvious choice would be a scene from *Rom.* and a parallel scene from >*Westside Story.* Scripts and films are available for both versions. But *Rom* >and *West-Side Story* may be too familiar for the intended audience. > >Her question: what OTHER plays would work? Are there other "sets" where a Shn >scene and an offshoot's scene would match? Are scripts available at a >reasonable cost? Are videotapes available? > >If you can suggest not only particular offshoots but also particular scenes, >that would be very helpful. > >Many thanks for your help, >Bernice W. Kliman What about Twelfth Night and the rock opera "Your Own Thing" made from it? Also Two Gentlemen and the rock opera made from it. Apt to be expensive There's Macbeth and the gangster movie Men of Respect. Norman J. Myers, Professor Bowling Green State University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Worley Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 23:45:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0124 Re: A Very Drab << 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 >> I know members of the "Christian" church here in Savannah, Ga. 1997 whose practice is that no women in the congregation pray aloud in the presence of males. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Wednesday, 5 Feb 1997 11:50:21 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0168 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* I haven't seen the film but offer a general observation re the music. We have to fault the producer/director who controls how much music, what kind of music, how loud and when, not the composer who simply offers what he has to the sound mix as it proceeds. The producer (almost always) with the director (sometimes) make this sort of final decision in film and television. Moreover, the prioducer chooses the composer . There were times in both Branagh's and Olivier's HV when I wanted the orchestra to fall silent and the words and actions to do the work - but I fault Branagh and Olivier not their composers for those moments and I must admit that there were times when I enjoyed the music in both films. I sometimes play short extracts from both sound tracks in a class. Mary Jane Miller, Brock University, (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 05 Feb 1997 22:03:59 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0171 Qs: Osric's Eggshell Jameela Ann Lares asks: >Was there any particular style of hat intended for Osric in _Hamlet_ 5.2? See Andrew Gurr, The Shakespearean Stage 1574-1642, 3rd ed., pp. 2-3, with a picture of Giles Brydges wearing "the kind of hat that Osric flourished" (3). Gurr cites Roy Strong, The English Ikon, no. 148. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:29:40 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0180 Q: RII Productions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0180. Friday, 7 February 1997. From: Nancy N. Doherty Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 08:21:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: RII Productions I am doing reserch for a production of Richard II I am directing at our outdoor festival this summer. I am curious about doubling of roles - Gaunt and Carlisle, Bushy and Green as the Gardeners, Mowbray as Bagot, or combining Ross/Fitzwater/Exton into Exton. Have the Duchesses ever been doubled? Any information would be welcome, especially info from/about other outdoor productions. This is my maiden voyage to you all. I look forward to your response. DirectBard@AOL.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:35:43 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0181 Re: Scansion; Q: Blank Verse Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0181. Friday, 7 February 1997. (1) From: David M Richman Date: Wednesday, 5 Feb 1997 06:26:46 -0500 (EST) Subj: Scansion (2) From: Peter L. Groves Date: Thursday, 06 Feb 1997 15:25:00 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0161 Scansion (3) From: Ron Dwelle Date: Wednesday, 05 Feb 1997 13:49:05 -0500 Subj: Blankety Verse (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Wednesday, 5 Feb 1997 06:26:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Scansion George Wright's book on prosody has many last words on the subject of scansion, but here are a few observations that may be useful. The poet and critic Yvor Winters, who wrote well on scansion, defined metre as an arithmetical norm governing the relations between syllables in a line of verse, and he defined rhythm as controlled departure from that norm. In iambic verse, the normal foot consists of two syllables, with the unstressed syllable followed by the stressed syllable. "The door" "To be" "Enough"! These are all normal iambic feet. The pentameter line (penta equals five) consists of five iambic feet. "To be, to be, to be, to be, to be." Shakespeare wrings infinite variations on the normal foot. (In what follows, I quote from the Oxford text archive Folio, so I can't provide line numbers.) From *Midsummer Night's Dream*: "Fall in the fresh lap of the crimson Rose" The first foot "fall in" and the third foot "lap of" are inverted. That is, the stressed syllable precedes, instead of following, the unstressed syllable. Lear's famous "Never, never, never, never, never!" consists of five inverted feet. Sometimes a syllable is dropped from a line, as in this from Ophelia's speech in *Hamlet*. "He fals to such perusall of my face, As he would draw it. Long staid he so". The fourth foot of the second line consists of one syllable "staid." The juxtaposition of the two strongly stressed monosyllables "long staid" can be taken as an implicit note to the speaker to slow down, giving a sonic echo to the length of Hamlet's stay. Sometimes, the unstressed syllable and the stressed syllable are equal or almost equal in weight. "Come come!" "Move not." Sometimes, an extra syllable will be shoved into a line: "Heaven's gate." "Even sir." (Another way of saying this is that the two syllables of "Heaven" or "even" are elided, and become for metrical purposes one syllable.) Sometimes, neither syllable in a foot is stressed "in the" "of the." Occasionally, one will encounter a foot consisting of two very lightly stressed syllables, followed by a foot of two very strongly stressed syllables. Here are Bolingbrook's lines from *Richard II* that occasion this question: I know it (Vnckle) and oppose not my selfe Against their will. The first foot is "I know it", with "it" elided or crammed in as an extra syllable. The second foot is "uncle", an inverted foot, stressed syllable preceding unstressed syllable. The third foot has two unstressed or very lightly stressed syllables "and op". The fourth foot has two very strongly stressed syllables "pose not". Thus, a foot of two very strong stresses immediately follows a foot of two very light stresses. The fifth foot is normal: "myself". A speech's rhythms, its departures from the metrical norm, remain among the most important indicators or clues to the performer. My course in Shakespeare in the theatre devotes considerable time to scansion, to metrical analysis. I would argue (I may argue this in an article or a book, should I find the time) that the greater the departure from metrical norm, the greater the agitation or equivocation of the character. Bolingbroke's highly unusual rhythm in this line may suggest that he is already equivocating, already indeed planning to oppose heaven's will by usurpation. Myriad other interpretations are possible. I offer this one. David Richman University of New Hampshire offer this one. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter L. Groves Date: Thursday, 06 Feb 1997 15:25:00 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0161 Scansion Dale Coye asks "R2 3.3.18 Reads I know it, uncle, and oppose not myself. Cercignani, Koekeritz, and the OED2 make no mention of oppose being stressed on the last syllable or myself on the first. So how does this scan? Is there an anapest in the fourth foot with oppose carrying the two weak stresses?" In traditional prosodic terms (admittedly unsatisfactory) it has a so-called 'feminine epic caesura' (an extrametrical weak syllable before a major syntactic break) and a reversed third foot (*not* must be emphatic here): x / |x / (x) |/ x |x / | x / I know it, uncle, and oppose not myself "Also how about RJ 3.2.87 All forsworn, all naught, all dissemblers Was it headless with a broken back?" Yes (it allows a special lingering on the final *all*). Peter Groves, Monash University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Dwelle Date: Wednesday, 05 Feb 1997 13:49:05 -0500 Subject: Blankety Verse My undergraduate Shakespeare class was looking at blank verse, and one student asked me about Laertes' line (I,iii,24), "Whereof he is the head. Then if he says he loves you," with 13 syllables. It's in the middle of 30 or so straight blank verse lines and would be a normal line, feminine ending, except for the extra iamb. How would I explain it? I couldn't find any textual notes to suggest the text itself was suspect, and I couldn't think of a good explanation. Can anyone help? Along this line, is there any sort of counting or listing of odd lines in otherwise straight blank verse? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 10:57:41 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0182 Technical Problems Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0182. Monday, 10 February 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0176 Milton Transcription Project Second Mailing of SHK 8.0176 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0176. Friday, 7 February 1997. From: A.E.B. Coldiron Date: Monday, 03 Feb 1997 08:15:16 -0500 Subject: Milton Transcription Project (Please cross-post this call for volunteers.) Dear Readers of SHAKSPER, THE MILTON TRANSCRIPTION PROJECT (MTP) is dedicated to making all of John Milton's poetry and prose available for public access on the Internet. Although most of Milton's poetry is available in modernized forms, the MTP is preparing more accurate electronic facsimiles of the early editions of Milton's poems. In addition, most of the English and Latin prose--along with a great deal of fascinating Miltoniana--remains to be done. We invite you to join us in providing accurate scholarly transcriptions of these texts. Volunteers may transcribe as much or as little as they wish; each transcription will be proofread, formatted, checked, and refereed. We shall acknowledge any significant contribution, and all accepted transcriptions will be credited by name. The MTP, currently supported by Milton-L, _Milton Quarterly_, the Department of English at Texas Tech University, the Computer Writing and Research Laboratory at the University of Texas at Austin, and the University of Richmond's web-server, is the joint creation of volunteers from more than 24 colleges and universities in half a dozen countries. In order to volunteer or to receive more information, please contact either Professor Hugh Wilson (MTP Editor; dithw@ttacs.ttu.edu) or Professor A.E.B. Coldiron, (MTP Internet Liaison; coldiron@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu). The only requirements are diligence, concern for accuracy, and the ability to type with one or more fingers. Volunteer: earn the intangible reward of "those whose publisht labours advance the good of mankind" (_Areopagitica_, 1644). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 12:56:05 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0177 Re: Ideology (Various) 2nd Mailing Second Mailing of SHK 8.0177 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0177. Friday, 7 February 1997. (1) From: Paul Hawkins Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 14:11:02 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0167 Transcendence and History (2) From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 05 Feb 1997 10:12:43 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0167 Re: Transcendence v. Historicism (3) From: Ed Pixley Date: Wednesday, 05 Feb 1997 14:51:04 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0152 Re: Ideology: Category Genes (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 14:11:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0167 Transcendence and History In order to maintain his position (which for convenience he labels in his recent post generically "historicism"), Gabriel Egan seems to need to convert defenders of Shakespeare's transcendence into deniers of history. I am sorry not to oblige him. The distinction in my post is between different relationships to history, one that seems to mark those who claim that Shakespeare is time-bound, one that I imagine underpins those who affirm Shakespeare's timelessness. To assert that Shakespeare transcends his time does not mean that one denies he was there in the first place. And it sets no limit on one's curiosity about the past or one's belief in its critical importance. Similarly, to believe in "common humanity," "human nature," "human universals," is not to deny cultural difference. Paul Hawkins (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 05 Feb 1997 10:12:43 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0167 Re: Transcendence v. Historicism > One cannot be for transcendence and historicism. Actually, Gabriel, Sartre's view of consciousness transcending itself proceeds by a rather linear process from Heidegger's insistence on the historicity of Dasein. Cheers, Sean. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pixley Date: Wednesday, 05 Feb 1997 14:51:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0152 Re: Ideology: Category Genes Thank you Dan Lowenstein for a clear and concise description of the relationship between ideas and the plays which embody them. I was also intrigued by your comparison to the field of law. However, you may want to be aware that teachers have other reasons for highlighting "bits and pieces" of Shakespeare in the classroom, as opposed to always dealing with whole plays, than to focus on the ideas revealed in those "bits and pieces." One may do it to examine a particular dramaturgical technique. I, for example, frequently focus on the events surrounding the murder of Duncan to explore what effects are achieved by Shakespeare's curious plotting choice of not staging the killing, the single event of the story which cannot be omitted and still retain the essence of the story. By doing so, with a play which most of my students already know, my students can readily see how the artist's choice of what to show and what to tell about allows him to direct our attention not to the killing but to the mind of the person doing the killing. I might also take a scene to explore varieties of ways of staging the scene and what values are derived through such choices. I frequently devote a class period or more to language, choosing scenes which provide prose, blank verse, rhymed couplets, and mixtures, scenes with stichomythia,assonance, alliteration, etc., as well as commonplaces and soliloquys. I'm sure others could provide you with many more values to be gained from a "bits and pieces" approach. Nevertheless, I thank you again for a well stated position on the play/idea relationship. Ed Pixley SUNY-Oneonta ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:16:10 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0178 Various Announcements (2nd Mailing) Second Mailing of SHK 8.0178 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0178. Friday, 7 February 1997. (1) From: Karen Bamford Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 13:24:41 -0400 Subj: Call for Papers (2) From: Irene Ludman Date: Wednesday, 5 Feb 1997 13:23:29 GMT Subj: CALL FOR PAPERS : IWCS'97 (3) From: Libby G Bradford Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 19:30:58 -0500 (EST) Subj: CFP: Conference on Gender (4) From: Alan Dessen Date: Wednesday, 5 Feb 1997 08:08:12 -0500 (EST) Subj: ACTER Currently in Illinois (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Bamford Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 13:24:41 -0400 Subject: Call for Papers ************ CALL FOR PAPERS ********** Proposed topic for a special session at the MLA Convention in Toronto, Dec. 1997: *War and Gender in the Plays of John Fletcher* How does Fletcher represent gender--including the eroticization of male bonds--in relation to the military world? 2-page proposals or 12-page papers by 15 March. (PLEASE CROSS-POST) Karen Bamford Mount Allison University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Irene Ludman Date: Wednesday, 5 Feb 1997 13:23:29 GMT Subject: CALL FOR PAPERS : IWCS'97 CALL FOR PAPERS 1st INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON COMPUTATIONAL SEMIOTICS 26th - 27th May, 1997 Pôle Universitaire Léonard de Vinci PARIS - LA DEFENSE - FRANCE TOPICS SEMIOTICS OF TEXT : Suzanne Bertrand-Gastaldy, University of Montreal Computers are increasingly used to assist text analysis for cognitive, literary, anthropological, sociological, documentary, etc. research. The workshop will focus on actual realisations, on the possibilities and limits of methodologies and existing tools to take into account the complex and multidimensional nature of texts, allowing multiple points of views for a variety of user needs. Issues such as desirable features of text analysis software, robustness and conviviality of implantations, interaction between corpora and users, constraints that actual tools put upon kinds of analyses and coding choices, the ability to elaborate models of electronic analytical tools suited to different semiotic theories, semiotical foundations of markup languages are examples of possible debates. SEMIOMETHODOLOGY : Claude Vogel, Léonard de Vinci University Several genres are currently under investigation for semiotic studies : electronic mail, news, corporate information, Web publishing. The flood of full text is overflowing semantic analysis, and this major paradigm break leads us to reconsider our approach of text processing. The size of these new corpora, the lack of consistency of information, the physical scattering of the basic units of texts, make the classical documentary solutions very uncomfortable. Instead, the semiotic based analysis seems to be a highly compelling perspective. It is focused on chronology; it provides a way to build transitive narratives throughout large amounts of data, and it does not require the understanding of the details of each local grammatical sentence in order for a global plot to be elaborated. This promising trend may give a second wind to ethnomethodology. For this reason, it is more appropriate to use the term "semiomethodology" when evoking this attempt to rationalize the computational approach of the symbolic dynamics which underlie collaborative production. ORGANIZATIONAL SEMIOTICS : Kathleen Carley, Carnegie Mellon University Organizational semiotics is the semiotics of organizations and organizational dimensions of textual semiotics. The objective of this workshop is to define the boundaries of this new specialty. Specifically, we will address the issue of : "How can semiotic analysis of interpersonal and corporate exchanges be used to reveal, evaluate, and contrast the underlying organizational logics and changes in these logics over time ?" Recent advances in textual analysis are facilitating this endeavor and creating new opportunities for understanding organizational behavior. Critical issues in the area of organizational semiotics include : 1) how to quickly and reliably analyze large quantities of texts, 2) how to reduce textual data to an empirical form that can be combined with other types of data and analyzed statistically, 3) how to identify corporate texts (those representing the "view" of the organization as an entity) and address issues of authorship, and 4) how to identify institutional constraints on the production and maintenance of corporate texts. New and innovative computational methods for empirically analyzing texts are being developed to address these and related concerns. These techniques have the potential to move textual analysis beyond counting words or locating a few themes or concepts. This section will focus on the issues involved in performing organizational semiotics with particular attention to the new computationally based techniques for facilitating organizational analysis that increase the ease, speed or reliability of coding texts and generate information that can be analyzed statistically. BIOSEMIOTICS : Jean-Claude Heudin, Léonard de Vinci University Recently, algorithms and architectures based on models derived from biological systems have been receiving an increasing amount of interest. This section will explore how such new approaches and techniques could be used for managing large amount of information exchanges on Internet or Intranet. Topics of particular interest include, but are not limited to, applications of agent-based systems, autonomous and evolving agents, genetic algorithms and programming, neural networks, cellular automata etc. to text stream analysis and in the more general framework of semiotics analysis. SUBMISSION OF PAPERS Send four copies of an abstract (approximately 500 words) in english or email it to : Irène Ludman - IWCS'97 Pôle Universitaire Léonard de Vinci 92916 PARIS-LA DEFENSE-CEDEX, FRANCE Phone: (33) 01 41 16 73 05 Fax : (33) 01 41 16 73 35 Email : irene.ludmann@devinci.fr DEADLINES Submission of abstracts by 1st April 1997 Acceptance notification to authors by 15th April 1997 Submission of full papers by 12th May 1997 ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Claude Vogel (chairman) Suzanne Bertrand-Gastaldy Kathleen Carley Jean-Claude Heudin PROGRAM COMMITTE Pierre Boudon (canada) Guillaume Deffuant (France) Evelyne Lutton (France) Joe Porac (USA) Carl Roberts (USA) J. Sebeok (Canada) Peter Stockinger (France) Bill Turner (France) For more information please visit the following Web page : http://www.devinci.fr/home/actua.htm (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Libby G Bradford Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 19:30:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: CFP: Conference on Gender The Center for Gender Studies at Radford University cordially invites you and your colleagues to attend our Second Annual Student Research Conference on Gender. The conference will include presentations by both undergraduate and graduate students, and is multi-disciplinary, centering on issues and knowledge related to gender. Submissions on research concerning gender in ALL academic fields are invited for papers, posters, and symposia for the upcoming Student Research Conference. The aims of the conference are to showcase the excellent research that students are doing, to provide students with the opportunity to receive feedback on their work, and to give all of us the opportunity to share information about current research on gender. For consideration, please send THREE copies of a completed proposal cover sheet AND of a 500-700 word abstract postmarked by FEBRUARY 14, 1997 to: Student Research Conference The Center for Gender Studies Box 6946 Radford University Radford, VA 24142 For more information and copies of the proposal cover sheet and registration forms, please contact us at (540)831-6129 or (540)831-6644 or you may E-mail us at: adelling@runet.edu or hlips@runet.edu Thanks for your interest and we hope to see you at the conference at Radford University on April 12, 1997!!! (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Dessen Date: Wednesday, 5 Feb 1997 08:08:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: ACTER Currently in Illinois The 1997 Spring Tour of ACTER's *Romeo and Juliet* is currently at Illinois Wesleyan University with performances Feb. 6-8 (Thurs-Sat); contact Jared Brown at jbrown@titan.iwu.edu or 309-556-3011 for info. Feb. 10-16 they will be at Western Illinois with performances Feb. 13-15 (Thurs-Sat). Contact Gene Kozlowski at 309-298-1543 for info. Feb. 17-23 they will perform at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, MI Feb. 19, 21, and 22 (Wed. Fri., Sat.). for more info on the tour, email csdessen@email.unc.edu or look at our website: http://www.unc.edu/depts/acter/ This production of *Romeo and Juliet* is passionate and inventive even by ACTER's standards. Our audience here was full of middle-high schoolers who responded to the high energy level of all the actors with a standing ovation. Don't miss it! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:19:20 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0179 Re: Parallel Scenes; Drab; Branagh's *Ham*; Osric's Hat Second Mailing of SHK 8.0179 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0179. Friday, 7 February 1997. (1) From: Norman J. Myers Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 10:06:38 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0166 Parallel Scenes (2) From: Paul Worley Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 23:45:31 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0124 Re: A Very Drab (3) From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Wednesday, 5 Feb 1997 11:50:21 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0168 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* (4) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 05 Feb 1997 22:03:59 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0171 Qs: Osric's Eggshell (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norman J. Myers Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 10:06:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0166 Parallel Scenes >A friend wants to present two parallel scenes at a spring celebration of >Shakespeare for the entire college community. One scene would be from a >Shakepeare play and the very same scene would be from a modern offshoot. . In >addition to directing student-actors in the two scenes, she would like to show >screened versions of the two scenes. What won't work are general offshoots that >do not have a close parallel scene. For the modern scene, she will need a >script and permission to use it. > >One obvious choice would be a scene from *Rom.* and a parallel scene from >*Westside Story.* Scripts and films are available for both versions. But *Rom* >and *West-Side Story* may be too familiar for the intended audience. > >Her question: what OTHER plays would work? Are there other "sets" where a Shn >scene and an offshoot's scene would match? Are scripts available at a >reasonable cost? Are videotapes available? > >If you can suggest not only particular offshoots but also particular scenes, >that would be very helpful. > >Many thanks for your help, >Bernice W. Kliman What about Twelfth Night and the rock opera "Your Own Thing" made from it? Also Two Gentlemen and the rock opera made from it. Apt to be expensive There's Macbeth and the gangster movie Men of Respect. Norman J. Myers, Professor Bowling Green State University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Worley Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 23:45:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0124 Re: A Very Drab << 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 >> I know members of the "Christian" church here in Savannah, Ga. 1997 whose practice is that no women in the congregation pray aloud in the presence of males. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Wednesday, 5 Feb 1997 11:50:21 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0168 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* I haven't seen the film but offer a general observation re the music. We have to fault the producer/director who controls how much music, what kind of music, how loud and when, not the composer who simply offers what he has to the sound mix as it proceeds. The producer (almost always) with the director (sometimes) make this sort of final decision in film and television. Moreover, the prioducer chooses the composer . There were times in both Branagh's and Olivier's HV when I wanted the orchestra to fall silent and the words and actions to do the work - but I fault Branagh and Olivier not their composers for those moments and I must admit that there were times when I enjoyed the music in both films. I sometimes play short extracts from both sound tracks in a class. Mary Jane Miller, Brock University, (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 05 Feb 1997 22:03:59 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0171 Qs: Osric's Eggshell Jameela Ann Lares asks: >Was there any particular style of hat intended for Osric in _Hamlet_ 5.2? See Andrew Gurr, The Shakespearean Stage 1574-1642, 3rd ed., pp. 2-3, with a picture of Giles Brydges wearing "the kind of hat that Osric flourished" (3). Gurr cites Roy Strong, The English Ikon, no. 148. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:20:56 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0180 Q: RII Productions (2nd Mailing) Second Mailing of SHK 8.0180 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0180. Friday, 7 February 1997. From: Nancy N. Doherty Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997 08:21:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: RII Productions I am doing reserch for a production of Richard II I am directing at our outdoor festival this summer. I am curious about doubling of roles - Gaunt and Carlisle, Bushy and Green as the Gardeners, Mowbray as Bagot, or combining Ross/Fitzwater/Exton into Exton. Have the Duchesses ever been doubled? Any information would be welcome, especially info from/about other outdoor productions. This is my maiden voyage to you all. I look forward to your response. DirectBard@AOL.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:22:27 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0181 Re: Scansion; Q: Blank Verse Second Mailing of SHK 8.0181 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0181. Friday, 7 February 1997. (1) From: David M Richman Date: Wednesday, 5 Feb 1997 06:26:46 -0500 (EST) Subj: Scansion (2) From: Peter L. Groves Date: Thursday, 06 Feb 1997 15:25:00 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0161 Scansion (3) From: Ron Dwelle Date: Wednesday, 05 Feb 1997 13:49:05 -0500 Subj: Blankety Verse (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Wednesday, 5 Feb 1997 06:26:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Scansion George Wright's book on prosody has many last words on the subject of scansion, but here are a few observations that may be useful. The poet and critic Yvor Winters, who wrote well on scansion, defined metre as an arithmetical norm governing the relations between syllables in a line of verse, and he defined rhythm as controlled departure from that norm. In iambic verse, the normal foot consists of two syllables, with the unstressed syllable followed by the stressed syllable. "The door" "To be" "Enough"! These are all normal iambic feet. The pentameter line (penta equals five) consists of five iambic feet. "To be, to be, to be, to be, to be." Shakespeare wrings infinite variations on the normal foot. (In what follows, I quote from the Oxford text archive Folio, so I can't provide line numbers.) From *Midsummer Night's Dream*: "Fall in the fresh lap of the crimson Rose" The first foot "fall in" and the third foot "lap of" are inverted. That is, the stressed syllable precedes, instead of following, the unstressed syllable. Lear's famous "Never, never, never, never, never!" consists of five inverted feet. Sometimes a syllable is dropped from a line, as in this from Ophelia's speech in *Hamlet*. "He fals to such perusall of my face, As he would draw it. Long staid he so". The fourth foot of the second line consists of one syllable "staid." The juxtaposition of the two strongly stressed monosyllables "long staid" can be taken as an implicit note to the speaker to slow down, giving a sonic echo to the length of Hamlet's stay. Sometimes, the unstressed syllable and the stressed syllable are equal or almost equal in weight. "Come come!" "Move not." Sometimes, an extra syllable will be shoved into a line: "Heaven's gate." "Even sir." (Another way of saying this is that the two syllables of "Heaven" or "even" are elided, and become for metrical purposes one syllable.) Sometimes, neither syllable in a foot is stressed "in the" "of the." Occasionally, one will encounter a foot consisting of two very lightly stressed syllables, followed by a foot of two very strongly stressed syllables. Here are Bolingbrook's lines from *Richard II* that occasion this question: I know it (Vnckle) and oppose not my selfe Against their will. The first foot is "I know it", with "it" elided or crammed in as an extra syllable. The second foot is "uncle", an inverted foot, stressed syllable preceding unstressed syllable. The third foot has two unstressed or very lightly stressed syllables "and op". The fourth foot has two very strongly stressed syllables "pose not". Thus, a foot of two very strong stresses immediately follows a foot of two very light stresses. The fifth foot is normal: "myself". A speech's rhythms, its departures from the metrical norm, remain among the most important indicators or clues to the performer. My course in Shakespeare in the theatre devotes considerable time to scansion, to metrical analysis. I would argue (I may argue this in an article or a book, should I find the time) that the greater the departure from metrical norm, the greater the agitation or equivocation of the character. Bolingbroke's highly unusual rhythm in this line may suggest that he is already equivocating, already indeed planning to oppose heaven's will by usurpation. Myriad other interpretations are possible. I offer this one. David Richman University of New Hampshire offer this one. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter L. Groves Date: Thursday, 06 Feb 1997 15:25:00 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0161 Scansion Dale Coye asks "R2 3.3.18 Reads I know it, uncle, and oppose not myself. Cercignani, Koekeritz, and the OED2 make no mention of oppose being stressed on the last syllable or myself on the first. So how does this scan? Is there an anapest in the fourth foot with oppose carrying the two weak stresses?" In traditional prosodic terms (admittedly unsatisfactory) it has a so-called 'feminine epic caesura' (an extrametrical weak syllable before a major syntactic break) and a reversed third foot (*not* must be emphatic here): x / |x / (x) |/ x |x / | x / I know it, uncle, and oppose not myself "Also how about RJ 3.2.87 All forsworn, all naught, all dissemblers Was it headless with a broken back?" Yes (it allows a special lingering on the final *all*). Peter Groves, Monash University (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Dwelle Date: Wednesday, 05 Feb 1997 13:49:05 -0500 Subject: Blankety Verse My undergraduate Shakespeare class was looking at blank verse, and one student asked me about Laertes' line (I,iii,24), "Whereof he is the head. Then if he says he loves you," with 13 syllables. It's in the middle of 30 or so straight blank verse lines and would be a normal line, feminine ending, except for the extra iamb. How would I explain it? I couldn't find any textual notes to suggest the text itself was suspect, and I couldn't think of a good explanation. Can anyone help? Along this line, is there any sort of counting or listing of odd lines in otherwise straight blank verse? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 07:06:10 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0183 Qs: Burton's Hamlet; On-Line or CD-Rom Quotes Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0183. Tuesday, 11 February 1997. (1) From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Sunday, 9 Feb 1997 11:13:17 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: Burton's Hamlet (2) From: Kenneth Adelman Date: Monday, 10 Feb 1997 10:18:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: On-Line or CD-Rom Quotes of Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Sunday, 9 Feb 1997 11:13:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Burton's Hamlet Today's Washington Post mentions that a video of Richard Burton's Hamlet is available in the US only through the website of Paul Brownstein. Is that true? If so, does anyone know the address of the website? Since this could be considered a "commercial" question, please let me know privately. Thanks in advance. Sara van den Berg University of Washington (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Adelman Date: Monday, 10 Feb 1997 10:18:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: On-Line or CD-Rom Quotes of Shakespeare I would appreciate any guidance to Shakespeare quotes, organized by word or concept, that is accessible on-line or on CD-Rom. I realize that the complete works are on both, but that becomes too cumbersome to use. I also understand that Bartlett's is somewhere on line. Does anyone have a reference? Presumably I could then download all its Shakespeare pages. Many thanks for whatever guidance anyone can give, Ken Adelman ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:02:00 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0184 Conference: In Shakespeare's Shadow Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0184. Tuesday, 11 February 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Tuesday, February 11, 1997 Subject: In Shakespeare's Shadow The following announcement appeared on "REED-L: Records of Early English Drama Discussion" ----------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Spong Date: Monday, 10 Feb 1997 06:11:44 -0500 Dear fellow list-members Please find attached further details of our conference. Please forward this posting to whoever you think it might interest. Regards, Andrew Spong ************************** *IN SHAKESPEARE'S SHADOW * * * *'MINOR' DRAMA',1590-1610* ************************** A CONFERENCE TO BE HELD AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HERTFORDSHIRE, WATFORD CAMPUS,SATURDAY 22 MARCH 1997 'In Shakespeare's Shadow' will bring together research on a number of dramatists (including Greene, Lyly, Marlowe, Marston, Middleton, and Munday) from a variety of theoretical positions: cultural materialism * deconstruction * de-editing * feminist theory * film theory * Marxism * musicology * New Historicism * queer theory * visual theory PLEASE NOTE THAT ONLY A LIMITED NUMBER OF PLACES ARE AVAILABLE. PROSPECTIVE DELEGATES ARE ADVISED TO BOOK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Cheques for 12 pounds (9 pounds students and concessions) made payable to 'I.S.S.' to: In Shakespeare's Shadow Watford Campus Wall Hall Aldenham Herts. WD2 8AT Further details are available from the convenors by e-mail or telephone: Andrew Spong E-mail: a.d.spong@herts.ac.uk Tel.: 01707 285651 Andrew Stott E-mail:stotta@westminster.ac.uk Tel.: 0171 911 5000 x4334 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:08:57 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0185 Re: Parallel Scenes Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0185. Tuesday, 11 February 1997. (1) From: Sarah Werner Date: Friday, 7 Feb 1997 12:34:26 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0173 Re: Parallel Scenes (2) From: Brad Morris Date: Monday, 10 Feb 1997 14:38:25 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Parallel Scenes (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Werner Date: Friday, 7 Feb 1997 12:34:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0173 Re: Parallel Scenes If your friend is interested in doing parallel scenes that rewrite Shakespeare as a political commentary, I'd suggest matching I.ii of _Tempest_ with the second scene of Aime Cesaire's _A Tempest_. Originally written for a Black theatre in French in 1969, Cesaire rewrites the play as an anti-colonialist story told from Caliban's point of view. I've taught the two plays as pairs a number of times, and my students have always responded very well to it. Richard Miller's English translation of the play can be found from Ubu Repretory Theater Publications (ISBN 0-913745-15-4). According to my copy, production permission can be got from Georges Borchardt, Inc., 136 East 57th Street, New York, NY, 10022; (212) 753-5785. Sarah Werner University of Pennsylvania (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Morris Date: Monday, 10 Feb 1997 14:38:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Parallel Scenes In a message dated 97-02-10 12:33:02 EST, you write: <scene and an offshoot's scene would match? Are scripts available at a >reasonable cost? Are videotapes available? >> I can't call up correlating scenes at the moment, but Gus Van Zant's "My Own Private Idaho" is for all intents and purposes a modern update of R3, only its narcolepsy instead of scoleosis. It's a fine film, despite the presence of Keanu Reeves. A little wierd, but good. Brad ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:13:36 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0186 Q: Shrew Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0186. Tuesday, 11 February 1997. From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Friday, 7 Feb 1997 14:55:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Taming of The Shrew Hi, I'm TA'ing an "Intro to Shakespeare class this semester, and I'm looking for some help in discussing "Taming of the Shrew." One of the areas to be discussed next week involves the hostility between Katherina and Baptista. Of the many reasons for this hostility the one I find most interesting suggests that "Kat" may not have been Baptista's child. The issue surrounding the younger child marrying before the eldest may have been frowned upon, but clearly it was not uncommon when considering Kate's response to her father's obvious preference to Bianca. She says: "What, will you not suffer me? Nay, now I see She is your treasure, she must have a husband; I must dance barefoot on her wedding day, And for your love to her lead apes in hell." (2.1.31-34) What do you think? Is it possible that "Kat" (I tend to run along lines of animal imagery when speaking of her) was not a child of Baptista? If so, then where does the need to marry her off come from, and his willingness to pay for it? I am also comparing this relationship to that of Beatrice in "Much Ado", in that Shakespeare does not give reason as to why she is living in her Uncle's home with little reference to her mother or father. I have always contended that she was born in shame (2.1.19), and the fact that she spoke "all mirth and no matter" was as much a defense mechanism as Kat's tendency towards all matter and no mirth. Anyway, if you have a particular point of view it would be much appreciated. Also, does anyone have info on the New Globe Theatre, or knowledge of a link with news? Thanks, MJ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:18:31 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0187 Re: Elisnore; Cordelia and the Fool Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0187. Tuesday, 11 February 1997. (1) From: Brian Turner Date: Saturday, 8 Feb 1997 12:03:13 +1300 Subj: Re: Elisnore (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 07 Feb 1997 21:20:01 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0172 Re: Cordelia and the Fool (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Turner Date: Saturday, 8 Feb 1997 12:03:13 +1300 Subject: Re: Elisnore Shakespeare would have obtained information concerning wall hangings from a (first or second hand) source - "The Hystorie of Hamblet". I quote with snips: "... the councellor entred secretly into the queenes chamber, and there hid himselfe behind the arras... Hamblet... doubting some treason... began to come like a cocke beating with his armes upon the hangings... feeling something under them he cried, A rat, a rat!... drawing his sword thrust it into the hangings... pulled the councellor (halfe dead) out by the heeles, made an end of killing him... cut his bodie in pieces, which he caused to be boyled... that it might serve for food to the hogges." (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 07 Feb 1997 21:20:01 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0172 Re: Cordelia and the Fool Thomas Larque writes: >It is just possible that Lear's court would fail to recognise Kent or Edgar >when smothered in mud or "Razed" (shaven?). It seems rather more likely that >they would notice if the Fool they had all known for some time had suddenly >shrunk, and turned into an entirely different person. But disguise in Shakespeare's plays seems to be absolute. When a woman puts on man's clothes, not even her father can recognize her, let alone the man who says he loves her--witness As You Like It. In Two Gentlemen, Proteus does not recognize the woman he used to love--because she has on male apparel. Portia and Nerissa are similarly unrecognizable in Merchant. This may be a dramatic convention--the convention of the absolute disguise, or maybe it has some kind of thematic relevance. How you decide this question will tell us what culture you come from. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:46:07 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0189 Re: Scansion and Verse Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0189. Tuesday, 11 February 1997. (1) From: Dale Coye Date: Monday, 10 Feb 1997 11:55:27 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0181 Re: Scansion-reply (2) From: Lee Gibson Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 97 07:00 CST Subj: Blankety verse (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Coye Date: Monday, 10 Feb 1997 11:55:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0181 Re: Scansion-reply It was suggested that the R2 line I know it Uncle, and oppose not myself Against his will could be scanned by compressing "know it" to one syllable and placing Uncle in the second foot. The problem with this suggestion is that I believe Wright states (I haven't got the cite in front of me) that an inversion is always followed by a normal iambic foot - weak strong, forming a unit of two feet in the pattern strong-weak-weak-strong. The first syllable of oppose is not strong. Is this a generally accepted rule of inversion, or just Wright's idea? The second suggestion, to scan it as an epic caesura after Uncle with inversion of the third foot would work, but I was under the impression that epic caesuras always resumed with weak-strong after the break, in other words no inversion would be allowed in the third foot. Indeed, I thought the definition of an epic caesura was that there were two weak stresses on either side of the break. Dale Coye The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Princeton, NJ (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lee Gibson Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 97 07:00 CST Subject: Blankety verse The line in question from _Hamlet_ may be scanned as an alexandrine with what used to be called a "feminine ending" and is more accurately called "paroxytonic." Lee Gibson Southern Methodist University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:07:37 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0191 SSE at SAA; Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival's Rom. Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0191. Tuesday, 11 February 1997. (1) From: The Shenandoah Shakespeare Express Date: Monday, 10 Feb 1997 15:13:19 -0500 (EST) Subj: SSE at the SAA 3/27 (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 07 Feb 1997 23:12:26 -0500 Subj: Re: Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival's Romeo and Juliet (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Shenandoah Shakespeare Express Date: Monday, 10 Feb 1997 15:13:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: SSE at the SAA 3/27 The Shenandoah Shakespeare Express will perform Love's Labor's Lost at the Shakespeare Association of America conference in Washington D.C. on March 27. The performance, co-directed by Ralph Cohen and Tom Berger, will be followed by a forty-five minute workshop entitled, "Irony, Heckling, and the Play Within the Play." Partcipants will compare and discuss the differences between the performance of the "Nine Worthies" at the end of Love's Labor's Lost and "Pyramus and Thisbe" at the end of A Midsummer Night's Dream. Please join us for an afternoon of laughter and exploration. For additional information, or for a current schedule, please contact the SSE offices at 540-434-3366, e-mail us at SShakespea@aol.com, or check out our website at http://www.shakespeare.com/ShenandoahExpress. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 07 Feb 1997 23:12:26 -0500 Subject: Re: Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival's Romeo and Juliet Last night, February 6, the Fahrenheit Theatre Company, immediately before its performance of Romeo and Juliet at the Jarson-Kaplan Theater, changed its name to the Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival. To confirm the appropriateness of the change, its production of Romeo and Juliet was an undeniable success. At the rear of the stage, a dual level structure, with stairs to the second level on both sides, lent variety to the basic undifferentiated stage. During the bedroom scenes and the final scene at the tomb, white cloth was lowered to drape this structure, and during the scenes at Friar Lawrence's cell, a white cheesecloth curtain with a cross projected on to it was lowered. The lines of the opening sonnet were distributed among the cast, and the opening scene was set in a backyard with a clothesline dividing the Capulets from the Montagues. This turned into a comic free for all with Lady Capulet (Nicole Franklin-Kern) being comically doubled up when she's hit with a bag of wet clothes. The scene, suggested by costume and golf clubs, quickly changes to the country club. The maskers carry golf clubs, and Khris Lewin's Mercutio, with shaved head, was magnificent. Purists were not happy when he pulled a condom over his shaved head and symbolically became a walking phallus. But the business is not gratuitous. The director, Warner Crocker, believes that this script has more references to penises than any other script by Shakespeare, and this show is at some pains to make those references comically clear to a twentieth century audience. Marni Penning was a young, fresh, vivacious (as always) Juliet, and she gave an excellent performance. Nicholas Rose played a rather subdued and innocent Romeo. As he enters the party, he is momentarily separated from the rest of the party by the lower cheesecloth curtain, which I thought was an interesting effect, emphasizing his isolation. Regina Cerimele, Juliet's youthful nurse, drew laugh after laugh, often running across the stage supporting both breasts with both hands, and Mercutio comically had her illustrate what the bawdy hand of time was doing with the prick of noon. Dan Kenney doubled as both Montague and Friar Lawrence, a decision that demand a change of character in the final scene. Lady Montague (Toni Rae Brotons) survives her husband. In any case, Kenney's Friar was puckish, understated and comic. When he delivers his speech on the power of herbs, four of his students are on stage for the instruction. Tybalt (William Sweeney) was not at all the uncontrollable mad dog of many recent productions. He is easily controlled by Jim Stump's portly, elegant, and commanding Capulet. In fact, during the fight scene, Tybalt and Mercutio duel rather harmlessly and comically with golf clubs. This is more a boyish game than a brutal fight. Only when Romeo tries to break up the fight does Tybalt draw his sword, and I wondered if he meant to kill Romeo rather than Mercutio. When Tybalt and Romeo fight, Tybalt is killed more by accident, falling on Romeo's sword, than by design. Jenny Jones and Regina Cerimele are to be commended for their choreographing of the fights. The first half of this production ends with the death of Mercutio, and after his death the tone of the production changes. Before, the production is marked by bawdy humor and laughter; afterward, things get dark and serious. As I watched, I felt strongly the effect of parallel, yet contrasting, scenes, e.g., the masking scene set against the aborted wedding feast. Rich Kelly played a rather limp and fatuous Paris, not a very serious rival to Romeo, and he is easily dispatched by a trenching shovel in the final scene. In this production, Romeo did not realize his mistake (i.e., she's not dead) before he dies, nor did Juliet wake up in time to see him die. The Duke (Chris Reeder), young, lanky, puzzled, and casually dressed, a country club Duke, neatly closes the play. Toni Rae Brotons (Lady Montague, et al.), Lisa Penning (Balthasar, et al.) and Colby Codding (Sampson, et al.) were busy playing a host of minor characters to swell the tragic scene. This is a great deal to like in this production, and I'm going back to see it again tomorrow afternoon. I recommend it to anyone who is able to get to Cincinnati for a performance. It runs until February 16. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:57:42 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0190 Re: RII Productions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0190. Tuesday, 11 February 1997. (1) From: Ron Moyer Date: Monday, 10 Feb 1997 11:08:14 -0600 (CST) Subj: RE: SHK 8.0180 Q: RII Productions (2) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 10 Feb 1997 14:16:35 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0180 Q: RII Productions (3) From: Warner Crocker Date: Monday, 10 Feb 1997 15:09:36 -0600 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0180 Q: RII Productions (2nd Mailing) (4) From: Peter Greenfield Date: Monday, 10 Feb 1997 16:21:39 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0180 Q: RII Productions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Moyer Date: Monday, 10 Feb 1997 11:08:14 -0600 (CST) Subject: RE: SHK 8.0180 Q: RII Productions J W Aykroyd addresses suggested doubling in R2 in her _Performing Shakespeare: A Guidebook_. She suggests minimum cast as 15 male, 2 female, with the following doubling: Gaunt/Gardener; Mowbray/Fitzwater/Servant 2.2/ Salisbury; Marshall/Abbot/Welsh Captain/Murderer; Aumerle/Berkeley; Bagot/ Exton; Greene/Man/Keeper; Bushy/Man/Servant 5.4/Surrey; Ross/Groom/Lord 3.1/ Herald; Willoughby/Murderer/Scroope/Herald; Duchess of Gloucester/Duchess of York/Lady. Her suggested doubling is for the purpose of achieving minimum cast size and does not address your specific questions nor thematic doubling, but it notes potential for doubling the duchesses and offers a range of possibilities. Barry Kyle's '86-87 production for the RSC (w/ Jeremy Irons) doubled Bushy/ Gerdener; Scroop/Abbot; Lord Marshall/Welsh Captain; Green/Keeper; Surrey/ Murderer; York's Servant/Murderer; Exton/Gerdener's Man. Garland Wright's 1990 Guthrie production doubled Ross/Groom; Abbot/Berkeley; Lord Marshall/Glendower; Willoughby/First Gardener. FWIW, Ron Moyer, Univ. of South Dakota (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 10 Feb 1997 14:16:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0180 Q: RII Productions Dear Nancy Doherty--Where ARE you doing Richard II? You didn't say. By your address, I could presume BARD college, but then Sx was "the bard" so hmmmm. I have not seen R2 performed much. Last time was in the Edith Wharton stables in I think, er, (I was dating Claudia then so it must be er) 1994 and they did it with pretty much 3 people--the woman who played the QUEEN also played Bullingbroke. ---Let me know where you're performing R2 and when. Thanks, chris stroffolino (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Warner Crocker Date: Monday, 10 Feb 1997 15:09:36 -0600 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0180 Q: RII Productions (2nd Mailing) Don't know exactly how they do it but currently Writer's Theatre in Glencoe, IL, just north of Chicago is doing Richard II with a cast of 8 or 9. Writer's Theatre performs in a very small space. I haven't yet seen the production but will be seeing it this weekend now that I have returned from directing Romeo and Juliet at the Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival (nee Fahrenheit Theatre Company). An acquaintence of mine is playing eight roles in the production. WC wcrocker@ix.netcom.com (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Greenfield Date: Monday, 10 Feb 1997 16:21:39 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0180 Q: RII Productions I worked on an outdoor production of Richard II at the Marin Shakespeare Festival (way back in 1969). It was directed by John Argue of the San Francisco Mime Troupe and involved extensive doubling, though not the pairings you mention. I can remember Gaunt/Gardener/Groom, Mowbray/Exton, Bushy and Green with Ross and Willoughby, and (perhaps, my memory fails) the duchesses. The doubling was done quite openly, with the whole cast on stage at all times, often acting as a chorus, and putting on their different costumes in view of the audience. Peter Greenfield University of Puget Sound ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:40:53 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0188 Re: Branagh's HAMLET Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0188. Tuesday, 11 February 1997. (1) From: John Velz Date: Sunday, 9 Feb 1997 17:14:37 +0200 Subj: Music in Hamlet (2) From: Billy Houck Date: Monday, 10 Feb 1997 14:47:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Branagh's HAMLET (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Sunday, 9 Feb 1997 17:14:37 +0200 Subject: Music in Hamlet Like Troy Swartz, I have not yet seen the Branagh *Hamlet* nor heard its score by Patrick Doyle. Yet I want to jump in in response to Troy's comment: >Granted, Doyle's music has won awards, but it still does not change >the fact that the score is sometimes a bit too overbearing, masking the >important events of a film, . . . When I was a professor of English I told students hundreds of times that Hollywood always gives the Academy Award to the wrong music; you can take it out of its film and play it in Carnegie Hall. The truly great music in a film is seldom noticed by the conscious mind, but works subtly and subliminally. You emerge from the theater commenting happily on the director, the principals and the cinematography, and seldom say much about the music, unless it was bad. Good music is *background* music that contributes much and so much that is unnoticed. I said this to these hundreds of students because I was trying to get them to see that good style in writing is like good background music in a film: it does its work unnoticed. The reader thinks he is making direct contact with the subject you are writing about because nothing in the prose calls attention to itself. By these criteria, which I am still very keen on after thinking on them for some 45 yrs., Boyle apparently did not deserve the awards his film scores garnered. I don't remember who did the music for the David Lean film "Summertime" (1955) which had a rerun on Bravo on Sat. night 8 Feb. '97. Whoever it was came up with a strong romantic swell just as Katherine Hepburn and her lover-to-be laid eyes on each other seriously for the first time. I laughed out loud in my livingroom at the corny overstatement of the romantic theme. Bad style, bad style. Yours for good style, John Velz (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Monday, 10 Feb 1997 14:47:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Branagh's HAMLET MR. BRANAGH'S OPUS by BILLY HOUCK There's a problem with 'Hamlet.' It's widely believed to be the best play ever written in the English language, but if one performs the whole enchillada, the finished production runs somewhere between four and five hours. Every generation has its 'Hamlet.' It's a milestone for actors and directors to have "done Hamlet." It was just a matter of time until Kenneth Branagh, whose first major film was a rousing 'Henry V' in 1989 with an anti-war twinge to it, set his eye on the troubled Dane. Branagh's 'Hamlet,' does, indeed run a full four hours (not counting the intermission.) The length is significant for a number of reasons. Film studios are reticent to make longer films, as a four-hour film can only be screened half as many times as a 2-hour film. It is a testament to Branagh's tenacity and star-power that this film has been released in the four-hour format. Lawrence Olivier's 1948 film version ran 2 hours and 27 minutes, and Franco Zefferelli's 1990 production with Mel Gibson as the Dane ran 2 hours and 15 minutes. It speaks volumes that the length of the film is its most remarkable feature. This isn't a bad film, but it certainly could have been much better. Every frame cries out: "Look! We didn't cut a single word!" Branagh seems to have lost the perspective he had when he directed himself in 'Henry V' and 'Much Ado About Nothing.' There isn't much of an arc to his performance. He plays the role at such a constantly intense level that he has to throw furniture around to differentiate between being simply perturbed and really, really mad. Branagh's problem lies with the fact that he wrote the screenplay, directed and acts in it. He seems to lack perspective, and the whole thing begins to look like its all about Branagh's ego. That is why Narcissus drowned. The whole thing becomes just too too precious, full of swirling camerawork that is almost sickening with those damned checker floors everywhere, making Elsinore look like a squared-off version of PeeWee's Playhouse. 'Hamlet' is set in the same vaguely 19th century period as 'Much Ado About Nothing.' It manages to work well, with the exception of Jack Lemmon's inexplicably stupid-looking headgear. The question of Ophelia's insanity is answered when she appears in a straight jacket, then later banging her head against the padded walls of her cell. Despite these rather clunky trappings, Kate Winslet manages to deliver a wistful an Ophelia as you'd like. Derek Jakobi is a snarling, bitter Claudius. He looks at Hamlet like he'd like to smack him silly, and sure enough, he does. Charlton Heston is magnificent as the Player King. Robin Williams is wasted in the role of Osric, but Billy Crystal turns in a remarkably lucid Gravedigger. Branagh even managed to ratchet his performance down a few notches for the Yorrick bits. The fencing at the end is played at super-speed, so it's hard to tell if it's really a palpable hit or not. In the end we are treated to several wild interpretations: we get Hamlet as superhero(complete with padded body armor for the duel) and Hamlet as Christ figure as he's hauled off. There's a brief Jan Kott-esque political turn to Hamlet when the brooding Frotinbras (even the men of action brood in this version) finally attacks Elsinore from without as the royal family hacks itself to bits within. In the final examination, though, what this 'Hamlet" is about, is Hamlet himself. The tanned Dane. 'Hamlet' is in its initial release right now in Toronto, Los Angeles, and New York, but it's coming soon to your province. You'll have to see it. That's the nature of cultural touchstones. We have to experience them at least once, or risk being left ot of important conversations. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 08:55:05 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0192 Re: Katherina in Shr. and New Globe Theater Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0192. Wednesday, 12 February 1997. (1) From: Helen Ostovich Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 10:12:17 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0186 Q: Shrew (2) From: Melissa Aaron Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 14:25:30 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0186 Q: Shrew (3) From: Heather Stephenson Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 11:19:42 U Subj: Re: SHK 8.0186 Q: Shrew (4) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 00:02:58 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0186 Q: Shrew (5) From: Patricia Cooke Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 07:39:11 +1200 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0186 Q: Shrew (6) From: Ann Marie Olson Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 19:16:04 -0600 Subj: Reply to JoAnna Koskinen, New Globe Theater (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 10:12:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0186 Q: Shrew I see no reason to invent lurid pasts for characters when a look at any family's relationships will tell you that jealousy between sisters is common, and so is playing favorites by parents -- or at least, appearing to play favorites. Although Katherine claims that Baptista wants her to remain an old maid, in fact he announces that Bianca may not marry until her sister is wedded. Beatrice's situation in Much Ado does not call for an assumption of bastardy. It was common practice to send a child into another household to be educated, or act as companion, before marriage. Indeed it was considered a good preparation for marriage to observe how other households were run. The fact that Beatrice stayed on was also not uncommon, since she and her cousin are best friends. Helen Ostovich McMaster University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 14:25:30 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0186 Q: Shrew The idea that Katherine isn't really Baptista's daughter is certainly interesting. I can't really think of any direct eveidence fro it, though. It's just possibly one of those "Cinderella" situations, where she is his stepdaughter, but I can't quite believe that Shakespeare would leave that out. To me the explanation's much simpler: Baptista really dotes on his youngest and can't stand his eldest. Economically, it makes sense to marry her off, but if you look closely at his behavior, B. tries to sabotage it: "I have a daughter, sir, called Katherina." "She is not for your turn, the more my grief." Etc. And though it seems "unnatural," plenty of parents just plain don't like their offspring. Doesn't Baptista pay for his blindness in the end? Melissa Aaron (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Heather Stephenson Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 11:19:42 U Subject: Re: SHK 8.0186 Q: Shrew JoAnna Koskinen asks: >What do you think? Is it possible that "Kat" (I tend to run along lines of >animal imagery when speaking of her) was not a child of Baptista? Of course, it's possible. As your Much Ado example attests to, many of the plays could be read to include subtle bastard overtones -- especially when read today by people who have different attitudes toward the concept of the "immediate family" than were held when the plays were written. And: >If so, then where does the need to marry her off come from, and his >willingness to pay for it? Perhaps it would be far worse for a wealthy man of standing to be cuckolded than to pay a dowry for a child not his own. Cheers, Heather (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 00:02:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0186 Q: Shrew We had a production in Urbana, Illinois last summer which treated Katerina and Bianca as sibling rivals. If Bianca is daddy's favorite, and if all her beaus are crazy about her in spite of her obvious lack of wits, the solution is to show that Kate is the one with the brains in the family, and she is forced to contend with two nitwits. You'd have an attitude, too, if you had a father like that. It was great fun playing a clueless Hortensio to a truly dizzy Bianca, I have to say it works well -- especially when she gets extremely tipsy and 'shifts her bush' at the wedding reception ... Andy "Which End of a Lute is Up?" White Arlington, VA (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patricia Cooke Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 07:39:11 +1200 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0186 Q: Shrew > JoAnna Koskinen asks >Also, does anyone have info on the New Globe Theatre, or knowledge of a link >with news? The link is http://www.reading.ac.uk/globe/ which gives news about the new Globe and links to other sites Patricia Cooke, Secretary & Editor Shakespeare Globe Centre New Zealand Inc (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ann Marie Olson Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 19:16:04 -0600 Subject: Reply to JoAnna Koskinen, New Globe Theater I visited the new Globe in June and can share a few impressions and some solid information. Impressions: it's wonderful! I've studied Shakespeare for years, taught it for years on the high school level, done a master's thesis on Shakespearean comedy, and directed Much Ado on stage. Despite many years of academic working knowledge of the Globe, being there was eye-opening! The intimacy of the space informs the dynamics of Shakespeare's language and scenic structures. It is truly not to be missed. My certificate, indicating that I financed a small part of the construction, is my most prized souvenir from a two-week trip. The other impression is that nobody in London seems to know how to find it! If you go, get good directions ahead of time or take a taxi. Don't ask Londoners--we encountered many who said, "You're looking for the WHAT?" Unbelievable! For information, contact: The Globe Exhibition Office, Shakespeare's Globe, New Globe Walk, Bankside, London SE1 9ED. Phone number is 0171 928 6406. Fax 0171 401 8261. You can also join the Friends of Shakespeare's Globe society by contacting them at P.O. Box No. 70, Southwark, London SE1 9EN. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 09:19:16 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0193 Re: Burton's Hamlet Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0193. Wednesday, 12 February 1997. (1) From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 11:08:23 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0183 Qs: Burton's Hamlet (2) From: Martin Jukovsky Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 21:19:44 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0183 Qs: Burton's Hamlet (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 11:08:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0183 Qs: Burton's Hamlet >Today's Washington Post mentions that a video of Richard Burton's Hamlet is >available in the US only through the website of Paul Brownstein. Is that true? >If so, does anyone know the address of the website? Since this could be >considered a "commercial" question, please let me know privately. Thanks in >advance. I hope the answer to this question can be posted on the listserv. I still recall Burton's as the best Hamlet (although not the best *Hamlet*) I ever saw--much, much, much better than Branagh's, for instance. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Jukovsky Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 21:19:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0183 Qs: Burton's Hamlet The stage production of Richard Burton's HAMLET (directed by Gielgud) was put on videotape and then projected in theaters on a limited basis (less than a week) with reserved seating in (I think) serveral cities including New York. Part of the hype surrounding the event was that the tapes were to be destroyed afterwards. However, the Folger listed a copy of the tape in its holdings, acording to SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY about 20 years ago. Martin Jukovsky Cambridge, Mass. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 09:31:03 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0194 Re: Branagh's Hamlet/s Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0194. Wednesday, 12 February 1997. (1) From: Tad Davis Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 11:43:08 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Branagh's Hamlet (2) From: Ed Peschko Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 11:46:21 -0700 (MST) Subj: Branagh vs. Branagh (3) From: Ed Peschko Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 12:04:16 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0188 Re: Branagh's HAMLET (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Davis Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 11:43:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Branagh's Hamlet John Velz wrote: > ... I said this to these hundreds of students because I was trying to > get them to see that good style in writing is like good background music > in a film: it does its work unnoticed. The reader thinks he is making > direct contact with the subject you are writing about because nothing in > the prose calls attention to itself. These words reminded me of an old book I encountered as a playwriting student: "How's Your Second Act?" by Arthur M. Hopkins (NY: Philip Goodman Company, 1918). The book was aimed at directors rather than playwrights; Hopkins' main point was that the director's job was to get out of the way of the writing. One of my fellow students put me onto the book; he said it was one of the best descriptions of the whole play-building process, including the process of writing, he'd ever read. It's been 20 years, and I don't know if I'd still agree, but I do remember reading it at the time with great pleasure. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Peschko Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 11:46:21 -0700 (MST) Subject: Branagh vs. Branagh Hey all -- I was wondering if anybody has seen both Branagh's movie and heard Branagh's BBC production (available on CD). If so, I'd be interested in any contrasts between the two.. Ed (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Peschko Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 12:04:16 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0188 Re: Branagh's HAMLET >From: John Velz >Like Troy Swartz, I have not yet seen the Branagh *Hamlet* nor heard its score >by Patrick Doyle. Yet I want to jump in in response to Troy's comment: > >>Granted, Doyle's music has won awards, but it still does not change >>the fact that the score is sometimes a bit too overbearing, masking the >>important events of a film, . . . > >When I was a professor of English I told students hundreds of times that >Hollywood always gives the Academy Award to the wrong music; you can take it >out of its film and play it in Carnegie Hall. The truly great music in a film >is seldom noticed by the conscious mind, but works subtly and subliminally. >You emerge from the theater commenting happily on the director, the principals >and the cinematography, and seldom say much about the music, unless it was bad. Well -- this is not *always* so... The movie 'Unbearable Lightness of Being' shows this. Janacek's music seamlessly fits into the movie, yet in many ways is the movie's star... It is sweeping, emotional, playful, and absolutely stunning. The same practice works well with A Clockwork Orange, 2001, and pretty much anything that Kubrick did. I think that the difference between the above films, and Hamlet is that 'sweeping, grand' music doesn't work well in films with lots of dialogue, which, well -- a Shakespearian movie should have. And even then -- I think that directors should stick to classical music, instead of hiring composers to put out pure syrup. Ed ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 09:39:30 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0195 Re: Parallel Scenes (and "My Own Private Idaho") Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0195. Wednesday, 12 February 1997. (1) From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 11:43:33 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0185 Re: Parallel Scenes (2) From: Matthew Bibb Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 97 09:59:38 PST Subj: Parallel Scenes (3) From: Walter Cannon Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 11:08:44 -0600 (CST) Subj: RE: SHK 8.0185 Re: Parallel Scenes (4) From: Hugh Davis Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 00:02:00 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0185 Re: Parallel Scenes (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 11:43:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0185 Re: Parallel Scenes I have never heard of "My Own Private Idaho" as an update of RIII; I have always considered it an updating (at least in part) of HIV, part I. The movie actually slips into Shakespearean language at some points. You might also consider Greenaway's "Tempest" (not technically an adaptation but radically different). There is also a gravedigger scene in "LA Story" which is very funny. Annalisa Castaldo Temple University (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Bibb Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 97 09:59:38 PST Subject: Parallel Scenes Brad Morris suggests that "My Own Private Idaho" is an update of R3. The parallels in the film are much stronger to Henry IV, especially (but not exclusively) Part 1. Matt Bibb UCLA Shakespeare Reading and Performance Group (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Walter Cannon Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 11:08:44 -0600 (CST) Subject: RE: SHK 8.0185 Re: Parallel Scenes You might look at "L A Story" and the gravedigger scene from Hamlet. Also, check "My Own Private Idaho" and Henry IV, Part 1 especially the Gadshill scene. Walter Cannon (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hugh Davis Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 00:02:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0185 Re: Parallel Scenes >I can't call up correlating scenes at the moment, but Gus Van Zant's "My Own >Private Idaho" is for all intents and purposes a modern update of R3, only its >narcolepsy instead of scoleosis. It's a fine film, despite the presence of >Keanu Reeves. A little wierd, but good. > > Brad Are you talking about Richard II or Richard III? I can see the connection with Richard II, with Mike rejected by the new regime as R2 was, and I'd like to hear you elaborate on this. The R3 connection doesn't seem so obvious to me, however. What do you suggest? --Hugh Davis ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 09:53:16 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0197 Re: Hamblet; Edward II Video; RII Productions Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0197. Wednesday, 12 February 1997. (1) From: Steve Sohmer Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 09:53:45 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0187 Re: Elsinore (2) From: Franklin J. Hildy Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 10:47:33 -0500 Subj: Edward II Video (3) From: Rick Jones Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 16:49:15 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0190 Re: RII Productions (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 09:53:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0187 Re: Elsinore Brian Turner's quoting the later translation of "The Historie of Hamblet." The rat's not in the original, but derives from Shakespeare's play. Steve Sohmer (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Franklin J. Hildy Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 10:47:33 -0500 Subject: Edward II Video I have only recently joined the list and just wanted to comment about the inquiries concerning video productions of EDWARD THE SECOND and THE DUCHESS OF MALFI. Both were part of the "Classic Theatre: the Humanities in Drama" series, produced by Joan Sullivan for WGBH, Boston in 1974 -75 and broadcast over a 13 week period by PBS in 1976. The series included the plays: THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH EDWARD THE SECOND by Marlowe THE DUCHESS OF MALFI, by Webster PARADISE RESTORED adapted from Milton SHE STOOPS TO CONQUER by Goldsmith CANDIDE, adapted from Voltaire THE RIVALS by Sheridan THE WILD DUCK by Ibsen HEDDA GABLER by Ibsen TRELAWNEY OF THE WELLS by Pinero THREE SISTERS by Checkhov THE PLAYBOY OF THE WESTERN WORLd by Synge MRS WARREN'S PROFESSION by Shaw. The scripts were published in CLASSIC THEATRE: THE HUMANITIES IN DRAMA. Sylvan Barnet, Morton Berman and William Burto ed. Boston: Educational Associates, 1975. Educational Associates was a division of Little, Brown and Co. There is a single photo of each production for each play but they are not very useful. I would be very interested in any information anyone might have about where I could get video or 16 mm copies of these plays. I hope this will be of some use. Dr. Franklin J. Hildy Director, Southeastern Region Shakespeare Globe Centre (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 16:49:15 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0190 Re: RII Productions The National Theatre production with Fiona Shaw as Richard doubled as follows: Mowbray/Salisbury Duchess of Gloucester/First Lady/Duchess of York Lord Marshal/Bishop of Carlisle 1st Herald/Percy 2nd Herald/Duke of York's Servingman/2nd Gardener's Man Green/1st Gardener's Man/Exton's Man Bushy/Surrey Ross/Abbot of Westminster Willoughby/Head Gardener/Exton Bagot/Welsh Captain Scroop/Fitzwater Rick Jones rjones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 09:45:17 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0196 Re: Scansion and Verse Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0196. Wednesday, 12 February 1997. (1) From: David M Richman Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 13:53:06 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0189 Re: Scansion and Verse (2) From: Andrew Walker White Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 18:36:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Laertes' Line (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 13:53:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0189 Re: Scansion and Verse There are always more variations in scansion than anyone's rules allow for. Lear's "Never, never, never, never, never!" offers five inversions. Lady Macbeth's "That croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan" has two lightly stressed syllables in the fourth foot, and an inversion in the fifth. It is this sort of thing that make Shakespeare's lines so rewarding to peak and listen to. David Richman (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 18:36:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Laertes' Line Mr. Dwell's question gives me one immediate reponse; even when the words are written out in full, I assume that a surplus of syllables indicates that at least 2 or 3 words were meant to be spoken together, as one syllable, a sort of colloquialism that was not noted by the over-fussy (or, in some eyes, over-clumsy) printer. Join "whereof" into one syllable, "is the" into another; you get something that looks a mess, but makes sense if it's spoken clearly: Wher'f he isth' head. The rest of the line follows, with the "you" as a final weak syllable, "Loves" being the strong one. Then if he says he loves you ... That's all for now, Andy White Arlington, VA ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:48:20 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0198 Re: Cordelia and the Fool; Leontes "O she's warm..." Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0198. Wednesday, 12 February 1997. (1) From: Thomas Larque Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 19:53:31 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0187 Re: Cordelia and the Fool (2) From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 97 23:49:09 GMT Subj: RE: Leontes "O she's warm..." (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Larque Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 19:53:31 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0187 Re: Cordelia and the Fool > Thomas Larque wrote: > >>It is just possible that Lear's court would fail to recognise Kent or Edgar >>when smothered in mud or "Razed" (shaven?). It seems rather more likely that >>they would notice if the Fool they had all known for some time had suddenly >>shrunk, and turned into an entirely different person. Bill Goodshalk wrote : >But disguise in Shakespeare's plays seems to be absolute. When a woman puts on >man's clothes, not even her father can recognize her, let alone the man who >says he loves her--witness As You Like It. In Two >Gentlemen, But then the theory that Cordelia disguised herself as the Fool is dependent on Shakespeare having broken his own conventional use of disguises. Neither of the examples that you give are of somebody being disguised as another identifiable person. These people are concealing their own identities, rather than seeking to pass themselves as somebody else. The only times that I can think of in Shakespeare's plays when people are mistaken for another real person in full daylight (to comic effect) are the twins in TWELFTH NIGHT and COMEDY OF ERRORS. The COMEDY OF ERRORS characters are identical twins. Sebastian and Viola are non-identical twins (one male, one female) who are described as looking very like one another, and who are wearing identical clothes (Viola based her disguise upon her brother). The Fool and Cordelia are not identical twins (she is female, he is male, and even if the Fool were Lear's ilegitimate offspring he would only be her half-brother). They are certainly not dressed identically. Shakespeare's convention is that people who are disguised are unrecognisible - not that they can make themselves look exactly like a third party. In any case these conventions are always underlined for the audience by lines to tell them what is happening. For example : TWELFTH NIGHT - SEBASTIAN - ... my sister drowned ... it was said she much resembled me (2.1.22-25) VIOLA - Conceal me what I am, and be my aid For such disguise as haply shall become The form of my intent ... Thou shalt present me as an eunuch to him. (1.3.53-56) VIOLA - Disguise, I see thou art a wickedness ... What will become of this? As I am man ... As I am woman ... (2.2.26-37) VIOLA - Prove true, imagination, O prove true, That I, dear brother, be now ta'en for you! (3.4.384-385) He named Sebastian. I my brother know Yet living in my glass; even such and so In favour was my brother, and he went Still in this fashion, colour, ornament For him I imitate. (3.4.389-393) Every time that disguise is used, Shakespeare is equally careful to tell his audiences that characters are disguised, why they have put on the disguise, what they think about wearing the disguise - and when their identity is confused with that of another person, he is careful to tell us that this is the case, and why it is possible. The key to the Renaissance theatrical conventions that Bill Godshalk describes is that they remain open and transparent to the audience at all times. When Oberon says "I am invisible" (MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM - 2.1.186) he becomes invisible. On stage there has been no change at all, but the audience are willing to suspend their disbelief - and accept whatever the playwright tells them. The only thing is that he DOES have to tell them first. There is no indication of any kind in KING LEAR that Cordelia is disguised as the Fool. There is no line that even suggests such a thing clearly enough for a live audience to understand it. As a result it seems almost impossible that this is what was intended. THOMAS. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 97 23:49:09 GMT Subject: RE: Leontes "O she's warm..." David Evett analyzes some lines from The Winter's Tale: > A speech such as Leontes' "O, she's warm! / If this be > magic, let it be an art / Lawful as eating" works > through 5 substantives (she, warm, art, law, eating) > that must have counterparts in any natural language > and significance in the constructs of any human > culture...I see no way to deny that the emotional > force of the line resides chiefly in the collocation > of so many powerful terms, which reach us across 4 > centuries with unabated force.... If mere collocation of "powerful terms" is enough, wouldn't this line be just as good: "O, the king's cold / If this be ague, let it be a disease / as noble as madness" This collocates 'king', 'cold', 'disease', 'noble' and 'madness' which are equally powerful terms, aren't they? And I just made that line up! Surely the line doesn't have an emotional force on it's own, and only acquires it in the dramatic context? At the very least you'd have to account for the significance of metre as well as the collocation of grand themes. Furthermore, what Leontes's means by eating is not what a starving Biafran means by eating. Likewise, body painting by Amazonian rain forest dwellers is so unlike Renaissance Art (let alone whatever we might decide Leontes means by 'lawful art') that asserting that these things are transcultural is merely cultural imperialism. Whoops. That last paragraph might be in danger of starting a relativism thread. For that reason, I retract it. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:04:10 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0199 Q: Feminist Criticism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0199. Wednesday, 12 February 1997. From: Judy Hatcher Date: Tuesday, 11 Feb 1997 22:43:34 -0600 (CST) Subject: Q: Feminist Criticism I'm interested in good criticism concerning Shakespeare and feminism. I'm thinking specificaly about All's Well that Ends Well. Any suggestions? Judy Hatcher ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:18:11 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0200 Re: Richard Burton's Hamlet Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0200. Wednesday, 12 February 1997. (1) From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 97 08:54:00 PST Subj: Burton Hamlet (2) From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 11:24:17 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0193 Re: Burton's Hamlet (3) From: Edward Rocklin Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 14:04:00 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0193 Re: Burton's Hamlet (4) From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 17:52:44 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: Richard Burton's Hamlet (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 97 08:54:00 PST Subject: Burton Hamlet To all Burton Hamlet fans, here is the web site through which you can put in an order for the video: www.tvclassics.com will get you to Paul Brownstein Productions www.tvclassics.com/orderham.htm will get you to the order for the video Have fun! Georgianna Ziegler Folger Library (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 11:24:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0193 Re: Burton's Hamlet Dear Colleagues, The Richard Burton HAMLET was on sale at the Barbican Centre in October, 1996, where I purchased it for about 15 pounds, or something like that. The catch is that it's recorded on British standard PAL, which is incompatible with U.S. equipment. Almost any respectable university a/v center in North America has the hardware for PAL, though, so that's not an insurmountable problem. There was a copy at the Library of Congress Motion Picture Division once, but that involves travel, appointments, etc. Oh yes, the address is Mail Order Dept., RSC Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. CV37 6BB (Enclose an "A4" [whatever that is] stamped, addressed envelope). Good luck, Ken Rothwell (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward Rocklin Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 14:04:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0193 Re: Burton's Hamlet In response to Martin Jukovsky: The Foler Library does indeed have a tape of the Burton HAMLET. I viewed it last year, and not only found it a fascinating performance but also noted that it was at least at some moments different from the LP recording of that version. In Hamlet's "soliloquy" "Now might I do it, pat," for example, the delivery on the LP sounds more malicious, more evil than Burton's delivery in the video of the performance. Since I no longer have the LP nor do I have the video, I cannot pursue this examination further, but it might be an interesting way of thinking about variations within performance. Edward L. Rocklin California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 17:52:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Richard Burton's Hamlet Thanks to all who told me that the video of Hamlet is available at www.tvclassics.com in two versions: the complete film of the Broadway performance and a one-hour film of "scenes and soliloquies." The film has been restored and the sountrack redigitalized. Sara van den Berg ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:37:35 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0201 Re: Feminist Criticism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0201. Wednesday, 12 February 1997. (1) From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 10:47:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0199 Q: Feminist Criticism (2) From: David M Richman Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 12:01:50 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0199 Q: Feminist Criticism (3) From: Anders H Klitgaard Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 18:18:32 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0199 Q: Feminist Criticism (4) From: David Skeele Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 13:38:17 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0199 Q: Feminist Criticism (5) From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 13:53:45 CST6CDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0199 Q: Feminist Criticism (6) From: Pat Dunlay Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 15:22:02 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0199 Q: Feminist Criticism (7) From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, February 13, 1997 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0199 Q: Feminist Criticism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 10:47:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0199 Q: Feminist Criticism A good place to start would be Philip Kolin's bibliography *Shakespeare and Feminist Criticism: An Annotated Bibliography and Commentary* (Garland 1991). (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 12:01:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0199 Q: Feminist Criticism On feminist criticism, I learned a good deal from Clamorous Voices, Shakespeare's Women Today, in which six actors talk about several roles--including Kate, Lady Macbeth,and Helena. Also, though not specifically on All's Well, there is Weyward Sisters, by Callaghan et al. that is most useful on Romeo nd Juliet--among other plays. David Richman (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anders H Klitgaard Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 18:18:32 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0199 Q: Feminist Criticism Dear Judy Hatcher I've benefited a lot from Marilyn French's *Shakespeare's Division of Experience*. In particular I've enjoyed her comments on *Othello*. Couldn't one say that, strictly speaking, a commentary on *Othello* has to account for the connection between Othello and Iago, ie explain why the 'innocent' Othello nevertheless gets ruined by Iago? (One would have thought that innocence proper was invulnerable to evil.) I have however, so far, only seen Marilyn French account for this connection. In the months to come, I'll be checking out Helene Cixous on Shakespeare. Maybe we could write further on this? Sincerely, Anders PS For the record, being a man, I AM somewhat skeptical of feminism... (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 13:38:17 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0199 Q: Feminist Criticism Regarding the query about feminist crit. of ALL'S WELL, A good place to start would be Philip Kolin's *Bibliography of Feminist Shakespeare Criticism.* I don't remember whether the anthology called *The Woman's Part* (eds. Lenz, Greene and Neely) has any essays on ALL'S WELL, and the book is a little dated, but there is sure to be something of value to you in the bibliography. You asked for "good" feminist criticism, so I don't know whether you are considering Marilyn French (who is derided by most feminists) and her *Shakespeare's Division of Experience." She does deal fairly extensively with ALL'S WELL, and if you can stomach the reductive social theory in which she drapes the entire canon, you will probably find at least a few nuggets of wonderful insight. In preparing to direct the production, I was pointed down a rather feminist road by, of all people, Northrop Frye, in his essay in *Myths of Deliverance.* Hope this helps! David Skeele (5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 13:53:45 CST6CDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0199 Q: Feminist Criticism You might consider a look at David Haley's _Shakespeare's Courtly Mirror: Reflexivity and Prudence in All's Well That Ends Well_: it was published in 1993 by Associated University Press. I'm not sure that David would define himself as a feminist critic, but the book certainly considers issues relevant to such an approach. Chris Gordon (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pat Dunlay Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 15:22:02 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0199 Q: Feminist Criticism For feminist criticism of Shakespeare, I'd suggest The Woman's Part, edited by Carol Thomas Neely and others. It's a collection of essays, though I don't recall one on All's Well. It's a great source. Pat Dunlay (7)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, February 13, 1997 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0199 Q: Feminist Criticism To the above listed works, I would add the following: Adelman, Janet. Suffocating Mothers: Fantasies of Maternal Origins in Shakespeares Plays, HAMLET to THE TEMPEST. New York and London: Routledge, 1992. Dash, Irene G. Wooing, Wedding, and Power: Women in Shakespeare's Plays. New York: Columbia UP, 1981. Jardine, Lisa. Still Harping of Daughters: Women and Drama in the Age of Shakespeare. 2nd ed. Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble, 1983. New York: Columbia UP, 1989. Neeley, Carol Thomas. Broken Nuptials in Shakespeares Plays. New Haven: Yale UP, 1985. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:07:07 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0202 Re: Cordelia and the Fool; Leontes "O she's warm..." Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0202. Wednesday, 12 February 1997. (1) From: Tai-Won Kim Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 22:11:37 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0198 Re: Cordelia and the Fool (2) From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 17:37:58 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0198 Re: Cordelia and the Fool (3) From: L. Fargas Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 11:51:05 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Leontes "O she's warm..." (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tai-Won Kim Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 22:11:37 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0198 Re: Cordelia and the Fool At 09:58 AM 2/12/97, Thomas Larque wrote: >The only thing is that he DOES have to tell them first. There is no indication >of any kind in KING LEAR that Cordelia is disguised as the Fool. There is no >line that even suggests such a thing clearly enough for a live audience to >understand it. As a result it seems almost impossible that this is what was >intended. How about Frank Ford in where he disguises as Master Brook? In fact, Ford reveals his identity in a soliloquy at the end of the scene. The revelation comes last, rather than first. Certainly, the audience may realize that the guy is in fact Ford even before he admits his disguise. The stage direction about his disguise, according to the Arden edition, is not in the Folio, but in the Quarto and Theobald. Anyway, it doesn't matter because Thomas doesn't seem to bear in mind stage directions when he said "[Shakespeare] DOES have to tell them the first." So, at least in this example, he seems to be wrong. I'm not just finding fault with his wording--"first," though. I think the convention of disguise in Shkaespeare is more complicated than Thomas figured out. More than that, I think we should not mix up two different issues of "disguise" and "doubling." Of course, it is true that, more than often, we may notice both of them mixed and combined in the same scene. However, we cannot dissolve the two distinctive conventions into a homogenous category, particulary in this case of Cordelia and Fool. How about consulting David Bevington? Tai-Won Kim University of Florida (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 17:37:58 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0198 Re: Cordelia and the Fool I wrote: >>But disguise in Shakespeare's plays seems to be absolute. When a woman puts on >>man's clothes, not even her father can recognize her, let alone the man who >>says he loves her--witness <As You Like It.< In <Two >>Gentlemen<. . . . And Thomas Larque objects: >But then the theory that Cordelia disguised herself as the Fool is dependent on >Shakespeare having broken his own conventional use of disguises. Neither of >the examples that you give are of somebody being disguised as another >identifiable person. These people are concealing their own identities, rather >than seeking to pass themselves as somebody else. Kent passes himself off as Caius. My class pointed out today that Kent (razed, beardless) disguised as Caius is "unrealistic." I asked them, "If I shaved, would you recognize me on Friday?" "Sure," said Joe Voss, "we'd recognize your voice." In the later plays, Shakespeare recurrently violates the conventions he had helped to establish. That seems to have been the way he was as a playwright. Think of The Winter's Tale where the audience is NOT in on the secret, and where Time comes in to tell us how much time has passed. Where has he done this before in his career? The Chorus in Henry V? And Shakespeare's use of the Chorus is itself a fairly new departure. Think of Pericles and Gower. In other words, Shakespeare liked to play with form and conventions. Yours, Bill Godshalk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: L. Fargas Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 11:51:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Leontes "O she's warm..." David Evett wrote concerning these lines from The Winter's Tale: > A speech such as Leontes' "O, she's warm! / If this be > magic, let it be an art / Lawful as eating" thay they > work[] through 5 substantives (she, warm, art, law, eating) that must > have counterparts in any natural language and significance in the > constructs of any human culture... I have to take issue with this premise. "Art" and "law" are abstractions and may very well not appear until rather late in a language's development, and could need another phase to be differentiated one from the other, especially in a shamanistic society. My favorite example of this is the development of 'rhythm' and 'rhyme' as separate concepts: both abstractions were drawn from a Greek verb, rhein, (old rhuein), 'to flow,' which in turn derives from an Indo-European root 'sreu' to flow, with a particular application of 'to bubble-flow.' While it does not appear in Partridge or Shipley, here's why I think that Indo-European root "sreu" -- or perhaps its yet-unidentified predecessor -- was a very concrete word indeed: it is basic Boy Scout lore that drinking water in the wild is likeliest to be potable if it had run over rocks for a quarter mile or so. High school biology taught that this was because not only would it have been free-running, but it would have been additionally oxygenated (purified) by the shallowness. So 'sreu' was a way to say: water safe to drink. It's a long way (perhaps thousands of years) from that "natural language" to great abstractions. A second observation about this quote is that "warm/art/eating" can all be argued to be working at the level of puns, as well, and that's a level of linguistic play that has to wait for a very civilized period. L. Fargas ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:26:40 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0203 Qs: Sin; International Sh/s; Hamlet as Shamus; Regan Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0203. Wednesday, 12 February 1997. (1) From: James P. Saeger Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 10:47:43 -0500 Subj: Q: MM & Sin (2) From: Andrew Murphy Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 18:26:36 +0000 (GMT) Subj: International Shakespeares (3) From: Harvey Roy Greenberg Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 19:17:53 -0500 (EST) Subj: Hamlet as Shamus, Again (4) From: Jameela Ann Lares Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:37 -0600 (CST) Subj: Regan (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James P. Saeger Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 10:47:43 -0500 Subject: Q: MM & Sin I was hoping someone could help me out with a question about sin. When Angelo begins his coercion of Isabella in _Measure_, he tells her ...our compell'd sins Stand more for number than for accompt. (2.4.57-8) And Claudio later suggests roughly the same idea to her, What sin you do to save a brother's life, Nature dispenses with the deed so far, That it becomes a virtue. (3.1.132-5) Isabella, of course, doesn't accept the argument from either. Brian Gibbons (in the Cambridge edition) cites Tilley, but I was wondering if the basis for these arguments was more than proverbial. Is there, in fact, any firm theological grounding for (or a clear theological argument against) such a position? Might there be a difference between Catholic and Protestant theology on this one? Thanks in advance for any ideas. James P. Saeger Dept. of English Vassar College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Murphy Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 18:26:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: International Shakespeares I'm currently trying to discover details of when editions of Shakespeare were first published in countries other than Britain. Does anyone on the list have any suggestions for starting points for such a search? Thanks in advance. Andrew litradm@herts.ac.uk (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harvey Roy Greenberg Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 19:17:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Hamlet as Shamus, Again Several months ago I inquired about references to detection in Hamlet, in connection with a review of the CRACKER tv series. My central psychoanalytic concern was the presence of depression in so many sleuths, private or otherwise, from Dupin onwards and possibly in earlier sources. I am now expanding my piece, and once again am asking your readership about any thoughts, references, so forth with regard to Hamlet as detective manquee, as well as the role of sleuthing in Elizabethan/Jacobean revenge tragedy at large. Many thanks for your help, Harvey Roy Greenberg, MD (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jameela Ann Lares Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:37 -0600 (CST) Subject: Regan One of my students, a theatre major, is going to be Regan in the university production here, and has asked me about resources for researching her character. I'd appreciate your help on advising her, including titles and comments on past productions. Thanks. Jameela Lares Univ. of So. Miss. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:25:41 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0204 Columbia University Seminar on Shakespeare: 2/14/97 Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0204. Wednesday, 12 February 1997. From: Jill Niemczyk Smith Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 14:18:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Columbia University Seminar on Shakespeare THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY SEMINAR ON SHAKESPEARE is pleased to announce that Lena Cowen Orlin of The Shakespeare Association of America will be speaking on "Last Wills and Second-Best Beds" at our meeting on Friday, 14 February 1997 at Faculty House on the Columbia University campus in New York City. Local and visiting Shakespeareans are welcome. Please contact Jill Niemczyk Smith at jan5@columbia.edu for further information. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:35:44 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0205 Re: Parallel Scenes (and "My Own Private Idaho") Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0205. Wednesday, 12 February 1997. (1) From: Brad Morris Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 16:22:00 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Parallel Scenes and "My Own Private Idaho" (2) From: Mark Lawhorn Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 11:40:52 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0195 Re: Parallel Scenes (and "My Own Private Idaho") (3) From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 18:53:53 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0185 Re: Parallel Scenes (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Morris Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 16:22:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Parallel Scenes and "My Own Private Idaho" << Are you talking about Richard II or Richard III? I can see the connection with Richard II, with Mike rejected by the new regime as R2 was, and I'd like to hear you elaborate on this. The R3 connection doesn't seem so obvious to me, however. What do you suggest? >> Perhaps it's been too long since I saw "Idaho," but I seem to remember the film opening with River Phoenix suffering a narcoleptic attack in the middle of a deserted road (or does it begin with Phoenix performing oral sex for money? Both scenes are close to the top). Anyway, isn't there a voiceover corresponding to "Now is the winter of our discontent," spoken by a lone Richard, standing before the audience in all his disfigured, glorious sex appeal? Or am I on drugs? I need to rent that flick. It's apparently been to long since I've seen it. It could be R2. I wasn't as into Shakespeare when I saw "Idaho" these many years ago. It's just that I seem to remember R3 dialog thrown in during the scene where Keanu Reeves strolls into the bar with his crew. Maybe I am on drugs. Well, I'm on my way to the video store to see if I've gone and made a complete ass of myself. Brad (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Lawhorn Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 11:40:52 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0195 Re: Parallel Scenes (and "My Own Private Idaho") Gus Van Sant's film "My Own Private Idaho" clearly adapts much material from both parts of "Henry IV." Van Sant also seems to have some fun making cinematographical allusions to Orson Welles's adaptation,"Falstaff: Chimes at Midnight." The Van Sant film develops a homoerotic subtext that occasionally surfaces in the Henriad. Consider the page's comment, "As young as I am, I have observed these three swashers. I am boy to them all three; but all they three, though they would serve me, could not be man to me . . ." ("Henry V" III.ii.28-31). Though Van Sant does away with the page character, he explores in interesting ways the community of vagrant youth which was just as strong a concern in Shakespeare's day as it is now. Mark H. Lawhorn UH Manoa (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 18:53:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0185 Re: Parallel Scenes Try "Comedy of Errors "and "The Boys from Syracuse." Try "Voyage to a Forbidden Planet" and "The Tempest" (as well as "Prospero's Books" and "The Tempest.") Try" Kiss Me Kate" and "taming of the Shrew." Try "Lear" and the Japanese movie "Ran." No "Your Own Thing" was "Two Gentlemen of Verona." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:43:02 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0206 Re: Shrew; Branagh's HAMLET; Shakespeare's Transcendence Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0206. Wednesday, 12 February 1997. (1) From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@CompuServe.COM> Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 12:12:05 -0500 Subj: SHK 8.0186 Q: Shrew (2) From: John Boni Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 18:27:13 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0188 Re: Branagh's HAMLET (3) From: Paul Hawkins Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 09:02:58 -0500 (EST) Subj: Starving Biafrans and Shakespeare's Transcendence (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@CompuServe.COM> Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 12:12:05 -0500 Subject: SHK 8.0186 Q: Shrew Dear JoAnna Koskinen: Your suggestion that Kat (as you deftly term her) in Taming of the Shrew is not Baptista's child strikes me as fascinating. Have you ever considered that she might be one of Lady Macbeth's misplaced offspring? It would explain a number of that poor creature's syncopated remarks (e.g.1,7,44). T. Hawkes (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Wednesday, 12 Feb 1997 18:27:13 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0188 Re: Branagh's HAMLET Well, I "endured" Branagh's *Hamlet*. The term is not meant as an entirely negative criticism, but as an objective statement. After "enduring" a near nasty Sunday matinee throng in the lobby of Chicago's Fine Arts theater, we were seated by 2 pm (the announced starting time), and the film began at 2:25. Popcorn, anyone? We exited the theater at 6:55. Whew! Though much of it was good, and much of it moving, after the all too typically silly opener (For some reason, the opening scene of *Hamlet* seems mroe troublesome than some of the major scenes.), I ultimately felt somewhat like I was viewing the *Guernica* from four feet away, with every figure in it foregrounded. Each scene was paced in the same deliberate fashion. Good scenes, so many of them, but not equally central. Claudius planning Hamlet's end with Laertes was nicely done, for a play in which that scene forms the central issue. And then the end, someone suggested Jan Kott; I also suggest H.D.F. Kitto's essay about the poison working itself out in widespread destruction in Denmark. Fine, but we didn't need such emphasis on the approaching menace, of those well-dressed "lawless [or is it "landless"] resolutes." Nor did we need the fine choreography of their window entrances. (Hmmm, what would be the opposite of "defenestration"? "Infenestration?") And yet, I enjoyed much of it. I was moved. Perhaps I'm so close to these plays that I am myself moved, not moved by the object before me. I am moved always by Claudius' situation when Gertrude drinks, and I was here. I am moved by Hamlet's speech to Horatio in act V, expressing his justified readiness to kill Claudius ("Why what a king is this," marvels Horatio.), though I felt that Branagh underplayed that speech. (Surprise) And I appreciated what I regarded as Branagh's effort to keep the soliloquies up front. Well, enough this will begin to take on the characteristic length of the film if I continue. John M. Boni (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 09:02:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: Starving Biafrans and Shakespeare's Transcendence I may be misreading Gabriel Egan in what follows; if so, I apologize. I wouldn't ask a starving Biafran whether the aesthetic power of Leontes's line is inherent in the line or resides in the dramatic context, and whether the aesthetic power is something she can experience, but then I wouldn't ask a starving *anyone* such a question. That the experience of the aesthetic may not be a priority in all circumstances, and that to speak of it at all in some circumstances may be immoral, I am prepared to agree. But I would genuinely be interested in knowing if any Biafrans on the list who are not now starving, or any individuals of any other world cultures feel that their experience of the aesthetic power of Leontes's line is blocked because of their cultural background. If so, I imagine there are sensitive people on the list who would be capable of opening up that experience to them. It's only another kind of cultural imperialism which claims--for whatever worthy political reasons--that Shakespeare is mine alone or mine in a privileged way because of my background and education. I would be appalled if someone told me that I could never experience the aesthetic or the significance of Amazonian body painting--assuming that the painting is at least in part aesthetically motivated--even though there were someone who might be able to initiate me into an understanding and appreciation of the art. And I don't think the putative need of *some* instruction prior to an experience of Shakespeare or body painting is a serious objection to the transcendence or transcultural appeal of either art. Not being an absolutist in these matters, I would simply suggest that things become *less* transcendent or transcultural (and nothing can ever be so completely) as *more* instruction/initiation is required. It is the most horrid fallacy in at least my corner of the English-speaking world that people think they need to be "taught" to enjoy Shakespeare--they only need to see and hear it well performed in a language that they understand--when he seems to be the most transcendent writer in our culture. Paul Hawkins ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:47:41 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0207 Online *Studies in Bibliography* Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0207. Wednesday, 12 February 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, February 13, 1997 Subject: *Studies in Bibliography* I found the notice below on FICINO: "Renaissance and Reformation Studies" and thought that it might be of interest to some. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 00:21:15 -0500 From: Melissa Smith Kennedy Subject: Studies in Bibliography The online version of Studies in Bibliography can be found on the homepage of the Bibliographical Society of Virginia at http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/bsuva Both are currently under construction, but should be updated soon. --Melissa Kennedy msk5d@virginia.edu========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:59:14 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0208 Re: Feminist Criticism Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0208. Friday, 14 February 1997. (1) From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 09:21:48 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: All's Well That Ends Well (2) From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 12:33:23 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0201 Re: Feminist Criticism (3) From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 14 Feb 1997 07:38:31 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0201 Re: Feminist Criticism (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 09:21:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: All's Well That Ends Well Here are a few feminist essays directly concerned with the play: Mary Bly, "Women's Erotic Language in Dekker and Shakespeare," _Look Who's Laughing: Gender and Comedy_, ed. Gail Finney (1994). Patricia Parker, "All's Well That Ends Well: Increase and Multiply," _Creative Imitation_, ed. David Quint et al. (1992). Janet Adelman, "Bed Tricks," _Shakespeare's Personality_, ed. Norman Holland (1989). Barbara Hodgdon, "The Making of Virgins and Mothers," _PQ_ 1987. Lisa Jardine, "Cultural Confusion and Shakespeare's Learned Heroines." _Shakespeare Quarterly_ 1987. Sara van den Berg University of Washington (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 12:33:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0201 Re: Feminist Criticism Another useful source might be the anthology of criticism compiled by Deborah Barker and Ivo Kamps, *Shakespeare and Gender: A History* (Verso, 1995). It's a superb overview of different approaches within the wider rubric of gender-oriented criticism on Shakespeare. Cheers, Douglas Lanier DML3@christa.unh.edu (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 14 Feb 1997 07:38:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0201 Re: Feminist Criticism Carol Thomas Neeley's BROKEN NUPTIALS also has a good chapter on ALL'S WELL (which I don't think is in the WOMAN'S PART--though I forget) and a newer chapter that takes a different kind of feminist approach (linking gender to rhetoric rather than say genre) is in Christy Desmet's READING SHAKESPEARE'S CHARACTERS (U_Mass, 1992)..... Chris Stroffolino (P.S. "Being a man" (you may guess what I am--to paraphrase Don Pedro), I may be skeptical of feminist critics, but no more than I am of Shakepeare's strongest female characters, or even Gratiano's "strumpet wind" speech). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:14:58 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0209 Re: Sin Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0209. Friday, 14 February 1997. (1) From: John Cox Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 14:10:26 -0500 (EST) Subj: Sins in MM (2) From: Louis C Swilley Date: Friday, 14 Feb 1997 07:36:13 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0203 Qs: Sin (3) From: Paul Nelsen Date: Friday, 14 Feb 1997 09:30:13 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0203 Qs: Sin (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cox Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 14:10:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Sins in MM James Saeger asks about Angelo's and Claudio's position on sin in MM, wondering if there might be a difference between Catholic and Protestant positions. Geoffrey Bullough prints an interesting parallel from Augustine (*Narrative and Dramatic Sources* 2:418-19), roughly a thousand years before the Reformation. John Cox Hope College (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Friday, 14 Feb 1997 07:36:13 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0203 Qs: Sin Mr. Saeger, Have you checked St. Thomas' *Summa* for this? I don't know what the theologians of any denomination say about this, but common sense tells me that Isabella can - in charity, not in justice - do this sinlessly to save her brother, sin being necessarily in the *intention* as well as in the nature of the deed. But the brother can not ask her to do it. L. Swilley Houston (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Nelsen Date: Friday, 14 Feb 1997 09:30:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0203 Qs: Sin I passed the message on to my friend Edward Isser , who had recently staged a striking production of the play at College of the Holy Cross and in the process had given considerable thought to the complexity of Isabella's dilemma. Ed asked me to channel the following back to the list: 1) The Pauline Principle "evil is not to be done that good may come of it" "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged a sinner? And not rather (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just" (St. Paul, Epistle to the Romans) 2) Aquinas Notion of Venial vs. Mortal sin If a Nazi came to your door, and you said there were no Jews there-- you'd be guilty of a Venial sin which can be wiped away through contrition. BUT if you turn the Jew over and he/she is killed-- you are guilty of a mortal sin 3) The Principle of Double Effect This grows out of an incident in ancient Rome when a group of Christian virgins threw themselves off a bridge to avoid being raped. The issue was/is are they guilty of the sin of committing suicide--indeed did they commit suicide? The answer is that they did not, because they AVOIDED being raped-- in other words their INTENTION was to avoid rape-- their intention was not to commit suicide So the bottom line is that if a woman is raped (Isabella?!) she is not guilty of the sin of intercourse because there is no intentionality-- but if she WILLINGY submits then it is a sin. The key to Measure for Measure is that both Angelo and Claudio want Isabel to SUBMIT and that indeed WOULD be a mortal sin that would damn her forever-- not to mention her greatest fear that her child would be born out of wedlock "I had rather my brother die by the law than my son should be unlawfully born" (3.1.185) Apparently this moral position is embraced by Catholics, Protestants and Jews!!!!!! Not to mention American law-- where women have (unfairly) had to prove that they "resisted." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:24:05 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0210 Re: Hamlet as Shamus; Regan; International Sh/s Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0210. Friday, 14 February 1997. (1) From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 10:11:46 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0203 Qs: Hamlet as Shamus (2) From: Harry Hill Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 14:50:27 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0203 Qs: Regan (3) From: Emmanuel Plisson Date: Friday, 14 Feb 1997 12:48:56 +0100 (MET) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0203 Qs: International Sh/s (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 10:11:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0203 Qs: Hamlet as Shamus For Harvey Roy Greenberg: Check with Susan Baker, Dept of English, U of Nevada, Reno. Her current research deals with WS and detective fiction. Her article, "Shakespearean Authority in the Classic Detective Story," appeared in *Shakespeare Quarterly* 46 (Winter 1995): 424-448. Either she or the article may prove helpful. Regards, Evelyn Gajowski (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 14:50:27 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0203 Qs: Regan REGAN No amount of research beyond a careful sensitivity to her words will yield anything up, in my view. She is a consonantal woman, unlike her sister Goneril who is a bid-mouthed vowelly person. I think a key to her resides in the neatness and self-containment of ...find I am alone felicitate In your dear Highness' love and its preceding Than the most precious square of sense possesses. Physically: look at Diana Rigg's face as it now is, and you've got the human type that feels and looks the way those words and constructions sound. Harry Hill (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Emmanuel Plisson Date: Friday, 14 Feb 1997 12:48:56 +0100 (MET) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0203 Qs: International Sh/s As far as I know, first translation ever produced in France of complete Shk' works is due to Fran=E7ois-Victor Hugo, son of Victor, which puts the first edition in the late 19th century. I'll be looking for earlier partial translations. I think too the first important french criticism about Shakespeare can be found somewhere in the dephts of Voltaire's work, and is not quite positive if I remember well. I probably don't teach you anything by telling that Shakespeare was first appreciated in France by romantics artists, who saw in his work a kind of archetypal pattern for theirs (cf Stendhal's funny "Le th=E9=E2tre de= Shakspeare". I can check all those messy references if it may help you. Emmanuel plisson@cict.fr ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:39:25 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0211 Qs: MND Discussion; Modern Editions of Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0211. Friday, 14 February 1997. (1) From: Dale Lyles Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 12:39:34 -0500 (EST) Subj: MND Discussion? (2) From: William Everts Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 14:23:01 -5-1 Subj: Modern Editions of Shakespeare (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 12:39:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: MND Discussion? I take it, from the way the discussion on MND immediately fizzled, that the only reasonable thematic approach to that play is in fact the Athens/Woods dichotomy and the examination of love/love objects. Please correct me with much rebuttal. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Everts Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 14:23:01 -5-1 Subject: Modern Editions of Shakespeare Our library wishes to buy a complete set of Shakespeare's plays in individual editons for general student use. Any suggestions? What would be the best if money wasn't a problem? What would be best if money was a problem? Thanks in advance. You can contact me directly by writing to everts@champlain.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:53:17 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0213 Re: Cordelia and the Fool Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0213. Friday, 14 February 1997. (1) From: Thomas Larque Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 21:34:12 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0202 Re: Cordelia and the Fool (2) From: Thomas Larque Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 22:06:46 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0202 Re: Cordelia and the Fool (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Larque Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 21:34:12 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0202 Re: Cordelia and the Fool Thomas Larque wrote : > > The key to the Renaissance theatrical conventions that Bill Godshalk > > describes is that they remain open and transparent to the audience at > > all times ... the audience are willing to suspend their disbelief - > > and accept whatever the playwright tells them. > > > > The only thing is that he DOES have to tell them first. Tai-Won Kim wrote : > How about Frank Ford in disguises as Master Brook? In fact, Ford reveals his identity in a > soliloquy at the end of the scene. The revelation comes last, rather > than first. Certainly, the audience may realize that the guy is in fact > Ford even before he admits his disguise. The stage direction about his > disguise, according to the Arden edition, is not in the Folio, but in > the Quarto and Theobald. Anyway, it doesn't matter because Thomas > doesn't seem to bear in mind stage directions when he said > "[Shakespeare] DOES have to tell them the first." So, at least in this > example, he seems to be wrong. I'm not just finding fault with his > wording--"first," though. I think the convention of disguise in > Shakespeare is more complicated than Thomas figured out. I am quite happy to admit that I haven't checked through every use of disguise in the plays to test my theory, and I would be interested to hear if anybody DOES know of any exceptions. But I have to say that Ford disguising himself as Brook is actually another example of Shakespeare warning his audiences BEFORE disguise occurs. Tai-Won Kim is right to say that there is no textual indication that Brook is Ford at the beginning of the scene in which he holds his first meeting with Falstaff (Act 2, Scene 2) - but this is because Shakespeare has explained the disguise, and named the disguised character, at the end of the last scene - and this information should be reasonably fresh in the audience's minds. FORD - Good mine host o'th Garter, a word with you. [DRAWING HIM ASIDE] ... HOST - Hast thou no suit against my knight, my guest cavalier? FORD - None I protest; but I'll give you a pottle of burnt sack to give me recourse to him, and tell him MY NAME IS BROOK - only for a jest. HOST - My hand, bully; thou shalt have egress and regress ... AND THY NAME SHALL BE BROOK. ... FORD - ... she was in his company at Page's house; and what they made there, I know not. Well I will look further into't, and I HAVE A DISGUISE to sound Falstaff. (Merry Wives of Windsor - 2.1.193-227) So to compare this with my list of things that Shakespeare always told his audience. We are told that Ford will be disguised ("tell him my name is Brook" AND "I have a disguise", see above). We are told why he has put on his disguise ("to sound Falstaff"). We are even told why Ford can fool Falstaff into believing him to be Brook (he has never met Falstaff before - "she was in his company at Page's house", from the earlier scene we know that Page was not - and he will be given a false introduction by his friend the Host - "tell him my name is Brook" - a man that Falstaff trusts). Pretty much everything we could possibly need to know, in fact, and it seems likely that the actor playing Ford / Brook would then continue to give physical signs to the audience during his conversation with Falstaff which will remind even the most forgetful members of the audience that this is the jealous husband, Master Ford, in disguise - and not a new character. Tai-Wan Kim's example actually supports my case. Shakespeare lets his audience know when a character is wearing a disguise. Although it may not have been clear, I would also like to point out that when I said that Shakespeare "DOES have to tell them first" (to suspend disbelief), I did mean to imply stage directions as well as textual comments (although textual comments are clearer, and much more commonly used by Shakespeare for this sort of purpose). If, for example, a character actually changed into disguise on-stage (which could be described in stage directions without a word being said), this would in fact be the clearest possible way of telling an audience that the character is adopting a disguise. I should also point out, that my arguments have very much intended to separate "disguise" and "doubling" (something Tai-Won Kim suggests that they do not do). I have said from the first that I think that a doubling of Cordelia and the Fool would certainly have been possible (although it is likely that it was not originally used in performance, as Shakespeare had an adult clown who seems to have played the Fool type roles), but that - on the basis of the text that we have - the idea that the original performance showed Cordelia disguising herself as the Fool is extremely unlikely. As far as I can work out the convention of disguise within Shakespeare's plays is very much fixed, and always informs the audience that a disguise is a disguise rather than a doubling. As I say, however, I have not checked this in great detail - and I would be grateful for any other suggestions of plays in which people think this argument does not apply. THOMAS LARQUE. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Larque Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 22:06:46 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0202 Re: Cordelia and the Fool Thomas Larque wrote: > >But then the theory that Cordelia disguised herself as the Fool is > >dependent on Shakespeare having broken his own conventional use of > >disguises. Neither of the examples that you give are of somebody being > >disguised as another identifiable person. These people are concealing > >their own identities, rather than seeking to pass themselves as > >somebody else. Bill Goodshalk replies: > Kent passes himself off as Caius. My class pointed out today that Kent > (razed, beardless) disguised as Caius is "unrealistic." I asked them, > "If I shaved, would you recognize me on Friday?" "Sure," said Joe > Voss, "we'd recognize your voice." There are several problems with this point. First, although it is fair to guess that Kent means shaved when he says "Raz'd" this is quite likely to be a pun rather than his main meaning. He doesn't say that he "Raz'd" his face, but that he has "raz'd my likeness" (1.4.4) - literally destroyed my image, "obliterated my former appearance" (the first paraphrase mine, the second from p.34 of the Arden edition edited by Kenneth Muir). A part of this disguise may have been shaving himself (perhaps the hair on his head as well or instead of his beard) - but this is not the clear meaning of this piece of text, just a subliminal pun. Second Bill Goodshalk's student suggests that he would recognise his disguised teacher by his voice. Both Shakespeare and Kent have realised that this will be a problem, and even before he mentions having altered his "likeness" (physical appearance), Kent claims to have changed his voice - "If but as well I other accents borrow, / That can my speech defuse" (1.4.1-2). Since Kent claims to be poor, and is believed. We must also assume that he has stripped off his noble fineries, and disguised himself in the rags (and smells?) of a humble peasant. So the real question that Bill Goodshalk should have asked his class is "If I was sacked, and some time later a supply teacher arrived with a shaved head and no beard, speaking with an accent from the other end of the country and dressed in a one piece rubber body-suit" (the one thing I can be reasonably certain that Bill Goodshalk does not wear to teach his pupils) "would you recognise me?". The answer should be that if Bill Goodshalk was an excellent actor, a perfect imitator of the other accent, and took on completely different physical and vocal mannerisms to go with his changed appearance - it would certainly take some time for anybody to recognise him, and it is quite possible that nobody would - unless or until he made a mistake, and gave himself away. To really make this example apply to Shakespeare's plays a couple more points would have to be added. If you were watching a play in which all of the actors played more than one part (becoming different characters when they changed into different costumes) would you naturally assume that an actor playing the character Bill Goodshalk, was STILL playing the same character when they returned in later scenes in a different costume pretending to be somebody else - and saying nothing about disguise? Anybody who would answer "Yes" to this would have serious problems with any performance which uses doubling of actors. "Hang on! She was just playing Lady Macbeth, now she's dressed up as a witch! Hey, everybody ... one of the witches must be Lady Macbeth in disguise!" - an interesting idea, but not one which seems likely to have been intended by the playwright. > In the later plays, Shakespeare recurrently violates the conventions he > had helped to establish. That seems to have been the way he was as a > playwright. ... > In other words, Shakespeare liked to play with form and conventions. True enough. But this doesn't mean that you can assume this sort of convention is being broken without any real textual evidence to support your claim. To suggest that a play which included a major disguise plot (Cordelia dressing as the Fool) made no mention of this in the text, in the stage directions or (as far as we know) anywhere else, would seem a very strange idea. The original audience, like all subsequent audiences, would have had no idea that these disguises were being used. Which would make the disguise plot rather pointless. Bill Goodshalk could argue rather more effectively for the idea that Shakespeare ORIGINALLY intended to have Cordelia disguise herself as the Fool, but changed his mind during editing (for whatever reason) and wrote out this sub-plot. Removing any signs of this plot from the scripts we have inherited, but leaving scraps of evidence of his earlier intentions. (The parts of the play that Bill Goodshalk has offered as proof of his theory). In my opinion there would still be no real evidence to support this argument, but it would be much more plausible. I hold to my original views. THOMAS LARQUE ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:01:21 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0214 Re: Parallel Scenes (and "My Own Private Idaho") Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0214. Friday, 14 February 1997. (1) From: Hugh Davis Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 21:10:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0205 Re: Parallel Scenes (and "My Own Private Idaho") (2) From: Hiroyuki Todokoro Date: Friday, 14 Feb 1997 15:34:44 +0900 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0205 Re: Parallel Scenes (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hugh Davis Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 21:10:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0205 Re: Parallel Scenes (and "My Own Private Idaho") Gus Van Sant's _My Own Private Idaho_ is in fact his version (updated to 1990s Portland) of Welles' _Chimes at Midnight_, which is Welles' condensation of the two Henry IV plays, with elements from the rest of the Henriad and dialogue from Merry Wives. "Conventional wisdom" says that Scott Favor (Keanu) is Hal, with his father the mayor, and with Bob Pigeon (William Richert) as the Falstaff figure. The literal reading then suggests that Mike Waters (River Phoenix) would have the Poins role. For several reasons, this is too simplistic. I believe (and I am currently placing into writing in my thesis project) that Mike is in fact also representative of Falstaff. The films, seen in conjunction with each other, suggest the narrative link between the two characters, and the Scott/Mike comradeship evokes Hal/Falstaff in many aspects. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? I suggested that a RII parallel might be seen (I don't know of RIII connections or dialogue) because of the rejection of Mike parallelling the rejection of the King. I've also seen allusions to Two Gentleman of Verona, but the chief parallel is definitely with Henry IV. --Hugh Davis UNC-CH (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hiroyuki Todokoro Date: Friday, 14 Feb 1997 15:34:44 +0900 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0205 Re: Parallel Scenes Virginia M. Byrne suggested: > "Lear" and the Japanese movie "Ran." Also try "Macbeth" and Kurosawa's monochrome movie "Kumonosujo"(lit. meaning "Spider's Web Castle", sorry I don't know the English title). [Editor's Note: the English title is *Throne of Blood.* --HMC] ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:03:54 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0215 RE: Columbia University Seminar on Shakespeare Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0215. Friday, 14 February 1997. From: Tom Clayton Date: Friday, 14 Feb 1997 09:38:31 Subject: RE: Columbia University Seminar on Shakespeare: 2/14/97 >THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY SEMINAR ON SHAKESPEARE is pleased to announce that Lena >Cowen Orlin of The Shakespeare Association of America will be speaking on "Last >Wills and Second-Best Beds" at our meeting on Friday, 14 February 1997 at >Faculty House on the Columbia University campus in New York City. Fascinating topic. Scripts available, perchance, for those of us unable to attend? Tom C ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:47:02 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0212 Re: Richard Burton's HAMLET Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0212. Friday, 14 February 1997. From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 13 Feb 1997 16:40 ET Subject: SHK 8.0200 Re: Richard Burton's HAMLET I saw the Burton Hamlet in Boston, before it got to Broadway (E. Taylor was there for at least a couple of days, so the crowd outside the stage door was large). The production was spotty--the mixture of British and American actors produced an odd melange of accents and styles, more noticeable then than now, I suppose, because the musical RSC approach to things so dominated Shakespearean production; and one gathers from William Redford's book about the show that Gielgud's directing was pretty laissez faire. Burton was exciting, except for some rather perfunctory swordplay--he had more sheer fun with the madness north northeast (Boston, don't you know) than anybody I'd seen before or since until I watched young Branagh on the screen last week, plus all the complexity of that singular voice, and a compelling presence. He told some interviewer (Lillian Roth?) that he had two distinct takes on the role, one manic, one mournful, and followed one or the other line according to whether or not the audience laughed at "Nay, madam, I know not seems," and so told him whether they wanted to have fun or be moved. We saw the manic one, I guess. There were some nice touches in the costuming; Alfred Drake (like many Claudii effective in the first half and less so in the second) wore elevator shoes; Hume Cronyn's wonderfully dapper Polonius made good use of a tightly furled umbrella. I'm glad to know the film is available on tape, though as I recall from seeing it a year or so after the performance it caught only part of the theatrical energy we felt. Reminiscently, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 10:55:19 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0216 Re: Sins in MM Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0216. Saturday, 15 February 1997. (1) From: Jameela Ann Lares Date: Friday, 14 Feb 1997 11:48:50 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0209 Re: Sin (2) From: Edward T. Bonahue Date: Friday, 14 Feb 1997 11:19:34 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0203 Qs: Sin (3) From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Friday, 14 Feb 1997 12:28:14 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0209 Re: Sin (4) From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Friday, 14 Feb 1997 17:10:54 PST Subj: Sin in M4M (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jameela Ann Lares Date: Friday, 14 Feb 1997 11:48:50 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0209 Re: Sin I've read with interest the answers to John Cox's queries regarding sin in MM. I don't myself know any clearer answers, but I would like to point out that English Protestant casuistry was starting at this point--Perkins's massive work may have been out; sorry the notes are at home, if I find the reference I'll send it off-line. A debate between Catholic and Protestant casuistry may be part of the context here. Jameela Lares University of So. Miss. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward T. Bonahue Date: Friday, 14 Feb 1997 11:19:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0203 Qs: Sin To James Saeger: > Is there, in fact, any firm > theological grounding for (or a clear theological argument against) such a > position? Might there be a difference between Catholic and Protestant > theology on this one? You might check Darryl Gless's _MEASURE FOR MEASURE, the Convent, and the Law_. I believe it looks into many such questions of theology, from both Catholic (the play's) and Protestant (Shakespeare's) perspectives. Ed Bonahue University of Florida (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Friday, 14 Feb 1997 12:28:14 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0209 Re: Sin >So the bottom line is that if a woman is raped (Isabella?!) she is not guilty >of the sin of intercourse because there is no intentionality-- but if she >WILLINGY submits then it is a sin. The key to Measure for Measure is that both >Angelo and Claudio want Isabel to SUBMIT and that indeed WOULD be a mortal sin >that would damn her forever-- not to mention her greatest fear that her child >would be born out of wedlock "I had rather my brother die by the law than my >son should be unlawfully born" (3.1.185) Actually, I think your quotations point elsewhere, that is no definite "bottom line" which can be followed under all circumstances. Hence the fact of there being debates at all on whether the Christian virgins jumping from bridges have damned themselves, or the need for the complex dialectics of scholasticism. If there were a universally applicable "bottom line", the entire science of casuistry would have no purpose. Neither, for that matter, would ethics, or theology. Most Christian denominations still allow for a large number of ethical qualms, dilemmas, and infinitely variable circumstances. Personally, I would start by looking up "sin", "casuistry" and "grace" in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, as well as the Catholic Encyclopaedia. The original poster should also take a look at the all-too-neglected source, the Elizabethan homilies, particularly those on sin and grace (the early ones, which are actually Edwardian). Cheers, Sean. (4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Friday, 14 Feb 1997 17:10:54 PST Subject: Sin in M4M Some of the recent postings suggest that the question whether Isabella would act sinfully (or unethically) if she acceded to Angelo's corrupt demand is essentially a question of whether a good end can justify wicked means. Thus, one posting says that it is the intent and not the act that makes the sin. Another analogizes to lying to the Nazis about the presence of concealed Jews. But the issue posed by Isabella's dilemma is more complex. To say that the sinfulness of an action depends on the intent may be true, but to say so in this context is to imply that Isabella's intention would have been plainly virtuous if she had slept with Angelo. On any view other than the most rigid positivism, to protect Jews against unjust arrest by the Nazis would be to act with a plainly virtuous intent. But would Isabella's intention be virtuous if she slept with Angelo to induce him to spare Claudio? It is clearly within Angelo's legitimate discretion to spare Claudio, so Isabella's pleading and arguing for mercy are perfectly virtuous actions. But to accede to extortion to induce a favorable exercise of discretion could not be regarded as acting with a virtuous intent (setting aside whether the virtuous intent could justify the means) unless beheading Claudio can be said to be a plainly arbitrary and unjust act. Although many characters in the play try to dissuade Angelo from executing Claudio, no one argues that Claudio's behavior is not within the capital offense. This cannot be decisive, from an ethical point of view. The Nazi officers may be authorized by German law to arrest the Jews. But that is the exceptional case. The presumption is that one has an obligation to obey the law, and even more so that one has an obligation not to use dishonest or corrupt means to avoid compliance with the law. Isabella's intent to rescue her brother could not be regarded as a virtuous intent justifying use of corrupt methods unless the execution of Claudio would be an extremely unjust or arbitrary action. In other words, the question of Isabella's ethical dilemma folds back, in part, into the problem that the play opens but does not resolve of the justice of Angelo's sentence of death for Claudio. There is another consideration, however. In the above paragraph I refer to use of dishonest or corrupt means to prevent enforcement of the law. But this creates a general category of actions, whose ethical characters may differ. In particular, there is an intuitive difference between a citizen initiating a bribe and succumbing to extortion. (Legally, by the way, it appears that there was no such distinction, historically, in the English common law. The question continues to arise, and as recently as 1991 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a case in which the citizen initiates the corrupt transaction comes within a federal law prohibiting "extortion.") At one end of the spectrum, if Isabella had originated the idea of sleeping with Angelo in exchange for a favorable exercise of discretion, most of us would agree that her conduct is sinful/unethical except in an extreme case such as the Nazis and the Jews. The case in her favor would be the strongest if Angelo had told her that his best judgment was that Claudio should be spared, but that he would order the execution unless she agreed to sleep with him. In that case, by succumbing, Isabella would be bringing about the result that the law would have reached, if the law had been properly carried out. The dilemma posed in Measure for Measure is in between. Angelo initiates the proposal, so the case is one of "extortion," not "bribery" (in the popular sense). But the play makes it clear, and Isabella knows, that Angelo's uncorrupted judgment is that Claudio should die. The above barely scratches the surface. But it is sufficient, I believe, to show that Isabella's ethical dilemma, like almost everything else in Measure for Measure, is far too complex to be reduced to a neat ethical formula. The context is simply too rich and paradoxical. Best, Dan Lowenstein ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:18:18 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0217 Re: "My Own Private Idaho" Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0217. Saturday, 15 February 1997. (1) From: Mark Lawhorn Date: Friday, 14 Feb 1997 11:16:36 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0214 Re: Parallel Scenes (and "My Own Private Idaho") (2) From: Harvey Roy Greenberg Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 1997 04:47:35 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0214 Re: Parallel Scenes (and "My Own Private Idaho") (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Lawhorn Date: Friday, 14 Feb 1997 11:16:36 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0214 Re: Parallel Scenes (and "My Own Private Idaho") Another note on "My Own Private Idaho" -- a colleague of mine who recently graduated from the film school at USC informed me a couple of days ago that when Van Sant lectured at USC, he claimed not to have modeled any scenes on "Chimes at Midnight." My response to this alleged denial is a fairly firm, "Ha." I just watched one film after the other, and in this case, seeing is definitely disbelieving. I think that the narcolepsy bit does not allude to any specific pathology in a Shakespeare character but instead to Shakespeare's frequent use of the "life is but a dream" metaphor, otherwise known as the "row, row, row your boat" trope. In the Henriad, Shakespeare's most memorable use of this device is in Hal's denial of Falstaff: "I have long dreamt of such a kind of man,/ So surfeit-swelled,so old, and so profane,/ But, being awaked, I do despise my dream" (2 Henry IV V.v.49-51). I agree that one cannot logically draw a perfect parallel between the River Phoenix character and Poins. But it's the logical starting point. Mark H. Lawhorn UH Manoa (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harvey Roy Greenberg Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 1997 04:47:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0214 Re: Parallel Scenes (and "My Own Private Idaho") Richert is obviously intended to be an avatar of Falstaff by virtue of age, girth, and wit; I believe -- and am ready to be refuted -- that Mike would have to represent Poins, indeed conflate all the dimwits surrounding Falstaff, attracted to Hal and VV, endearingly loyal and foolish. But I'd like to see your thesis. My own overview of My Own Private Idaho appeared in Film Quarterly several years back; let me know if you want it sent by snailmail. hr greenberg md ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:25:12 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0218 Re: Branagh's Ham.; MND Discussion; Cordelia and The Fool Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0218. Saturday, 15 February 1997. (1) From: Charles Costello Date: Friday, 14 Feb 1997 11:24:52 -0500 (EST) Subj: Branagh's Hamlet (2) From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 1997 14:00:37 +1100 (EST) Subj: Re: MND Discussion (3) From: Brian Turner Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 1997 21:19:12 +1300 Subj: Re: Cordelia and The Fool (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Costello Date: Friday, 14 Feb 1997 11:24:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Branagh's Hamlet I think Branagh is a victim of his own capacious talent. "To the full!" appears to be his motto (and he delivers), and, as has already been noted in this discussion, we get nothing tempered in his work. It's like love without seduction. I feel my little sleep before the first intermission entirely justified as a defensive action. Though starring a far less skilled actor, I thought the Zefferlli version much better. The air of Gibson's castle was effectively close for the catching of his conscience; God only knows where Branagh's conscience got to in that giant playpen of his. When I saw Branagh in a British t.v. production of Look Back in Anger several years ago, I was greatly impressed by his performance. He did not direct. His insistence now on going whole hog and directing as well as starring in everything he does is a great loss to the world of drama. Who knows, if he would concentrate his talents on acting for another decade or two, he might learn something about directing. Then we'd be in for a real treat. Get back, Branagh! (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 1997 14:00:37 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: MND Discussion I've been distracted from the discussions recently so I'm not sure whether anyone else has mentioned one of my favourite recent (relatively speaking) approaches to MND, Louis Adrian Montrose's "Shaping Fantasies". Montrose gives a fascinating reading of the play as (and I'm grossly oversimplifying here) a male fantasy of revenge or retaliation against the threat of female power, as epitomised in the figure of Elizabeth I. I've used the article with several classes of students, and the response has often been both stimulated discussion and some practical work in class which has outstripped in its savage brutality any production I've ever seen, especially in terms of stagings of Oberon's treatment of Titania. The most strongly committed feminist students have usually responded the most enthusiastically to this understanding of the play, and have recognised its depiction of oppression. The Athens/woods dichotomy barely gets a look-in in this reading--in fact both worlds are paralleled, showing similar examples of the punishment and humiliation of powerful female characters, starting with the subordination of the Amazon Queen by her male Athenian conqueror. This is not the way to a happy or pretty production, but surely those have passed their use-by date. Montrose also glances at the fact that the "issue...create" as a result of the nuptual activities in the best bride bed, despite Oberon's consecration (never mole, hairlip nor scar...), is of course Hippolytus. Moles, hairlips and scars are nothing to this boy. Adrian Kiernander (3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Turner Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 1997 21:19:12 +1300 Subject: Re: Cordelia and The Fool Syd Kasten in SHK 8.0119, Cordelia and the Fool, says: >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? Syd expands on this in SHK 8.0167 I have done a little analysis of the (Pide Bull) quarto. There are three scenes plus a speech of 13 lines amounting to 292 lines between the Fool's final exit in Act 3, scene iv (scene 13 of the quarto) and the start of act 4, scene iii (scene 17 of q). This is about 10% of the play - a good ten to fifteen minutes playing time. Why would Shakespeare wish to cater for such a tardy actor? Would the theatre not allocate a dresser rather than ask their resident playwrite to compose an irrelevant scene? I once stage managed a play where we effected a costume change in 26 seconds. We didn't write in any extra dialogue, we just had a couple of people from wardrobe backstage helping her with it. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:42:14 EST Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0219 Q: Harold Goddard Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0219. Saturday, 15 February 1997. From: Simon Malloch Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 1997 21:27:47 +0800 Subject: Harold Goddard I am currently reading Harold Goddard's *Meaning of Shakespeare*, and was wondering what others thought on where he stands in the canon of 20th century Shakespearean criticism. I have not seen him mentioned in detail, only by Harold Bloom who believes Goddard's text to be the best single book on Shakespeare. Any opinions? Did Goddard write anything else worth looking up? Simon Malloch P.S I am also after a copy of Goddard in Hardcover, if anyone has a copy they wish to sell. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 09:08:10 -0500 Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0220 Call for Papers Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0220. Sunday, 16 February 1997. From: Charlie Mitchell Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 1997 10:07:05 -0800 Subject: Call for Papers C A L L F O R P A P E R S On-Stage Studies, a peer-reviewed annual journal published by the Department of Theatre and Dance of the University of Colorado, Boulder, is looking for articles for its 20th anniversary issue, to be published in the summer of 1997. We are seeking articles on theatre and dance dealing with scholarly evaluations of specific performances (production-related research), history and performance traditions, contemporary performance theory, and textual criticism as it applies to performance. We will not accept articles that approach theatre from a strictly textual standpoint (e.g. The Use of Metaphor in THE SEAGULL). We are looking for how the issues discussed will affect performance choices. Dramatic texts or performance diaries will no longer be considered. For those interested in writing book reviews, please write to the Book Review Editor, Jeff Turner, at the address below. * Original manuscripts for articles should be submitted in conformance with the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers (4th ed.). * Full-length articles may be up to twenty pages in length, double-spaced, should be well-documented, use endnotes, and include a list of works cited. * Up to two high quality, high contrast black and white photos are welcome. * Manuscripts will not be returned. * Authors desiring confirmation of receipt should enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard. * The deadline for submissions has been extended to March 1, 1997. All manuscripts and correspondence should be sent to: Editor, On-Stage Studies University of Colorado at Boulder Campus Box 261 Boulder, CO 80309-0261 Questions? Please e-mail us at: axline@ucsu.Colorado.EDU or mitchecp@ucsub.Colorado.EDU ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:09:53 -0500 Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0221 Re: Modern Editions; Branagh's Ham.; Harold Goddard Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0221. Sunday, 16 February 1997. [1] From: Andrew Murphy Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 1997 17:45:15 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Modern Editions of Shakespeare [2] From: Stephan B. Paragon Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 1997 17:03:38 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0218 Re: Branagh's Ham. [3] From: Mary Todd Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 1997 21:06:38 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0219 Q: Harold Goddard [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Murphy Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 1997 17:45:15 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Modern Editions of Shakespeare This doesn't quite answer the question asked, but if your library has about a cool four grand knocking about and nothing better to spend it on, I'd recommend getting them to buy the Arden Shakespeare on CD. It has the full text of the Arden 2, together with a facsimile of the First Folio and of most of the quartos (2nd quartos too in some cases), plus Partridge, Bullough's _Narrative & Dramatic Sources_ & much, much more. It is fully searchable and can even produce part books for performance. A fine bit of kit, if you can afford it. Otherwise, I'd say the print Arden is still hard to beat for all round scholarly value; or the Oxford for a text that's adventurous. On the cheaper end of things, my students seem to like the New Penguin texts, as a sort of affordable but decent edition. Andrew litradm@herts.ac.uk [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephan B. Paragon Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 1997 17:03:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0218 Re: Branagh's Ham. I don't agree! I that you are to critical. I think it's wonderful. that Ken B. has taken Shakespeare further than anyone else. Just as I think it was great that someone should appreciate Mozart when he was alive, it's easy to praise these giants after they have died. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Todd Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 1997 21:06:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0219 Q: Harold Goddard Simon Malloch asked about Harold Goddard. I am a loyal fan of his work and agree with Bloom that it makes a major and indispensable contribution to modern Shakespeare criticism. He has written another book that I think is worthy of attention. It is called ALPHABET OF THE IMAGINATION and contains some of his thoughts on scripture, Blake, William James, Henry James, Chaucer, Emerson, Whitman, and Russian literature. His views always shed new light for me on the subjects he scrutinizes. The book was published by Humanities Press, in New Jersey (Atlantic Highlands). He also wrote a book STUDIES IN NEW ENGLAND TRANSCENDENTALISM and a book called MORALE. You are in for a very special treat if you are meeting Goddard for the first time... or the second, or the third... Mary Allen Todd ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:19:03 -0500 Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0222 Shakespeare Magazine Winter Issue Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0222. Sunday, 16 February 1997. From: Michael C LoMonico Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 1997 15:06:17 EST Subject: Shakespeare Magazine Winter Issue SHAKESPEARE magazine, sponsored by Georgetown University and Cambridge University Press is pleased to announce that its Winter Issue has just been published. Highlights of this issue include: *After Luhrmann, Will Romeo and Juliet ever be the same? - students, teachers and scholars react to the film that puts a cool romance against a background of hot cars, guns, power, and money. *A Plague on Both Your Fathers: Patriarchy in Verona Beach-University of Miami, Ohio scholar Frances Dolan links the foreboding fathers of Romeo and Juliet with their Elizabethan counterparts. *The Balcony Scene in Performance-rare photos from the archives of Lincoln Center's Library for the Performing Arts. *Fancy and Neutral masks-Sue Biondo-Hench shows us how to make and use fancy masks; Caleen Jennings shows us how working with white-faced masks leads to breakthroughs in character study. *Thees and Thous: Clues to Interpersonal Relationships-Pat Thisted shows how spending a day learning the ins and outs of second person familiar pronoun forms can lead to insights about relationships between Shakespeare's characters. *Hilary Zunin Reviews Michael Pennington's "Hamlet: A User's Guide" *Trial by Audience-Kimberly Strain recounts a trip to the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland with middle school students *Electronic Shakespeare-Rick Vanderwall reviews two new RJ CD-ROMs and Madeline Holzer gives suggestions for how to use CD ROM's in the classroom *Peggy O'Brien's 20 minute RJ-What appears on the surface to be a light-hearted summary of the play with lots of opportunity for hammy acting is in fact a multi-intelligence learning experience. *Dream Shakespeare Films-teachers, scholars, enthusiasts describe the Shakespeare film they most want to see in the future. *Rex Gibson on Juliet's funeral-The renowned editor of the Cambridge School Shakespeare editions gives us an authentic David Garrick poster and ideas for how to use it in the classroom. Subscriptions ($12 US, $18 Foreign for 3 issues) should be sent to: Shakespeare Georgetown University PO Box 571006 Washington, D.C. 20057-1006 For more information go to www.shakespearemag.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:26:07 -0500 Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0223 Re: Sins in MM Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0223. Sunday, 16 February 1997. [1] From: Surajit A. Bose Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 1997 15:42:33 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0216 Re: Sins in MM [2] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 97 22:51:39 GMT Subj: Re: Sins in MM [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Surajit A. Bose Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 1997 15:42:33 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0216 Re: Sins in MM Dan Loewenstein's conclusion: >show that Isabella's ethical dilemma, like almost everything else in Measure >for Measure, is far too complex to be reduced to a neat ethical formula. The >context is simply too rich and paradoxical. is of course right on target; in the spirit of that conclusion, something he says earlier in his marvelous post needs qualification: >Although many characters in the play try to dissuade Angelo from executing >Claudio, no one argues that Claudio's behavior is not within the capital >offense. This cannot be decisive, from an ethical point of view. T Yes and no. No-one (not even "the fornicatress" Juliet) "argues that Claudio's behavior is not within the capital offense." Except for Claudio himself, who points out that he and Juliet have secretly entered into a mutually binding nuptial contract. The existence of this contract is surely meant to complicate the nature of Claudio's offense. Is he in fact legally guilty or isn't he? It's odd that Claudio is the only one to mention this contract, and no-one produces it as evidence in his favor: is he just lying to save his skin? This contract itself contrasts with the (unilaterally rescinded) contract between Angelo and Mariana. The two contracts do not have the same legal force. But the existence of contracts of different legal standing intensifies the problem: what is the relation between legal and moral culpability? Similar questions: What is the nature of contracts and trusts? What are an individual's ethical obligations to him/herself, state, and society? The play raises these issues and, like jesting Pilate, does not stay for an answer. -Surajit [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 97 22:51:39 GMT Subject: Re: Sins in MM Daniel Lowenstein concludes > Isabella's ethical dilemma, like almost everything else in Measure > for Measure, is far too complex to be reduced to a neat ethical > formula. The context is simply too rich and paradoxical. Alternatively, the fact that Angelo orders Claudio's execution after and despite enjoying Isabella (or so he thinks) shows that the ethical questions are, finally, irrelevant. It doesn't matter what Isabella believes or does, Claudio's going to get it anyway. Only trickery (Ragusine's head for Claudio's) is going to save the day. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:34:43 -0500 Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0224 Re: Ideology Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0224. Sunday, 16 February 1997. [1] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 97 22:52:09 GMT Subj: Re: Shakespeare's Transcendence [2] From: Stephan B. Paragon Date: Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 00:00:55 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0177 Re: Ideology (Various) 2nd Mailing [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 97 22:52:09 GMT Subject: Re: Shakespeare's Transcendence Paul Hawkins and I appear to be in complete agreement: > Not being an absolutist in these matters, I would simply > suggest that things become *less* transcendent or > transcultural (and nothing can ever be so completely) > as *more* instruction/initiation is required. This is a relativist position because it refers to "more or less" transculturalness. To assert that Shakespeare's works are very transcultural is at least reasonable, whereas asserting that his works absolutely transcend cultural difference is clearly not. One needs, for example, a concept of 'kingship' to make sense of the histories. It is possible, I suppose, that England of the late sixteenth century just happened to produce the dramatist with the most transculturalness. One might want to argue that the first capitalist economy offered the right conditions to make the most transcultural dramatist. The recoverable history of the construction of the National Poet indicates, however, that Shakespeare's relatively large transculturalness was not simply lying dormant waiting to be discovered, but was in fact part of the construction of the cultural artifact 'Shakespeare'. That is, the transcendence of the works was asserted as part of the colonialist project. Do thousands of Indian students read Shakespeare because his works speak more cogently of their experiences than do those of any Indian writer, or because Britain colonized India? Postcolonialist theory does not represent this process as one of simple imposition of an alien culture on indigenous peoples, and does not suggest that throwing off the colonialist yoke requires re-organization of the canon to give local writers precedence over imported ones. But asserting that Shakespeare's worldwide consumption is simply a consequence of his excellence is to ignore the political, economic, and cultural processes by which canonicity works. Gabriel Egan [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephan B. Paragon Date: Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 00:00:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0177 Re: Ideology (Various) 2nd Mailing Shall he compare thee to nobody's summer? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:48:52 -0500 Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0225 Re: Parallel Scenes; Osric; Shakespeare in France Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0225. Sunday, 16 February 1997. [1] From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 1997 17:35:23 -0500 Subj: Parallel Scenes [2] From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 21:55:17 +1100 (EST) Subj: Re: Osric [3] From: Edna Z. Boris <104757.652@CompuServe.COM> Date: Sunday, 16 Feb 97 08:47:34 EST Subj: Shakespeare in France [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 1997 17:35:23 -0500 Subject: Parallel Scenes People have come up with some very interesting parallel scenes -- well worth thinking and writing about. But only a few people have provided the parallel STAGE productions that college students might perform. The problem with parallel film scenes is that scripts would be hard to come by and a staged version of a film would probably not work and be too expensive. The problem with parallel stage scenes (like Stoppard's "Dogg's Hamlet" or "West Side Story" -- productions for which there are scripts (a key factor here) -- is that the rights are too expensive for a small college budget. So, I have a new question. Does anyone know of any offshoots of Shakespearean plays from out-of-copyright years, from the Restoration through the early part of the 20th c.? *All for Love* (*Ant*) springs to mind. Someone mentioned *Sauny the Scot* (*Shr*). Another possibility is the ending of *Lear* and the Nahum Tate ending. The idea would still be for a team of college students to present two parallel scenes, the Shakespearean and the non-Shakespearean, during one evening. Thanks to all for your suggestions, Bernice [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 21:55:17 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: Osric The query abut Osric's hat reminded me of something we did in a production of _Hamlet_ I was involved with many years ago. We were unhappy with the idea of playing Osric as stereotypically effeminate, which I find both offensive and boring (a lethal combination). A friend and colleague, Robert Leek who was studying the stage history of several Shakespeare plays in the Netherlands, suggested an approach which (I think) he had seen done in a production in Amsterdam. Taking as a cue the statement that Osric is "spacious in the possession of dirt", as well as the use of terms like "beast" and "chuff", we played him as a kind of rugby-playing, country hoon and wannabe courtier, presumably recently arrived in Elsinore from his estate in the provinces, and trying too hard to behave appropriately. Someone accustomed to plain speaking, and thinking he now needs to sound more elaborate, but handling it awkwardly and tying himself in knots in the process. As far as I and I think many others were concerned it worked well, was quite consistent with the lines spoken by and about Osric, and added a fresh kind of humour to both the character and his mocking by Hamlet. (I'm particularly disturbed by the implications of Hamlet using term "beast" to describe a swishy Osric.) It also added a different plausibility to his involvement in the duel-this Osric was someone you might expect to be able to handle weapons. There was also nothing ridiculous about his appearance in the final scene-here he was in his element, and there was no distracting prancing or posing of the kind that often happens. It is of course replacing one potentially offensive stereotype with another, but at least an unexpected one, and one which in a sense turns the tables on the convention. I'd be interested to know any information about the tradition of playing him as an effeminate fop, which seems to be the default reading for most productions I have seen. Was it ever thus? And what other approaches have been found to be plausible? (I haven't yet had the chance to see the Branagh version.) Adrian Kiernander [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edna Z. Boris <104757.652@CompuServe.COM> Date: Sunday, 16 Feb 97 08:47:34 EST Subject: Shakespeare in France The most authoritative source of information on translations of Shakespeare into French was published in 1963 by the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique; it is called TRADUCTIONS ET ADAPTATIONS FRANCAISES DU THEATRE ETRANGER and is a list of all translations; M. Horn-Monval is the compiler. For the play HAMLET, the earliest translation was by Pierre-Antoine de la Place in 1746. Voltaire is generally credited with making Shakespeare known in France, sometimes through favorable comments and sometimes through critical comments. One of the best studies on this topic is by Theodore Besterman; volume 54 of STUDIES ON VOLTAIRE AND THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY is called VOLTAIRE ON SHAKESPEARE (Geneva: Institute et Musee Voltaire, 1967). ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:56:39 -0500 Reply-To: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 8.0226 Q: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio, Early Plays Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0226. Sunday, 16 February 1997. From: Gabriel Z. Wasserman Date: Saturday, 15 Feb 1997 21:10:36 -0500 Subject: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio, Early Plays Does anyone know of any information I could read about Edward III Edmund Ironside The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth The Troublesome Raigne of King John, Part 1 The Troublesome Raigne of King John, Part 2 The Taming of A Shrew (Yes, I've read scene 1, and I think it's good) The Chronicall Historie of Kinge Leir (NOT Q1, the EARLIER play) The Historie of Cardenio (According to the late [as of December] Charles Hamilton) I am also interested in Shakespeare Apocrypha--You know, th'old *A Yorkshire Tragedy* *Muceodorus* *The Merry Devil of Edmonton* *Edward II* (Actually by Marlowe) *Edward IV* (Actually by somebody or other [not by Billy] ) *Sir Thomas More* *Sir Thomas Lord Cromwell* *Arden of Feversham* *Fair Em* etc. I am also interested (VERY interested, in the case of the first one!) in Q1 *Hamlet*, the differences between Q and F *Lear*, "Bad Quartos" in general, *Sir Thomas More*, Shakespeare's alleged bisexuality, and other matters. I'm sure you'll all hate me for saying this, but I actually like *LOUES LABOURS LOST*. (Yes, I put the "u" in place of a "v" on purpose-I'm using the *New Variorum Edition*! Your fellow {new} SHAKSPERean, Gabriel Z. Wasserman PS: Does anyone know where to find articles by the iconoclastic Shakespeare scholar Eric Sams, besides in TLS, which I have no access to. PPS: I'm interested in the Chandos portrait-aren't we all??!!! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:23:00 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0227 Re: Parallel Scenes Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0227. Monday, 17 February 1997. [1] From: Michael Friedman Date: Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 15:44:55 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0225 Re: Parallel Scenes [2] From: Ron Macdonald Date: Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 16:42:22 -0500 (EST) Subj: Parallel Scenes [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 15:44:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0225 Re: Parallel Scenes Bernice, You might have a look at William Davenant's *The Law Against Lovers* (1662), which is a mish-mosh created by splicing together *Measure for Measure* and *Much Ado About Nothing*. Michael Friedman University of Scranton [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Macdonald Date: Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 16:42:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Parallel Scenes Bernice Kliman asks for dramatic reworkings out of copyright from the Restoration on. There's always John Dennis's _The Comical Gallant_ (1702), his version of _The Merry Wives of Windsor_. The play itself is far from memorable, but I believe the introductory epistle is the source of the story that _Wives_ was written at the command of Elizabeth, who was so eager to see it that she ordered it finished in fourteen days. --Ron Macdonald ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:41:09 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0228 Re: Osric; Harold Goddard; Ethics in MM Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0228. Monday, 17 February 1997. [1] From: Ron Dwelle Date: Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 11:25:48 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0225 Osric; [2] From: John Velz Date: Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 14:27:36 +0200 Subj: Harold Goddard [3] From: John Velz Date: Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 22:03:20 +0200 Subj: Ethics in MM [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Dwelle Date: Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 11:25:48 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0225 Osric; Regarding Adrian Kiernander's interpretation of Osric, I've always understood Hamlet's reference to him as a "waterfly" to be standard Elizabethan slang for denigrating an effeminate man or homosexual-about the equivalent of the modern term "faggot." Osric's language certainly works well when delivered in the stereotypical limp-wristed fashion. During my own miserable, dimly recalled collegiate acting career (only two pitiful Shakespeare roles, one of them Osric), my high point was playing Osric that way, at the insistence of the director. It felt right (though my expert testimony is about as far away as you can get from a discussion that began with criticizing Branagh). [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 14:27:36 +0200 Subject: Harold Goddard Simon Malloch wrote (in part): >I am currently reading Harold Goddard's *Meaning of Shakespeare*, and was >wondering what others thought on where he stands in the canon of 20th century >Shakespearean criticism. I have not seen him mentioned in detail, only by >Harold Bloom who believes Goddard's text to be the best single book on >Shakespeare. Any opinions? I said of him in 1968 that "there is more to praise than to blame" in his book, though he sometimes considers too curiously (the function of the character of Lucius in *JC*, for instance), and he "is interested in the dramatist only as he appears in his works and is therefore not at pains to establish his cultural antecedents" e.g., the classical tradition. I have since been told by someone to whom I complained about the arrogance of the title "The Meaning of Shakespeare" (as if there were only one and it is delivered to your doorstep by this book), that Goddard died before the book appeared and that his literary executor(s?) chose the title for good or ill. One wonders whether any other touches in the book might be traceable to this/these executors. On balance it is a good introduction to the plays, but it fails for the most part to put Shakespeare into a larger intellectual context. Read with this caution, the book has considerable value. It has no ax to grind as more ideologically slanted lead-ins to Shakespeare do now; he is perceptive; writes a clear style unadorned by obfuscating jargon of the kind the ALSC gives satiric prizes for. John Velz [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 22:03:20 +0200 Subject: Ethics in MM Surajit Bose comments on the pre-contract between Claudio and Juliet: >The existence of this contract is surely meant to complicate the nature of Claudio's offense.< Actually it complicates it a great deal. Claudio and Juliet have a theologically valid marriage which contrasts strongly with the unilateral sexual liaison Angelo intends with Isabella. Angelo is much more guilty in sexual intention than the man he condemns. In medieval and renaissance sacramental theology, marriage is unique among the seven sacraments in that the couple confer the sacrament on each other when they make promises either "de praesenti" or "de futuro" in front of witness(es). The priest is normally the witness to this spousal contract, but he is not a necessary witness. A "de futuro" promise becomes a "de praesenti" promise, and ergo a valid marriage, the moment sexual congress occurs. In the sight of God Claudio and Juliet who have exchanged vows before witnesses ("a true contract", 1.2.142 and note in Bevington's 1992 edn.) and are waiting for a dowry arrangement "Remaining in the coffers of her friends [= relatives]", were sacramentally married once they ratified their vows carnally. She is "fast [his] wife"; such marriages were very common in Tudor times (John Donne married Anne More by that means; Shakespeare probably married Ann Hathaway by that means) and were called "handfast marriages". The "denunciation . . . Of outward order" (banns and public ceremony) is a social and ecclesiastical matter of no theological significance. Medieval and modern clergy hem(med) and haw(ed) about this matter, because they want(ed) to keep marriage a ritual matter within the rubrics of the Church. But the marriage is valid if the witnesses have heard vows and if the lovers have mingled flesh in light of those vows. Now this theological doctrine, which everyone in Shakespeare's audience would be well aware of, as people are aware of (say) "living together" as a kind of marriage today, provides two special ironies that enliven the play. First, Angelo is condemning a man for casual fornication who is actually in sight of God a husband with a pregnant wife. (One wonders why Claudio did not produce the witnesses to his vows made with Juliet - if he did this there would be no play, of course, so Shakespeare ignores this escape hatch.) Second, the play is at pains to make it clear that Marianna and Angelo once had exactly such a "de futuro" contract as Claudio has with Juliet, except that he and Marianna had not yet consummated the relationship at the time when he broke off the promises on the ground that the awaited dowry went to the bottom of the sea in a shipwreck. (A pharisaical move on Angelo's part, the letter of the agreement, not the spirit.) That (unilaterally broken) "de futuro" contract is fulfilled and made into a marriage when Angelo takes Marianna's virginity, even though he thinks he is taking Isabella's. Note that Marianna swears "I am affianced this man's wife as strongly as words could make up vows" and "he knew me as a wife" in that garden house Tuesday night last gone (5.1.234-7) She is exactly correct, and she describes the pattern of handfast marriage and its effect. All this being true, the play is about the fallibility of human law which Angelo regards with a reverence that he might better have focused on divine law. In the garden house, Angelo unknowingly re-enacts the exact same "offense" for which he condemned Claudio to death. Neither of them should get the death penalty, since both were only ratifying promised marriages when they engaged in sex that the civil law sees as mortally sinful but Divine Law validates. The bitter irony of this pairing of Angelo and Claudio is that Claudio, the alleged criminal, never broke his promise, while Angelo, the alleged virtuous man, once broke his promise to Marianna and in Act IV breaks his promise to Isabella not to kill her brother. Complex and most ironic, the ethical implications of crime and punishment in this play. John ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:04:21 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0229 Re: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio, Early Plays Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0229. Monday, 17 February 1997. [1] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 17:21:28 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0226 Q: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio, Early Plays [2] From: Warner Crocker Date: Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 19:17:32 -0600 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0226 Q: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio, Early Plays [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 17:21:28 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0226 Q: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio, Early Plays Gabriel Z. Wasserman asks: > Does anyone know where to find articles by the iconoclastic >Shakespeare scholar Eric Sams, besides in TLS, which I have no access to. Sams has recently edited Edward III for Yale University Press. I have not yet seen it, but I suppose he will there give a fairly thorough bibliography of attribution studies. Yours, Bill Godshalk [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Warner Crocker Date: Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 19:17:32 -0600 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0226 Q: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio, Early Plays The newly christened Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival will be presenting several plays you mentioned, (I remember mentions of Cardenio, Edmund Ironside, Thomas More, and Merlin) as a reading series to accompany their next season. For further info you can contact them at fahrenheit@fuse.net. They recently changed their name to CSF from Fahrenheit Theatre Company. WC wcrocker@ix.netcom.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:12:05 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0230 Re: Ideology Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.0230. Monday, 17 February 1997. [1] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 21:20:48 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0224 Re: Ideology [2] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Monday, 17 Feb 1997 08:46:22 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0224 Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 16 Feb 1997 21:20:48 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0224 Re: Ideology > But asserting >that Shakespeare's worldwide consumption is simply a consequence of his >excellence is to ignore the political, economic, and cultural processes by >which canonicity works, writes Gabriel Egan. Excellence, of course, is not an inherent quality, but a matter of what we humans have determined to call "excellent." But surely "canonicity" is not as easily analyzed as Gabriel seems to suggest. We scholars don't seem to know or comprehend all the "processes" by which an author becomes "canonical." We don't agree on how works become "canonical" nor do we agree on what works are in the "canon." Is Hemingway "in" or "out"? What about Lydgate? If by "cultural" we mean "of or pertaining to the environment constructed by humans for humans," then I suppose we'd have to acknowledge that some kind of cultural process determines artistic "excellence." But is the selection of an author for the not-so-easily-identified "canon" really an "economic" and/or "political" decision? Wouldn't Middleton or Heywood or Shirley do just as well economically and/or politically as the Great English Renaissance Playwright? Or why not Jonson? I am convinced that we humans set the standards of excellence for all artistic endeavors, and that there is no metaphysical, transcendent standard for judgment. But that we set these standards for political and/or economic reasons remains to be proven-to my mind, at any rate. And doesn't primate psychology have something to do with esthetic selection? Yours, Bill Godshalk [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Monday, 17 Feb 1997 08:46:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0224 Re: Ideology I am glad that Gabriel Egan and I appear to agree on Shakespeare's having at least some transcultural appeal. However, when he claims, "the transcendence of the works was asserted as part of the colonialist project," is it not equally possible to interpret the historical record as follows: the transcendence of the works was asserted on what we can call aesthetic grounds; in turn, Shakespeare so elevated proved appropriable for the colonialist project? Armies and empire builders may carry canons with them, but this doesn't mean they create them. Shakespeare's excellence alone may not be the reason he is read all over the world, but I don't think, as Gabriel Egan sometimes seems to, that his being read all over the world has created his excellence. Paul Hawkins ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:22:05 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0231 [was 8.231] Re: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio, Early Plays Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.231. Tuesday, 18 February 1997. [1] From: Jonathan Hope Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subj: SHK 8.0229 Re: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio, Early Plays [2] From: David Skeele Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subj: SHK 8.0229 Re: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio, Early Plays [3] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subj: SHK 8.0229 Re: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio, Early Plays [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Hope Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subject: SHK 8.0229 Re: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio, Early Plays Casting false modesty aside, quite a few of the plays mentioned are considered in Jonathan Hope, 1994, The authorship of Shakespeare's plays (Cambridge UP), and just about all are covered in a very useful section in S. Wells and G. Taylor's Textual Companion to the Oxford Shakespeare (Oxford). Eric Sams publishes regularly in the journal Notes and Queries (he has a very hostile review of my book in the December 95 issue). Jonathan Hope Middlesex University, UK [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subject: SHK 8.0229 Re: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio, Early Plays >I am also interested in Shakespeare Apocrypha--You know, th'old > *A Yorkshire Tragedy* > *Muceodorus* > *The Merry Devil of Edmonton* > *Edward II* (Actually by Marlowe) > *Edward IV* (Actually by somebody or other [not by Billy]) > *Sir Thomas More* > *Sir Thomas Lord Cromwell* > *Arden of Feversham* > *Fair Em* > etc. To Gabriel Wasserman, An interesting source for info about Shakespearean apocrypha is a nineteenth-century edition of his works: The Tallis Shakespeare (1856). Look for the edition called "Doubtful Plays," edited by Henry Tyrell, Esq. It features solid introductions to most of the plays listed above, with lots of fascinating nineteenth-century arguments for or against their inclusion in the canon. It is a little difficult to find, but a good university library might well have it, as will the Folger. Best Wishes, David Skeele [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subject: SHK 8.0229 Re: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio, Early Plays BIBLIOGRAPHY of Edward III Bradbrook, Muriel C. Shakespeare and Elizabethan Poetry. London: Chatto and Windus, 1951. 209-210. "The unity of theme in Edward III and its similarity to that of Henry V does not seem to have been recognized" (209). Dobson, Willis Boring. Edward the Third: A Study of the Composition of the Play in Relation to Its Sources. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Texas, Austin, 1956. [From Bethany Nazene College, Bethany, OK] Everitt, E. B. and R. L. Armstrong. Six Early Plays Related to the Shakespeare Canon. Anglistica XIV. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1965. Edward III, ed. R. L. Armstrong, 195-250. I use this modernized text and its line numbers. I change Armstrong's "Audeley" to "Audley" as does Tucker Brooke. Galway, Margaret. "Joan of Kent and the Order of the Garter," Univ. of Birmingham Historical Review 1 (1947): 36-40. Which countess was it, anyway? Gransden, Antonia. "The alleged rape by Edward III of the countess [sic] of Salisbury," English Historical Review 87 (1972):333-344. The story apparently begins with Jean de Bel, Chronique de Jean le Bel, ed. J. Viard, and may be French propaganda. Le Bel called the countess "Alice" (335). In one poem, Artois is blamed; see B.J. Whiting, Speculum 20 (1945): 261-78. On Artois, see H. S. Lucas, The Low Countries and the Hundred Years' War (1929): 124. Horn, Frederick David. The Raigne of King Edward the Third: A Critical Edition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Delaware, 1969. (MUI - 69-21, 946) Hoy, Cyrus. "Renaissance and Restoration Dramatic Plotting," Renaissance Drama 9 (1966): 247-264. Jackson, MacD. P. "A Note on the Text of 'Edward III'," Notes and Queries 216 (1971): 453-4. Jackson, MacD. P. "'Edward III,' Shakespeare, and Pembroke's Men," Notes and Queries 210 (1965): 329-31. Koskenniemi, Inna. "Themes and Imagery in Edward III," Neuphilologische Mittielungen 65 (1964): 446-80. Kozlenko, William. Disputed Plays of William Shakespeare. New York: Hawthorn, 1974. Reproduces the text edited by Henry Tyrrell (London, 1860). Plagiarizes Muir's work as an introduction. Lapides, Fred, ed. The Raigne of King Edward the Third: A Critical, Old-Spelling Edition. Renaissance Drama, A Collection of Critical Editions. New York: Garland, 1980. With a thorough introduction and notes. Mann, Francis Oscar, ed. The Works of Thomas Deloney. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912. Melchiori, Giorgio. Shakespeare's Dramatic Meditations: An Experiment in Criticism. Oxford, Clarendon: 1976. 42-47, 57-59, etc. Argues that "Sonnet 94 - and a good number of the others - were written after and not before Edward III" (45), and notes another parallel between the play and the sonnets (I.ii.95-97, and Sonnet 18.3). Metz, G. Harold, ed. Sources of Four Plays Ascribed to Shakespeare: The Reign of King Edward III, Sir Thomas More, The History of Cardenio, The Two Noble Kinsmen. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1989. Thoroughly reviews the scholarship on the play (3-42). Regarding authorship, he concludes that the traces of Shakespeare's "work in the second part of the play . . . are not quite sufficient as a basis for the claim that he is the sole author of Edward III" (20). Muir, Kenneth. The Sources of Shakespeare's Plays. London: Methuen, 1977. Muir, Kenneth. Shakespeare as Collaborator. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1960. 10-55. Notes parallels with Shakespeare's undoubted work, and believes one theory would cover all the facts: "Shakespeare . . . was hastily revising a play by another dramatist" (30). Osterberg, V. "The 'Countess Scenes' of Edward III," SJ 65 (1929): 49-91. Links between Edward III and Shakespeare's undoubted work. Painter, William. The Palace of Pleasure. ed. Joseph Jacobs. 3 vols. 1890. New York: Dover, 1966. Pratt, Samuel M. "Edward III and the Countess of Salisbury: A Study in Values." University of Mississippi Studies in English, 4 (1983): 33-48. Notes Deloney's poem but doesn't see the importance of the poem for dating the play. Proudfoot, Richard. "The Reign of King Edward the Third (1596) and Shakespeare," Proceedings of the British Academy 71 (1985):169-85. Rutherford, Vera Randolph. "The Play of Edward III: Its Sources, Structure, and Possible Authorship." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, 1927. Schaar, Claes. Elizabethan Sonnet Themes and the Dating of Shakespeare's Sonnets. Lund, 1962. 117-35. Slater, Eliot. The Problem of The Reign of King Edward III: A Statistical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Tillyard, E. M. W. Shakespeare's History Plays. 1944; London: Chatto & Windus, 1959. 111-14. E3 is "one of the most academic and intellectual of the Chronicle Plays" (111). The "unifying principle of the play" is "the education of . . . Edward III and the Black Prince" (113). The play is "the most steadily thoughtful of all the Chronicle Plays outside Shakespeare" (114). Tucker Brooke, C. F., ed. The Shakespeare Apocrypha. Oxford: Clarendon, 1908. Warnke, Karl and Ludwig Proescholdt, ed. Pseudo-Shakespearian Plays. Revised ed. Vol. III: King Edward III. Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1886. Wentersdorf, Karl. The Authorship of Edward III. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1960. Wentersdorf, Karl. "The Date of Edward III," Shakespeare Quarterly 16 (1965): 227-31. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:37:00 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0232 [was 8.232] Re: Harold Goddard Shakespeare Electronic Conference: SHK 8.232. Tuesday, 18 February 1997. [1] From: John Boni Date: Monday, 17 Februray 1997 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0221 Re: Harold Goddard [2] From: Dan Lowenstein Date: Monday, 17 Februray 1997 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0221 Re: Harold Goddard [3] From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 17 Februray 1997 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0221 Re: Harold Goddard [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Monday, 17 Februray 1997 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0221 Re: Harold Goddard In recalling my experience in reading Goddard's ideas on Shakespeare, I think of T.S. Eliot's characterization of Samuel Johnson as "a dangerous man to disagree with on the basis of facts" (hope I've recalled the gist of that). So it is with Goddard: One may not agree with his arguments, but was one is hard put merely to dismiss them. John M. Boni [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan Lowenstein Date: Monday, 17 Februray 1997 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0221 Re: Harold Goddard Professor Malloch asks for references to worthwhile writings of Harold Goddard, other than the book, "Meaning of Shakespeare." Goddard's essay entitled "The Merchant of Venice" is very much worth reading. Although I do not agree with Goddard's defense of Shylock, his essay is the best statement of the "antitraditionalist" position that I have seen. Goddard's essay, which was originally published in the late 1940's, is reprinted in Bloom's 1991 anthology, "Shylock." Since I don't have that work in front of me, it is possible that it had appeared as a chapter in Goddard's book. If so, I apologize for the redundant reference. Best, Dan Lowenstein [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 17 Februray 1997 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0221 Re: Harold Goddard Like John Velz and Mary Allen Todd, I have found Goddard fascinating....I disagree with Mr. Velz, however, that "Goddard has no axe to grind." One need only look at his intro chapters in which he criticizes certain rival critical "schools" of his times-especially the performance oriented and historical (old historical I guess you'd call them now) critics as well as those who adhere to the biographical and/or intentional fallacy....(also, his chapter in which he take the two sons of Cymbeline and makes them into critical principles to prefer reading Shakespeare as "poetry" rather than as "merely" a dramatist - as a practicing poet, I have much admiration for Goddard's relatively wide sense of poetry in a somewhat visionary poetry(which for him was considered radical, subversive, leftist-whereas today, for many, such kind of poetry, is often considered conservative.) and the way he is able to quote poets like Dickinson and Stevens in his discussion of Shakespeare (poets who at the time he wrote the book were hardly the cultural ICONS they have become today...it is something I would like to do if I ever publish a book on Shakespeare with more unknown poets like Laura Riding, Carla Harryman, even John Ashbery, Bernadette Mayer, etc-i.e.). Also, Goddard is one of those PERSONALITY critics that doesn't come around too often. Even when I disagree with him, I am MOVED to disagree in a way I am with say JANET ADELMAN or RENE GIRARD in a more contemporary scene. I do think at times he gets a little too much on a certain high horse and does not value wit or comedy enough, but then we're all mortal. And for a book written in a very different era, it ages better than many (though it is definitely of its time in its liberal humanism and anti-ww2 sentiments....) Chris s. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:46:49 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0233 Re: Parallel Scenes The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0233. Tuesday, 18 February 1997. [1] From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subj: SHK 8.0227 Re: Parallel Scenes [2] From: Dale Lyles COM> Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subj: Re: Parallel Scenes [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subject: SHK 8.0227 Re: Parallel Scenes Bernice Several years ago David Groves, a colleague from Victoria University in Wellington, did a wonderful cut-and-paste student production of parallel scenes from _Twelfth Night_ and the commedia erudita play that Shakespeare used as a model, _Gl'Ingannati_. The same male actor played both Sebastian and his equivalent (whose name I've forgotten), and in the final scene where the two plots came together he was confronted with two identical twin sisters. It was dazzlingly clever and extraordinarily moving. The pattern was alternating scenes from both plays until the last, when the final scenes from each play were interwoven almost line by line. It's a technique I'd recommend. I should mention that David teaches both Theatre and Italian and this was part of the Italian Department program, so the Shakespeare scenes were performed in English and the _Gl'Ingannati_ scenes in Italian. This again was a wonderful effect, but the whole production could have worked as well theatrically in English only. Adrian [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles COM> Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subject: Re: Parallel Scenes "Mish-mosh of MM and MAdo"???? What on earth??? The mind boggles. Please elucidate. Thanks, Dale Lyles ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:56:19 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0234 Re: Sins in MM The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0234. Tuesday, 18 February 1997. [1] From: Dan Lowenstein Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subj: Re: Sins in MM [2] From: Fred Wharton Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subj: Re: Sins in MM [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan Lowenstein Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subject: Re: Sins in MM Surajit Bose quotes from my posting, and goes on: > >Although many characters in the play try to dissuade Angelo from executing > >Claudio, no one argues that Claudio's behavior is not within the capital > >offense. This cannot be decisive, from an ethical point of view. > > Yes and no. No-one (not even "the fornicatress" Juliet) "argues that > Claudio's behavior is not within the capital offense." Except for Claudio > himself, who points out that he and Juliet have secretly entered into a > mutually binding nuptial contract. The existence of this contract is surely > meant to complicate the nature of Claudio's offense. Is he in fact legally > guilty or isn't he? It's odd that Claudio is the only one to mention this > contract, and no-one produces it as evidence in his favor: is he just lying > to save his skin? I see nothing in M4M that casts doubt on the truthfulness of Claudio's assertion, but neither do I see anything suggesting that the existence of the nuptial contract removes Claudio's conduct from the fornication offense. However, and more importantly, I agree with Bose that the fact that Claudio's offense is surrounded by the most extenuating circumstances imaginable is very much a part of the ethical and political puzzles that this play poses. I also agree precisely with Bose that the case of Claudio and Juliet is contrasted in the play with the case of Angelo and Mariana. As Bose says, Claudio but not Angelo appears to have acted unlawfully, but Angelo's conduct has been at least as questionable on ethical grounds. Gabriel Egan writes: > Alternatively, the fact that Angelo orders Claudio's execution after and > despite enjoying Isabella (or so he thinks) shows that the ethical > questions are, finally, irrelevant. It doesn't matter what Isabella > believes or does, Claudio's going to get it anyway. Only trickery > (Ragusine's head for Claudio's) is going to save the day. When Egan says that the ethical questions are "irrelevant," the question becomes, irrelevant to what? Probably the only UNAMBIGUOUS feature of M4M is the wickedness of Angelo's conduct. I don't know of anyone who has come to Angelo's defense. (It's too bad Angelo isn't Jewish, or Moorish, or illegitimate. Then he'd have plenty of defenders.) But if no one has questioned Angelo's wickedness, I believe most people who see or read M4M are fascinated by Isabella's ethical dilemma. If read in that context, Egan's statement "that the ethical questions [surrounding Isabella's dilemma] are, finally, irrelevant," would be silly. I am not suggesting that Egan's statement IS silly. Rather, it is an attempt to change the context. But why should those of us who find Isabella's dilemma a question of absorbing interest be bullied into giving it up, simply because, as Egan points out, Angelo turns out to be a greater scoundrel than she realized at the time? Best, Dan Lowenstein [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fred Wharton Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subject: Re: Sins in MM Paul Nelsen argues that for Isabella to "submit" as she is urged to do would entail the damnation of her soul. However, in Whetstone's *Cassandra,* the immediate source figure for Isabella does submit and is praised as a "chaste lady" and as "virtuous." The praise is on the face of it puzzling, but J. Rosenheim, a decade or more ago drew attention to St. Augustine's doctrine (*Homily on the Lord's Sermon on the Mount*?)that a chaste mind can remain intact though the body is violated. Lisa Jardine (*Still Harping on Daughters*)has convincingly shown how Elizabethan popular literature for women (Painter, et al.) promulgated the ideal of the submissive woman, delivering her body in the service of her family, and how strikingly Isabella "fails" to live up to such standards. Fred Wharton Augusta State University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:20:48 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0235 Re: Mod. Eds.; Burton Ham; MND; Feminism; Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0235. Tuesday, 18 February 1997. [1] From: David Evett Date: Monday 17 February 1997 Subj: SHK 8.0221 Re: Modern Editions; [2] From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subj: Re: Burton's HAMLET [3] From: Dale Lyles < aleLyles@AOL.COM> Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subj: Re: MND Discussion [4] From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subj: Re: Feminist Criticism [5] From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Tuesday 18 Feb 1997 Subj: SHK 8.0230 Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday 17 February 1997 Subject: SHK 8.0221 Re: Modern Editions; The Arden is the series of choice at this point, for although the new Oxford and Cambridge editions are more up to date (both pay substantial attention to performance history, among other things), they are still in progress. The Pelican and Signet are less expensive but dated; the Signet give you some criticism of each play. The Folger texts are adequate, but unless there is a library edition of which I am not aware, the books are very cheaply printed and not likely to stand up very well to library wear and tear even if rebound. You might try identifying an alum or other benefactor who'd like to give you the whole thing, or maybe the CD-ROM Arden-your library could probably set it up so that whoever accessed it would be informed as to the donor's identity. Dave Evett [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subject: Re: Burton's HAMLET When Burton did it in Toronto, the voice of Hamlet's father was distinctively Gielgud's which -with a brilliant light represented the ghost. It made some of the other actors, Drake for one ( though not Cronyn) sound like their mouths were full of mud. It also underlined a generation gap within and outside of the play. Mary Jane Miller, Brock University, [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles < aleLyles@AOL.COM> Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subject: Re: MND Discussion Adrian Kiernander writes: "This is not the way to a happy or pretty production, but surely those have passed their use-by date." Hello? Whatever our take on husbands who submit their wives to bestiality in order to gain a new catamite, the fact remains that MND is a comedy [and I use that in a structural sense], and as far as the main plot goes, that of Hermia's dilemma, the patriarchal system is overturned, not sustained. Thanks though for the new ideas. I think it's OK to scare an audience, and we may be able to do that with these insights. You didn't mention where Montrose's work can be found. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subject: Re: Feminist Criticism Anders Klitgaard writes, "For the record, being a man, I AM somewhat skeptical of feminism..." For the record, I am a man (my spouse's skepticism notwithstanding), and I am no more skeptical of feminism than I am of any other theory-probably less so. Regards, --Chris [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Tuesday 18 Feb 1997 Subject: SHK 8.0230 Re: Ideology Paul Hawkins's argument requires 'aesthetic' considerations somehow to float free of economic/political imperatives. Of course. Isn't this what 'the aesthetic' was invented for? History meanwhile suggests that 'Transcendence' is written on the banner of all self-respecting colonialist projects. The imposition of one culture on another is usually undertaken in the name of 'humanity'. Can we have forgotten than already? Terence Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:35:22 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0236 Qs: CHE on Norton Shakespeare; Iago's Homosexuality; Iambic Pentameter The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0236. Tuesday, 18 February 1997. [1] From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subj: CHE on Norton Shakespeare [2] From: Trace Shelton Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subj: Iago's Homosexuality [3] From: Hilary Zunin Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subj: Iambic Pentameter [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subject: CHE on Norton Shakespeare I'm wondering what reactions my colleagues have to the op-ed piece in _The Chronicle of Higher Education_ by James (?) Shapiro on the occasion of the publication of the Norton Shakespeare. I was especially enthusiastic about his complaint that all this attention to Shaksper would exacerbate the difficulty of finding other drama of the period in print. (My enthusiasm didn't stop me from ordering a desk copy from Norton.) --Chris [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Trace Shelton Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subject: Iago's Homosexuality Hello all. I am in the formative stages of writing a seminar paper on Iago's latent homosexuality, and especially his attraction to Cassio. If we read the play within the context of this thwarted homosexual passion towards Othello and Cassio, the dynamics of their conversations, as well as Iago's motivation for malignancy, take on an entirely new dimension. If you don't believe me, check out Act III, scene iii (sorry, this text is old and doesn't give line numbers), in which Iago relates a fictional instance in which he "lay with Cassio", and Cassio fell into a dream. Iago says Cassio would "cry, 'O sweet creature!' and then kiss me hard, as if he pluck'd up kisses by the roots, that grew upon my lips: then laid his leg over my thigh, and sigh'd, and kiss'd; and then cried, 'Cursed fate that gave thee to the Moor!'" Iago uses such detail that we almost believe (or rather, I could almost believe) the incident actually took place. This could be viewed as Iago's fantasy, in which he physically enjoys Cassio, as well as being psychologically satisfied by Cassio's jealousy of Othello, Iago's truest love. I realize that the fictionalized Cassio utters Desdemona's name, but this is necessary in Iago's make-believe story in order for Othello to be convinced. Iago has earlier described Cassio as having "a person, and a smooth dispose, to be suspected: fram'd to make women false" (end of I,ii). I believe he is framed to make Iago false; in fact, Iago ironically characterizes himself in describing Bianca as being "a creature that dotes on Cassio,-- as 'tis the strumpet's plague to beguile many and be beguil'd by one" (IV,i). There is no greater master of guile than Iago, although I feel he's been beguiled by two. Some other passages support this view as well, but my main purpose in writing is to get some feedback as to the credibility of this view. As I say, it seems credible to me, but please let me know what you think. Anything you say that I use will, of course, be cited (if you would rather me not use your comments as source material, please let me know). [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hilary Zunin Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 Subject: Iambic Pentameter Does anyone know roughly what percentage of Shakespeare's plays are in iambic pentameter? I'm looking for "perfect" form; no short lines or feminine endings need apply. Also, I've seen an estimate of prose v. blank verse of 22% v. 78%. Does this ring true? Thanks. Hilary ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:02:33 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0237 A VERY Important Announcement about SHAKSPER The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0237. Tuesday, 18 February 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Tuesday, February 18, 1997 Subject: A VERY Important Announcement about SHAKSPER Dear SHAKSPEReans, As some of you may have noticed, I have been using a different account to edit the SHAKSPER digests since Sunday. I have had to develop entirely different procedures from those I have used for years, and the results to me have been mixed. My major problem is that the work of editing currently is taking me something approaching three times what it used to take - instead of one hour a day, I have been working more like two and a half to three hours on SHAKSPER. I have every expectation that I will develop shortcuts and get more efficient, but I am forced to adopt these new procedures as a consequence of the eminent demise of my old account, known variously as HMCook@boe00.minc.umd.edu HMCook@boe00.bsu.umd.edu and HMCook@boe00.BowieState.edu From this point on, please do not communicate with me using any of the above addresses. Submission for SHASKPER should be sent directly to the list address - SHAKSPER@ws.bowiestate.edu or to the account I will be using as editor - editor@ws.BowieState.edu. My personal account is Hardy.Cook@BowieState.edu, but this address should not be used for SHAKSPER business in that doing so simply creates more work for me. I am still working on a problem with the sendmail.cf file, and as soon as this problem is resolved I will proceed with the upgrade to Listserv 1.8c with its restored Database function, which I look forward to with great anticipation. Hardy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:56:39 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0238 CUNY Conference Announcement The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0238. Wednesday, 19 February 1997. From: Martin Elsky Date: Tuesday, 18 Feb 1997 08:46:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: CUNY Conference Announcement Dear Colleagues, I would like to announce that, in addition to the full program, the following papers of the interactive CUNY Renaissance Studies Conference, "Early Modern Trans-Atlantic Encounters: England, Spain, and the Americas" (MARCH 6-7) are on line at: http://web.gc.cuny.edu/dept/renai/conf/ Anthony Pagden "'Shadows of an unquiet sleep': America and the Conflicting Discourses of European Universalism" Sacvan Bercovitch "A Model of Cultural Transvaluation: Puritanism, Modernity, and New World Rhetoric" Sabine MacCormack's paper will soon be on line. The subject of the conference is the interrelation between European, colonial, and indigenous cultures in the 16-17 centuries from the perspectives of history, literature, and art history. Abstracts of papers by David Armitage, Thomas Cummins & Joanne Rappaport, Myra Jehlen, Karen Ordahl Kupperman, Dana Liebsohn, and Enrique Pupo-Walker are also on line. We invite questions and comments, which will be posted and read at the conference. The conference itself will take place in New York at the Spanish Institute, The CUNY Graduate School, and the New-York Historical Society. The conference is free and open to the public. There is no registration. Times and locations of the conference are available on our website. Martin Elsky, Coordinator, Renaissance Studies Program, CUNY Graduate School and University Center, 33 West 42 Street, NY, NY 10036; 212-642-2346; 212-642-2205 (Fax) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:19:43 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0239 Re: Sins in MM The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0239. Wednesday, 19 February 1997. [1] From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Tuesday, 18 Feb 1997 09:05:27 -0500 Subj: Sin and Jesuits [2] From: Louis Marder <76411.3613@CompuServe.COM> Date: Tuesday, 18 Feb 97 12:11:49 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0223 Re: Sins in MM [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Tuesday, 18 Feb 1997 09:05:27 -0500 Subject: Sin and Jesuits James Saeger's question about sin in _M for M_ got me thinking about attitudes toward Jesuits in early modern Protestant England. Aren't these other characters encouraging Isabella toward a kind of moral equivocation that at least some English Protestants (Foxe's _Book of Martyrs comes immediately to mind) would have (unfavorably) identified with those nasty, lying, slippery Jesuits? (Apologies to Frs. Bob, Bill, and Jim.) My recollection is that Foxe more than once points out how forthright and, thus, morally correct martyred Protestants were. Since Isabella is being asked to lie with someone rather than to someone, perhaps the comparison is inappropriate. --Chris [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Marder <76411.3613@CompuServe.COM> Date: Tuesday, 18 Feb 97 12:11:49 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0223 Re: Sins in MM RE sin in MM. I haven't read all the messages on this subject but I wonder has anyone suggested that Isabella sins by pimping for Angelo. And Mariana becomes a fornicatress for Angelo. There was a pre-contract, but it has long been broken. Is the play much ado about nothing or all's well that ends well? Shakespeare likes a good story and makes it complicated with contrasts, cross-purposes and ironies to be enjoyable. Cassandra in the source was no virgin, but S makes Isabella not only a virgin but a novice in St. Clare. Louis Marder avon4@juno.com PS: Does everyone know about Juno? It is a company that believes "e-mail should be free". There are supposed to be ads on screen to pay for the service but I haven't seen one yet. Simple to use too. Call 1- 800-654-5866 and they'll send a software disk. Very uncomplicated. Louis Marder, Shakespeare Data Bank. (Still looking for Associates) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:24:10 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0240 Burying the Globe The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0240. Wednesday, 19 February 1997. From: Andrew Gurr Date: Tuesday, 18 Feb 1997 15:01:07 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Burying the Globe SHAKSPERians might like to know that English Heritage remains firm in its view that the Globe's remains should be buried permanently, or, as they say, kept undisturbed 'for future generations'. Ellen Barnes, the English Heritage officer answerable about the Globe, told me yesterday that she has told the Heritage Minister, Virginia Bottomley, that in EH's opinion the Globe remains are safe where they are, and that they see no reason for further excavation. The idea of what they call keyhole excavation, digging holes in the thick basement floor of Anchor Terrace where the foundations of the Globe's stage lie, is not in what she calls the public interest. I thought you'd like to know. Her address at English Heritage is not the aptly named Fortress House in saville Row, but Chesham House, 30 Warwick Street, London W1R 5RD, and her phone number is 0171-973-3000. The ministers to write to at the House of Commons are John Gummer, Secretary of State for the Environment, and the Heriate Minsiter, Virginia Bottomley. Andrew Gurr ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:28:34 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0241 Re: Iambic Pentameter; Iago; Parallel Scenes; Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0241. Wednesday, 19 February 1997. [1] From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Tuesday, 18 Feb 1997 08:51:24 -0800 (PST) Subj: RE: Iambic Pentameter [2] From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Tuesday, 18 Feb 1997 08:52:54 -0800 Subj: Iago's Homosexuality [3] From: Billy Houck Date: Tuesday, 18 Feb 1997 13:55:27 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0225 Re: Parallel Scenes [4] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 18 Feb 1997 15:52:51 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0235 Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Tuesday, 18 Feb 1997 08:51:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: RE: Iambic Pentameter For Hilary Zunin: Of WS's 104,000 or so lines in 37 dramatic texts, approximately 28% are in prose, 7% in rimed verse, and 65% in blank verse, according to Harbage. Of these, I have no idea what percentage are "perfect," as you put it. Regards, Evelyn Gajowski U of Nevada, Las Vegas [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Tuesday, 18 Feb 1997 08:52:54 -0800 Subject: Iago's Homosexuality Dear SHAKSPERians, This email is for Trace Shelton. People have been arguing for years about Iago's sexual orientation, but the potential love object in question is usually Othello, rather than Cassio, so that's a not uninteresting take. A famous theatrical production was the Richardson as Othello, Olivier as Iago 1938 at the Old Vic, directed by Tony Guthrie. One account of how Guthrie and Olivier came up with the homosexual interpretation of Iago is quite funny (I believe the teller of this tale is the theater photographer Angus McBean): Olivier:I wonder what motivated Iago to have risen to that position, he must have been an intelligent man. Guthrie:I've always wondered, it's one of the difficulties of the play. Olivier:I know Tony, let's play it with Iago in love with Othello. Guthrie:What a wonderful idea-- but we must never let Ralphie know! [qtd. in Gary O'Connor, ed., Olivier In Celebration (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1987) 179.] Of course, the more famous and useful account is Olivier's: Tony Guthrie and I were swept away by Professor [Ernest] Jones's contention that Iago was subconsciously in love with Othello and had to destroy him. Unfortunately there was not the slightest chance that Ralph would entertain this idea. I was, however, determined upon my wicked intentions, in cahoots with Tony; we constantly watched for occasions when our diagnosis might be made apparent to the discriminating among the audience, though I must say I have never yet discovered any means of divulging something that is definitely subconscious to any audience, no matter how discerning they might be. In a reckless moment during rehearsals I threw my arms round Ralph and kissed him full on the lips. He coolly disengaged himself from my embrace, patted me gently on the back of the neck and, more in sorrow than in anger, murmured, "There, there now, dear boy; good boy.... " Tony and I dropped all secret connivance after that. I had one more trick up my sleeve; Ralph had to fall to the ground when Othello, frenzied by Iago's goadings, is helpless in the clutches of a paroxysm. I would fall beside him and simulate an orgasm-terrifically daring, wasn't it? But when the wonderful Athene Seyler came round after a matine she said, "I'm sure I have no idea what you were up to when you threw yourself on the ground beside Ralph." So that was the end of that stroke of genius and out it came. [qtd. in Olivier's CONFESSIONS ON AN ACTOR, 105-6] Marvin Rosenberg's MASKS OF OTHELLO has some good material on this production, and others like it, as well (see especially page 181ff). S. Foster Damon, the famous Blake scholar and poet, wrote a privately printed volume under the name Samuel Nomad, and you might enjoy his poem "Iago," set in Othello's "sixth act"- Racked to death throughout life! And shall the earth belong alone to the meek, strong, and wise? To live, must we not grasp their good through lies and mask our indirections with our mirth? Admittedly we are of little worth judged by the twelve commandments; but no eyes read our dark hearts. God dare not moralize on the defects he gave us at our birth. Yet- my revenge, accomplished, turned to error and vanished, expiated. Life was purged by death; nothing at all remained thereof, except the internal truth, which now upsurged. Even my basic hate was burned by terror down to its real root, a hidden love. [Nightmare Cemetary, printed at R.I.S.D.{Rhode Island School of Design} in 1964.] Finally, please do not take it the wrong way when I caution you about casually bandying words like "homosexual" with regard to early modern culture. A group of intelligent scholars (e.g., Eve Sedgwick, John Boswell, Bruce Smith) have argued that the category as we know it doesn't fit texts like OTHELLO as neatly as we creatures of the 1990s might like. Best wishes, Brad Berens [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Tuesday, 18 Feb 1997 13:55:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0225 Re: Parallel Scenes I seem to remember an opera written in the 1920's entitled CALIBAN ON THE YELLOW SANDS based on THE TEMPEST. I'm still kicking myself for not buying the only copy I've ever seen. I'm sure you can find it in a big university library. and then take hands, Billy Houck [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 18 Feb 1997 15:52:51 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0235 Re: Ideology > The imposition of one culture on another is >usually undertaken in the name of 'humanity'. Can we have forgotten that >already? asks Terence Hawkes. How can those of us who watch the Cultural Materialists insisting that their vision is the only vision ever forget it? Let's talk about attempts at cultural imposition, but, most of all, let us resist cultural imperialists, even those who come dressed as a Welsh rabbit. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:36:20 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0242 Re: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio, Early Plays The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0242. Wednesday, 19 February 1997. [1] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 18 Feb 1997 12:27:14 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.231 Re: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio, Early Plays [2] From: Jay Johnson Date: Tuesday, 18 Feb 1997 11:26:05 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0226 Q: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio, Early Plays [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 18 Feb 1997 12:27:14 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.231 Re: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio, Early Plays I notice that I forgot to list Elihu Pearlman's recent essay on Edward III and Henry V, but I can't without difficulty find the precise reference. Perhaps EP will help me out. Yours, Bill Godshalk [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jay Johnson Date: Tuesday, 18 Feb 1997 11:26:05 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0226 Q: Edward III, Edmund Ironside, Cardenio, Early Plays With regard to "The Famous Victories," I recommend Seymour Pitcher's _The Case for Shakespeare's Authorship of "The Famous Victories" (With the complete text of the anonymous play)_. It was published by the State University of New York in 1961, and in it Pitcher presents a very persuasive argument. Jay Johnson Medicine Hat College ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 08:08:06 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0243 A Woman as Hamlet The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0243. Thursday, 20 February 1997. From: Andres Saenz Lara Date: Tuesday, 18 Feb 1997 16:24:53 -0800 Subject: A Woman as Hamlet This is my first posting to this list, to which I have been subscribed for several months. The National Theatre Company of Costa Rica is rehearsing Hamlet, in the very good translation by our noted author Joaquin Gutierrez. The lead is being played by a young woman actor. I remember Joseph Papp staged Hamlet with a woman in the title role in the early 80's. I didn't see the production, but I saw a TV programme about it. Would list member care to comment on Papp's rationale for a woman playing Hamlet? I would really appreciate some input on what members think about this casting in general and what justifications can be put forward for it. My understanding is that Andrei Wajda, the Polish film/theatre director, brought his staging of the play to NYC some time ago, also with a woman as the Prince. Did anyone see it, did it work? Best regards. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 08:18:00 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0244 Re: Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0244. Thursday, 20 February 1997. [1] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Tuesday, 18 Feb 1997 22:28:33 -0500 (EST) Subj: Ideology [2] From: Lyle Smith Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 15:03:47 -0500 Subj: History and Transcendence [3] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 21:11:12 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0235 Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Tuesday, 18 Feb 1997 22:28:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Ideology I think in very large degree aesthetic considerations *do* float free of economic and political imperatives. In order to stop and enjoy an aesthetic experience, one may have to be well fed and fortunate enough to have sufficient leisure time for the experience; that leisure time may, in the economic scheme of things, be bought off the backs of people who are engaged in less pleasant occupations, or people who are hungry, or people who are starving and dying. To enjoy an aesthetic experience in a particular society, one may have to be allied with a particular social group or be a member of a particular privileged class. I wouldn't argue that an aesthetic experience makes anyone better, nor am I claiming that someone in the throes of such an experience is not also a social being with various interests. But if an aesthetic experience presupposes a freedom procured economically and politically, "the value [of the experience] is not identical with the freedom," in the words of Harold Bloom. Further, the aesthetic achievement of a Shakespeare is not reducible to the propaganda of colonialism, nor is what I would call the aesthetic criticism of a Dryden or a Johnson so reducible. Nor, surely, is the aesthetic as a category, in the manner proposed by Professor Hawkes. Professor Hawkes deplores "the imposition of one culture on another" - but no one is defending colonialism. And that "`Transcendence' is written on the banner of all self-respecting colonialist projects" is not a claim that anyone currently is seeking to deny. Paul Hawkins [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lyle Smith Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 15:03:47 -0500 Subject: History and Transcendence Terence Hawkes writes-- "History meanwhile suggests that 'Transcendence' is written on the banner of all self- respecting colonialist projects. The imposition of one culture on another is usually undertaken in the name of 'humanity'. Can we have forgotten than already?" Demurrer: Prof. Hawkes seems to be taking Rudyard Kipling's theme of "the white man's burden" and applying it equally to Cecil Rhodes, Lord Clive, Pizzaro and Cortez. Until the late nineteenth century, European colonialists were pretty up-front about the profit motive being the engine driving colonial enterprise. And a good many of our own European ancestors came to North America not of their own free choice but because they were turfed out of their farms and crofts by enclosing landlords or starved out of Ireland during the potato famine. Not very "transcendent," that. And how is the word "transcendence" being used here anyway? Lyle Smith Biola University [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 21:11:12 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0235 Re: Ideology Terry pontificates: > The imposition of one culture on another is > usually undertaken in the name of 'humanity'. Can we have forgotten than > already? In his Nobel prize acceptance speech, Nelson Mandela claimed to be working against an "inhuman" system, and called apartheid a "crime against humanity." Since your memory seems to be even briefer than everyone else's, here's the link to the full text: http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/speeches/nobelnrm.html Cheers, Sean. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 08:50:54 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0245 RE: Sins in MM The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0245. Thursday, 20 February 1997. [1] From: David Lindley Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 08:51:15 GMT Subj: Re: Sin in Measure for Measure [2] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 13:40:39 GMT Subj: RE: Sins in MM [3] From: Syd Kasten Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 00:34:11 +0200 (IST) Subj: Sin in MM [4] From: Karen E. Bruhn Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 07:06:22 -0500 (EST) Subj: Sin in MM [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 08:51:15 GMT Subject: Re: Sin in Measure for Measure Isn't part of the point of this play that the execution for the sin of fornication was never part of English legal practice? The response of Lucio: 'Let him marry her,' would most likely have been the verdict of the ecclesiastical courts where such an offense would have been presented. In setting the play in an imaginary Vienna Shakespeare seems to be presenting his audience with a society which embodies an extreme version of a fundamentalist moral/legal code both to ratchet up the stakes and, perhaps, to offer an awful warning as to what can happen in such a society. I've argued recently (in The Shakespeare Yearbook, 7) that the play is in important respects a reflection of current debates about the boundaries between the ecclesiastical and secular jurisdictions, boundaries under threat from Puritan critics who wished to bring sexual transgressions of fornication, adultery etc. within the purview of the secular courts. But at one level the simple recognition that this Vienna would have seemed strange and extreme to the Jacobean audience must be part of any debate about responses to the moral dilemmas it incessantly poses. David Lindley University of Leeds [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 13:40:39 GMT Subject: RE: Sins in MM Daniel Lowenstein defends the importance of the ethical concerns surrounding Isabella's behaviour: > why should those of us who find Isabella's dilemma a > question of absorbing interest be bullied into giving > it up, simply because, as Egan points out, Angelo > turns out to be a greater scoundrel than she realized > at the time? When Angelo orders the execution of Claudio I feel that I've been tricked into worrying about ethics which ultimately don't matter. This trick might be an intended dramatic effect which we should consider. Milton evokes my sympathy for the devil at the beginning of Paradise Lost only to make me regret the investment later. Likewise the dramatic shock administered by Angelo's order feels like it is directed towards my intellectual investment in pondering the ethics of Isabella's situation. Gabriel Egan [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Syd Kasten Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 00:34:11 +0200 (IST) Subject: Sin in MM On Monday, February 17, Dan Lowenstein wrote: >Probably the only UNAMBIGUOUS feature of >M4M is the wickedness of Angelo's conduct. I don't know of anyone who >has come to Angelo's defense. (It's too bad Angelo isn't Jewish, or >Moorish, or illegitimate. Then he'd have plenty of defenders.) Anyone who calls Angelo wicked or evil is surely mistaken unless he is using wicked in the Middle English sense of "feeble" or evil in the Hebrew sense of "foolish". Angelo's character is established at the outset of the play by the Duke who, portrayed as he is as omnipotent and all-wise, surely must know. Angelo is not power hungry, he is humble in the face of the responsibility forced on him, he is deferential to age and experience; there is no hint of any tendency to supplant the Duke. Mariana feels that he is worthy of the enduring devotion. When Isabella comes to plead before him he doesn't try to extort money, suggesting to me that his failure to honour his pledge to Mariana is based on the loss of the symbolic value of the dowry rather than on the monetary value. Angelo, in fact has the character of an angel, a very small constituency. An angel has no human feelings and carries out his mission without personal judgment. A Commander Data, as it were, who could understand what humour is but couldn't experience it. He's built that way. For a human to bear such a character is an affliction. When Isabella comes before him to plead for her brother he is assaulted not only by her beauty, but by her tears, her fervor, her saintliness and by intangibles that can't be written into a script, such as a flood of pheromones from without and hormones from within. His angelic personality crumbles and he is left in the grip of alien animal passions that he has never learned to deal with because he has never experienced them. My own experience as a human being suggests to me that he is probably suffering for most of the play the torments of Hell, that place the road to which is paved with the best intentions. Indeed, presumably because of his inherent worth, he is spared the fate of having his licit decree fulfilled and his illicit lust satisfied as such. The punishment he incurs for his weaknesss is public revelation of his behaviour, a kind of purgatory, but he is in the final analysis welcomed into humanity with a worthy loving wife by his side, and the put upon Isabella as advocate. As far as we can see, he hasn't been repudiated by the Duke as a friend, and in being told to forgive the provost, he seems not to have been removed from office . In reading this play I felt echoes of the Biblical Book of Job, with Angelo as Job. The frame of that book had Satan wandering among the people and God extolling his perfect follower. Here the Duke takes both of these roles, albeit in reverse order. In the end, after enduring intense suffering Job is vindicated; God heals him and replaces all that was lost at the outset. My convoluted cortex revolves the axes of the play's space, and what comes out is a story of how some years before the play begins a shipwreck has led to the separation of Angelo and Mariana, and how the omniscient Duke, seeing what his good friend is missing in life, as well as the plight of the good woman, contrives to reunite the two making use of what he knows of the nature of his friends, his citizens and a judicious emotional tempest. In the process the various characters utilized go through various trials and most of them compromise their principles to some extent. Angelo, the central character in this reading, has been manipulated for his own good. The defense rests. Syd Kasten [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen E. Bruhn Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 07:06:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Sin in MM I have been spending a great deal of time with the anti-Catholic polemics that were being written 1590-1610 (approx). These works frequently targeted the Roman Catholic notion-as constructed in these polemics, anyway-that human action could eradicate sin. Might Jacobean audiences have seen Isabella's predicament as a satire on Catholic ideas about sin and soteriology? I welcome comments and criticisms on this; I'm thinking of including a chapter on MfM in my dissertation... Best, Karen Bruhn UNC Chapel Hill ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:06:49 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0246 Re: Iago's Homosexuality The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0246. Thursday, 20 February 1997. [1] From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@CompuServe.COM> Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 05:53:37 -0500 Subj: SHK 8.0236 Iago's Homosexuality [2] From: Trace Shelton Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 14:48:45 -0600 (CST) Subj: Homoerotic Iago [3] From: Ann Marie Olson Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 21:09:23 -0600 Subj: Homosexuality and Sin [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@CompuServe.COM> Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 05:53:37 -0500 Subject: SHK 8.0236 Iago's Homosexuality Dear Trace Shelton: Your main problem lies in the term 'latent homosexuality'. This is a rather crude Twentieth Century concept which has underwritten so many modern interpretations of Othello that it's almost become a cliche. Discard it. It's certainly misleading in this case because it draws on notions of 'homosexual' and 'homosexuality' that have only fairly recently been invented. Some of the most interesting things about Shakespeare's audience are the ways which they're DIFFERENT from us. Have a look at Bruce R. Smith's excellent 'Homosexual Desire in Shakespeare's England" (Chicago 1991), especially pp. 61-4. T. Hawkes [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Trace Shelton Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 14:48:45 -0600 (CST) Subject: Homoerotic Iago Thank you Joan Hartwig, David Reed, and Brad Berens, for your responses, and especially for the inclusion of helpful source material. I would like to say a few things in further defense of my assertion that Iago holds "homoerotic" attractions for Cassio, as well as Othello. If Iago's malice towards Othello can be said to stem from a jealousy of Desdemona as object of Othello's affections, it seems a jealousy of Cassio for his recent promotion fuels this hatred as well. I believe that while it seems obvious that if there is love/lust displayed by Iago toward anyone, it is Othello. However, it is my contention that Cassio is a close second. Othello offers the allure of the exotic other, as Desdemona so excellently explains in I,ii, and contrary to David Reed's assertion that Iago is disgusted by this eroticism, Iago is very much taken in by the grandeur and mystery of Othello, hiding this attraction behind a facade of revulsion. This loathing actually stems from a loathing of his own "lust of the blood and permission of the will"; that is, his forbidden enthrallment with Othello and Cassio. Othello, as "the Moor", is associated with magic and charms, even in the opening act of the play, and Iago perhaps feels the Moor has cast a spell over him. Cassio weaves his magic in a different way, by affecting the part of the Castiglionian courtier. Iago is angry, embarrassed, and at the same time, enticed by Cassio's smooth conversation and good looks, as displayed in II, i. He later speaks that it is to Desdemona's credit to love Cassio, being a "handsome, young" and "devilish knave." When Iago creates for himself a love of Desdemona, he does it out of defense for his own ego, "suspecting" as he does that Othello has "leap'd into his seat." Much has been made of "honest" Iago's perpetual dishonesty, and he is even dishonest with himself, as evidenced by these self-creations. To accept my position, one has only to believe that Iago's dishonesty with himself applies to sexual orientation as well (if that is possible before the nineteenth century). He projects his own faults onto others in the play, and in the scene of Cassio's "dream", he places his own homoerotic passions into the fictionalized Cassio. As for the use of the term "homosexual", it is a question I intend to deal with in my paper, though I believe the term was invented to describe a type of behavior, rather than, as some "new-inventionists" would seem to assert, that the "homosexual" evolved as a result, or at least around the same time as, the word itself. Sincerely, Trace Shelton Texas A&M University [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ann Marie Olson Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 21:09:23 -0600 Subject: Homosexuality and Sin Thoughts sparked by comments on sin in M for M and on homosexuality in Othello and Midsummer, along with references to Foxe's Martyrs: I'm rather a novice here compared to some of you, but I question some of the comments which seem to indicate that these interpretations of the plays are absolute. It seems to me that in Measure for Measure, more than in any other play (including, surprisingly, Merchant of Venice), Shakespeare questions the very nature of justice and ethics. Isabella is forced to choose between two very different sets of instructions. She not only endorses the unsullied virginity of the convent, she questions the adequacy of their rules. Why? Is she afraid that without external enforcement of morality, her own virtue may collapse? I don't think so. She's too naive and indignant when she (finally) realizes what Angelo is proposing. She's too certain (albeit erroneously) of what Claudio's response will be to such a proposal. (Would it be interesting to do these scenes from M for M alongside scenes from something like Indecent Proposal . . . $100,000 to sleep with your wife?) So what's a novice to do? Seek the advice of a holy friar. Presumably, she sources her moral code in the church, since she aspires to be a nun. Now the representative of the church (or so she understands him to be) tells her to preserve her virtue through deception. I find nothing in the play to suggest that she doubts the Duke's assurances that her action "keeps you from dishonor in doing it" (II.i.237). Her naivete is central to her character. Isabella is praised as a model of the virtuous woman and castigated as a manipulative deceiver. I tend to think that she isn't really the point of the argument so much as an example of its consequences. The culpability of the Duke is a much larger issue, one introduced in the first scene and threaded throughout the play. Shakespeare's audience knew Scripture far better than most of us do today. They also knew Foxe's Martyrs, the most widely-read book second only to Scripture according to Bayne's article in Shakespeare's England. Isabella seems cast as a potential spiritual martyr as Claudio is as a political one. The Duke is, after all, conducting a grand experiment to see whether virtue can survive power (I.iii.53-4). In the context of his admission that Vienna's immorality is a consequence of his own too-permissive rule, the play seems to suggest that we are sinners all, a familiar idea to Renaissance playgoers who were fined if they didn't attend church. Shakespeare raises the questions. Does he ever arrive at the answers? I tend to think that Isabella's silence after the Duke suggests his "motion" in the final scene is suggestive of the argument as a whole. Homosexuality: certainly Iago's jealously can be explained by sexual motivations. Can it not also be motivated by political ambitions? Yes, the homosexuality is one plausible interpretation, but not the only one. And what about the frequent assumption that Oberon wants the changling child as a catamite. Yes, that's one interpretation, but I fail to see that it is demanded by the text. His "I do but beg a little changling boy, / To be my henchman" (II.i.120) seems to suggest the innocence of his claim. Henchman can imply simply a follower or page. True, he does reveal that Titania later dispatches the child to his bower. But in the sylvan setting, this may suggest simply an arbor and does not demand (or even explicitly suggest) sexual activity or interest. I'd welcome response to these thoughts. Also, a little off the subject-can anyone help me find a Latin course on CD-rom? I've found French, German, Italian, Spanish, etc., but no Latin. Any info would be appreciated. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:13:19 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0247 Re: Parallel Scenes The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0247. Thursday, 20 February 1997. [1] From: Michael Friedman Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 10:51:42 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0233 Re: Parallel Scenes [2] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 18:54:32 -0500 (EST) Subj: Parallel Scenes [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 10:51:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0233 Re: Parallel Scenes For Bernice Kliman, I thought of another possibility. You might try putting Gascoigne's *Supposes*, which is the English source for the Lucentio/Bianca subplot of *Shrew*, up against Shakespeare's version. The play is pretty readily available in Vol. 1 of Fraser and Rabkin's edition *Drama of the English Renaissance. For Dale Lyles, Here are some more details about Davenant's *The Law Against Lovers* culled primarily from G.C.D. Odell's *Shakespeare from Betterton to Irving*, with a few of my own observations after reading the play itself at the Folger. Nearly all of the comic characters from *MFM* are eliminated entirely, and Lucio's part is cut way down and sanitized. Juliet's part is enlarged considerably in what Odell refers to as several "depressing scenes". Mariana does not appear at all, and Claudio does not beg Isabella to save his life at the cost of her honor. Juliet makes that request instead. Isabella retaliates by suggesting that Juliet should play a role similar to the one Mariana plays in Shakespeare's version. Juliet isn't too happy about that suggestion. Odell continues, "The greatest weakness of the play is in the character of Angelo, who pursues his villainous course only up to the middle of the fourth Act, when he confides to Isabella the interesting fact that he really loved her for a long time before she came to plead for Claudio, and that he has merely been trying her; furthermore, he never intended to kill Claudio, anyway, and has sent off a pardon for him. Isabella naturally disbelieves this, and departs, leaving Angelo rather low in spirits. But the tale turns out to be true, though Angelo is severely punished by the Duke and others, before he is allowed to marry Isabella, as Davenant preferred to have him do" (I, 26). I would also add the interesting fact that the Duke retires to a monastery at the end of the play. As for the additions from *Much Ado*, Beatrice and Benedick are included as witty battling lovers in a subplot. Benedick is Angelo's brother, Beatrice is Angelo's ward, and Juliet is Beatrice's cousin, taking Hero's place. About halfway through the play, Benedick and Beatrice conspire together to rescue Claudio from prison (rather than "Kill Claudio"). In Davenant, Beatrice and Benedick aren't really central to the action and appear to have been grafted onto the *MFM* plot to provide interesting comic material in the absence of Pompey, Mistress Overdone, and the rest. I find the play fascinating in terms of the way it alters the original plot of *MFM,* and I hope to write something about it someday. Michael Friedman University of Scranton [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 18:54:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Parallel Scenes There's also W.S. Gilbert's brilliant satire of Irving, "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern", brief and very funny. We revived it for radio broadcast in Illinois, and found it to be a real crowd-pleaser, even for those who weren't aware of Sir Henry's bizarre stage habits. Andy White Arlington, VA ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:21:23 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0248 Re: Parallel Scenes; Modern Editions; Osric The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0248. Thursday, 20 February 1997. [1] From: Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 08:10:20 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0233 Re: Parallel Scenes [2] From: Jimmy Jung Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 16:47 -0500 Subj: Mod. Eds. [3] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 19:00:47 -0500 (EST) Subj: Osric is a Man [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 08:10:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0233 Re: Parallel Scenes I believe that while I was looking at the web site for SHAKESPEARE Magazine, which is quite interesting by the way, there was a list of movies and there correlation to S.'s plays. It might be worth the look for some scene comparisons. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jimmy Jung Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 16:47 -0500 Subject: Mod. Eds. I'm catching up on back traffic, but with regard to editions, this appeared a few years ago: Which Shakespeare? : A User's Guide to Editions by Ann Thompson, Thomas L. Berger, A.R. Braunmuller, Philip Edwards Published by Open Univ Pr Publication date: January 1992 ISBN: 0335090354 For me, I prefer the Oxford when I can find it. jimmy PS: Does anyone know of an accessible copy of Chimes at Midnight floating around the Washington DC area?; Fairfax County Libraries don't have it. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 19:00:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Osric is a Man While it has been done, to my mind to death, effeminate Osrics don't really give the poor fop his due. We make the same mistakes with characters from the Restoration, forgetting that all the affectations of speech were used by men in an attempt to appear superior, and hence more attractive to the _opposite_ sex. Hamlet tortures him over his hat because a) he can, and b) because Osric cannot wear his hat in the presence of royalty, it's just not done. His high-falutin language is a front for a very weak mind, but weak minds are in abundance among the male population (as women on this list may easily attest, from their own experience), and not necessarily a sign of sexual preference. The Shakespeare Rep had a fine Osric, Joe Foust, who was very much a normal guy, with obnoxious pretensions. Pulled a neat trick with the hat when he put it back on to leave, too. Better than Robin Williams, IMHO, but that's purely subjective. Andy White Arlington, VA ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:25:33 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0249 Columbia University Seminar on Shakespeare The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0249. Thursday, 20 February 1997. From: Jill Niemczyk Smith Date: Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997 12:43:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: Columbia University Seminar on Shakespeare THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY SEMINAR ON SHAKESPEARE is pleased to announce that Yasunari Takahashi of The Shakespeare Association of Japan will be delivering the Bernard Beckerman Memorial Lecture, "*The Braggart Samurai*: Colliding Cultures in *The Merry Wives of Windsor." The lecture will be held on Friday, 7 March 1997 at the Faculty House on the Columbia University Campus in New York City. Local and visiting Shakespeareans are welcome. Please contact Jill Niemczyk Smith at jan5@columbia.edu for further information.========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 13:19:28 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0250 DC's Shakespeare Theatre's AYL and a Question The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0250. Friday, 21 February 1997. From: Jung Jimmy Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 9:41 -0500 Subject: AYLI@D.C. "As You Like It is Shakespeare's most light-hearted comedy." (back cover, Oxford Edition) I=92m beginning to think this misunderstanding was all my fault. I had seen a production of AYLI last year, on a set so green, that the verdant memory was running through my mind, even as I entered the theater last night. My expectation was a trip to the country, everyone=92s in love, everything is green. It is an expectation that The Shakespeare Theater=92s current production constantly smashes. This is the brownest, bloodiest AYLI I ever expect to see. The set is dominated by large chrome walls and bone-brown stone. There are the prerequisite symbolic trees, for the most part barren and wind blown. = Post intermission, we get some flowers and some moisture; but overall, I was left with the impression of a Dallas skyscraper jutting through the stage. Now to my way of thinking, the threat of violence in AYLI, is just enough to keep the story going and hardly enough to be taken seriously; but not in this production. In an effort to emphasize the difference between the forest and the court, Duke Frederick=92s investigation into the disappearance of his daughter and of Orlando takes a very nasty turn. As Duke Frederick, and in other roles, Brett Porter has a real gift for being the villain we love to hate; he has ways of making you talk. As Kelly McGillis completes the third of her cross-dressing roles, it=92s gotten to the point where she looks odd to me in a dress. = But as Ganymede, she=92s amusingly in love and seems to manage Rosalind=92= s wit and the confusion of her dilemma with a nice balance. The funniest part for me was hearing Silvius and Phebe give the text a nice West Virginia spin. In a post-show discussion, I had the opportunity to ask one of the actors if he felt they were "betraying" the light hearted nature of the play, with their rather brutal version of the first half? He asked if I always wanted to see the same play, done the same way? and I guess the answer is no. On the other hand, if Shakespeare wrote a good "date" play, this is it, and I pity the poor guy who brought a date to this production on Valentine=92s day, only to have all thoughts of hearts and flowers wiped out by intermission. I=92d say, catch the show if you want= to see a first half that really surprises you, followed by a more traditional "love-romp" conclusion. jimmy A question: The production gave an emphasized twist to 2 lines, that I had never even noticed before. Charles the Wrestler, from the first scene: "... and never two ladies loved as they do." and Le Beau referring to Rosalind in the second scene: "and here detained by her usurping uncle to keep his daughter company, whose loves are dearer than the natural bond of sisters." Their delivery suggesting an unnatural lesbian relationship. I thought it was interesting and sets you up for some of the gender confusion to follow, but I also thought that it was pounding a square meaning into a round text, and sounded a little awkward. Has anyone else heard the lines given that reading before? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 13:29:17 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0251 Re: A Woman as Hamlet; Shakespeare's Women The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0251. Friday, 21 February 1997. [1] From: Melissa Aaron = Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 10:03:56 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0243 A Woman as Hamlet [2] From: Corrie Zoll Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 15:38:44 -0500 (EST) Subj: Shakespeare's Women [3] From: Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 23:37:34 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0243 A Woman as Hamlet [4] From: Ron Ward = Date: Friday, 21 Feb 1997 23:22:59 +1300 (NZDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0243 A Woman as Hamlet [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron = Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 10:03:56 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0243 A Woman as Hamlet Sarah Bernhardt is famous for having assayed the role, late in life, in French, with a wooden leg. Melissa Aaron [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Corrie Zoll Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 15:38:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shakespeare's Women I am in the process of compiling information about Shakespeare and Women in Shakespeare for Women=92s History Month, and would appreciate the addresses of any Web Sites you know of which address these or related subjects. Thank you for your help. -Corrie Zoll [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 23:37:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0243 A Woman as Hamlet The actress was Diane Venora, I think, and several years later she played Ophelia to Kevin Kline=92s Hamlet, on stage and in a PBS taped production directed by Kline. Richard Regan Fairfield University [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Ward = Date: Friday, 21 Feb 1997 23:22:59 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0243 A Woman as Hamlet I know Hamlet was played by Frances de Latour in England. Frances was best known for her role as the man hungry female in the TV comedy "Rising Damp". I know little about the production except it got some prominent mention by the critics. I do not even know if she played it as a comedy (cringe all purists). Date uncertain probably circa 1985. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 13:40:37 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0252 RE: Sins in MM The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0252. Friday, 21 February 1997. [1] From: John Velz Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 16:52:17 +0200 Subj: Isabella and Virtue = [2] From: Daniel Lowenstein = Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 10:13 :18 = Subj: Sin in M4M = [3] From: Charles Ross Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 15:39:44 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0245 RE: Sins in MM = [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 16:52:17 +0200 Subject: Isabella and Virtue Ann Marie Olson is provocative on Isabella=92s moral situation. If I am correct, no one has yet pointed out how much Isabella has in common with Angelo. They appear to each other to be dead-on opposites, even enemies, but under the surface they have more in common than either would be willing to admit. Both are keen on chastity to the point of being puritanical about it. Both think that "the rules" are not tough enough: Isabella says this about the conventual regula of the votarists of St. Clare (1.4.1-5) and Angelo wants a fiercer prosecution of offenders under "the rules" against fornication than the Duke has been ready to settle for. Maybe most important of all both need to learn that mercy is a necessary element in human relationships, as no one is exempt from sin ("Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.") = Isabella would be angry if she heard me say she does not understand mercy, since she pleads mightily for mercy for her brother in 2.2. But when she thinks herself double-crossed and deeply wronged by Angelo she makes her appeal to the Duke in Act V in a speech that begins with the word Justice and ends with a line in which the key word is stated again and again and again and again: ". . . justice, justice, justice, justice!" (cf. Lear=92s "never never never never never" and Macbeth=92s "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow"). The hardest thing she has to undergo in the fifth act is the moral choice she makes when she sets aside justice and kneels to plead for her enemy=92s life. In short, Isabella and Angelo both need to learn more than either thinks needs to be learned. Are they not metaphors for us all? Perhaps so, if we read the play as a parable=97as the source of the title in The Sermon on the Mount in Mark IV, Luke VI and Matthew VII might urge us to do. John V. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 10:13:18 PST Subject: Sin in M4M Gabriel Egan writes, "When Angelo orders the execution of Claudio I feel that I=92ve been tricked into worrying about ethics which ultimately don=92= t matter. This trick might be an intended dramatic effect which we should consider." I do not share his view that the ethics ultimately don=92t matter, but I agree there are "tricks" in Measure for Measure, and he is quite right that Angelo=92s subsequent actions can and should color our assessment of= what happens earlier. (Digression: When Gabriel Egan stops theorizing and starts engaging in what old-fashioned people like myself regard as literary criticism, his comments on this listserver are almost invariably insightful.) My own sense of the place in which we get "tricked" in Measure for Measure is when the Duke interrupts the dialogue between Isabella and Claudio, and lets Isabella know that he is going to provide an easy way out. When I read the play, it seems as if at that moment, one scriptwriter was fired and a new one was brought in, with a completely different conception of what kind of play this was supposed to be. What previously looked like a tragedy or, at least, a serious and absorbing drama, now becomes a comedy. When we regard the play as a whole, Egan is right that our consideration of Isabella=92s dilemma is colored by wha= t Angelo does later. But our sense of what Angelo does later and the way in which that affects our judgment of Isabella=92s earlier actions is itself colored by the fact that Angelo=92s later betrayal occurs in the context of what is now a comedy in which a happy ending is seemingly assured. One way to resolve all of this would be to say that the play is simply defective, with a first half and a second half that cannot be successfully joined. The trouble is, that when the play is produced well on the stage, there is no particular sense of disunity. So, rather than conclude that the play is defective, I come back to the view I have expressed in previous postings, that the play is almost infinitely complex. Syd Kasten makes some excellent comments on Angelo. My only real disagreement with him is that I do not believe his comments add up to a defense of Angelo. (Also, his argument depends in part on a conception of the Duke as a more or less omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent overseer of the action, a view that I think is consistent with some aspects of the play but in considerable tension with others.) I agree that Angelo=92s protestations at the beginning that he lacks sufficient experience=97if these comments are taken as sincere rather than ceremonial, which I believe is plausible though not necessary=97mitigate his wickedness. But to allow for mitigation is not to condone. The rest of Kasten=92s comments seem to me to amount to interesting EXPLANATIONS of why Angelo=92s particular character causes him to commit the particular offenses that he commits. But to explain is neither to mitigate or to condone. Best, Dan Lowenstein [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Ross Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 15:39:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0245 RE: Sins in MM I=92d be curious to know precisely at what point Gabriel Egan feels sorry= for Satan in Paradise Lost. I thought we were past that. Charles Ross ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 15:18:59 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: 8.0255 Re: Ed. III; Ideology; MND; TN Film; Parallel Scenes The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0255. Friday, 21 February 1997. [1] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 13:45:25 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0242 Re: Edward III [2] From: Daniel Lowenstein = Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 12:32:56 = Subj: Ideology [3] From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Friday, 21 Feb 1997 17:56:51 +1100 (EST) Subj: Re: MND [4] From: Chris Gordon Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 97 21:05:35 -0600 Subj: Trevor Nunn's _Twelfth Night_ [5] From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 21 Feb 1997 00:35:36 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0247 Re: Parallel Scenes [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 13:45:25 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0242 Re: Edward III Addition: Pearlman, E. "Edward III in Henry V," Criticism 37 (1995): 519-536. Yours, Bill Godshalk [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 12:32:56 PST Subject: Ideology Terence Hawkes had written: "History ... suggests that =91Transcendance=92= is written on the banner of all self-respecting colonialist projects. = The imposition of one culture on another is usually undertaken in the name of =91humanity=92. Can we have forgotten [that] already?" Apparent= ly, Hawkes intended the implication=97which is a non sequitur=97that all =91Transendance=92 and =91humanitarian=92 banners are attached to colonia= list projects. Sean Lawrence responds by referring to a speech of Nelson Mandela=92s, in= which apartheid was described as an "inhuman" system. The point, of course, is that beneficent actions may be taken in the name of humanity. It ought to be added that the vigorous and probably effective international opposition to South African apartheid was, precisely, "the imposition of one culture on another." So, for example, was the forcible abolition of slavery in the south following the American Civil War. So was the overthrow of Hitler by the allies in World War II. The imposition of one culture on another is an everyday occurrence in human history. It may be accompanied by (or in part effected by) various slogans and rationales. Whether the impositions or the accompanying rationales are justified is a matter of case-by-case judgment. The fact that some professors of literature hold political views that are narrow, rigid, and generally foolish is a matter of little or no consequence, because the professors and their ideas have little or no political influence. (If support for that statement is needed, see Stanley Fish=92s volume of lectures entitled "Professional Correctness.")= = That some professors of literature insist on viewing plays, novels, poems, etc., through the narrow and restrictive lens of such views is regrettable, to the extent that it discourages students from approaching literature as openly as possible. Another consequence of the strident attempts to impose a crabbed political outlook on all works of literature is that it provokes others to overreact, by denying that political, social, and economic considerations are important in literature. Thus, Paul Hawkins writes that to a large extent "aesthetic considerations DO float free of economic and political imperatives." If the emphasis is on the word "imperatives," then Hawkins is certainly correct. But more generally, I think it is misleading to think of aesthetics "floating free" of politics, society, and economics. PERHAPS it is true enough of some works, e.g., some lyric poems. But consider works such as "King Lear," "Madame Bovary," "Bleak House," "The Brothers Karamazov," "War and Peace," or "Absalom! Absalom!" In the very greatest works, of which these are representative examples, aesthetic considerations do not float free from political, social, and economic considerations, but are inextricably bound up with them. Best, Dan Lowenstein [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Friday, 21 Feb 1997 17:56:51 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: MND "Shaping Fantasies", Louis Adrian Montrose=92s article on _MND, is in Stephen Greenblatt=92s _Representing the English Renaissance, University of California Press, 1988, pp. 31-64. When I talked about happy and pretty productions having passed their use-by date, I was thinking specifically of the Mendelssohnian tutued-fairies-in-a-forest approach, and most of the interesting productions I=92ve seen or have heard about have left this way behind, ever since Jan Kott or even earlier. I=92m thinking of course of Brook and Mnouchkine, but also Robert Lepage=92s mudwrestling staging, and several productions I=92ve seen in Australia an= d New Zealand (including Scott Crozier=92s recent production here). Most of= them have perhaps ended on an up-beat note, but these productions have acknowledged the power in the play of violence, uncontrolled (sexual) energy and cruelty. And I can imagine a production (indeed one day I=92d like to try it out) which really might scare an audience, and leave them feeling that (as with a lot of Shakespeare=92s "happy" endings=97Tempest,= Merchant, 2 Gents, Cymbeline...) the "happiness" is a very complex state, mixed in with a great deal of bitterness and unresolved tension. Who thinks Hippolyta=92s marriage to Theseus is really happy, even (or especially?) if she=92s got used to the idea by the end of the play? Is anyone=92s marriage to Theseus ever happy? Do we ignore what we know (and= Shakespeare and his audience presumably knew) about the Theseus legends? Do we forgive and forget the fact that at the end Titania has been fucked into submission by a donkey at her husband=92s instigation? If thi= s is the wider context for the blissful marriages of Hermia and Helena, what does it say about their future happiness? And of course Hippolytus and Phaedra are lurking as ghosts-to-be between the lines of the final speeches. Incidentally, Montrose's reading largely bypasses the "Indian-boy-as-catamite" idea. What is really at stake according to Montrose is how the boy is to be brought up; whether it is in the company and under the influence of Titania and her women, or in the masculine world of Oberon. This becomes something with considerable and serious implications for an Elizabethan audience =97 and of course our own. Adrian Kiernander. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Gordon Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 97 21:05:35 -0600 Subject: Trevor Nunn's _Twelfth Night_ I don=92t remember a lot of discussion about this film when it was released last fall, but since I didn=92t see it then, I may not have been= paying careful attention. I did finally see it last night, and thought I=92d share a few comments. I found it fairly successful overall, but thought the pacing was quite sluggish in parts, especially at the beginning. I kept want to shout at the screen, "Pick it up, pick it up!" This definitely seems to be a problem of directing rather than acting. I also thought that the two storylines=97the romance and the comic subplot=97didn=92t quite mesh as they do in the best productions. I thoug= ht the acting quite wonderful in most cases, with some interesting interpretive choices (Ben Kingsley=92s Feste was particularly fascinating). And the twins looked like twins, which was quite lovely. I also thought Nunn might take a few lessons from Branagh: the text was really muddled on occasion; even with a solid knowledge of the play, I found it hard to understand at times; I=92ve never had that problem with any of Branagh=92s films, where the text always seems crystal clear (thanks no doubt to Russell Jackson and Hugh Crutwell who work as text consultants). I=92m also waiting for someone in their wisdom to pluck Nicholas Farrell from his small parts (Horatio in _Hamlet_, Antonio in _Twelfth Night_, Tom Newman in Branagh=92s _A Midwinter=92s Tale_) and ca= st him in a leading (preferably Shakespearean) role. Anyone want to help fund a production of _Coriolanus_? Chris Gordon [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 21 Feb 1997 00:35:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0247 Re: Parallel Scenes I haven=92t been following this PARALLEL SCENES thread very much, but doe= s anybody here have a better memory of the GILLIGAN=92S ISLAND Hamlet musical put to "Carmen" than I do? All I remember was Gilligan's "to be or not to be/that is the question that I ask of thee" song and the Skipper=92s "neither a borrower nor a lender be/DO NOT FORGET STAY OUT OF DEBT"=97 I think the Howe=92s were Claudius = and Gertrude....but any more memory it would be appreciated. Chris S. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 13:46:35 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0253 Q: Macbeth Apparitions The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0253. Friday, 21 February 1997. From: Mike Field Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 11:02:31 -0500 Subject: Macbeth Apparitions I would appreciate, either on or off the list, hearing from anyone who has seen or heard of a production of Macbeth in which the apparitions (the bloody babies and etc...) were particularly well handled. My director friend Tim Shaw will be producing the Scottish play in May and is faced with a tight budget and an outdoor amphitheater type setting. He does not want the apparitions to be silly. Any blood-curdling ideas? Any ideas at all? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 13:55:19 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0254 Re: Iago's Homosexuality The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0254. Friday, 21 February 1997. [1] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 08:42:27 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0246 Re: Iago's Homosexuality = [2] From: Harry Teplitz Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 12:42:02 -0800 (PST) Subj: Iago's Homosexuality = [3] From: Trace Shelton Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 22:26:13 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0246 Re: Homosexuality = [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 08:42:27 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0246 Re: Iago's Homosexuality Terry writes: > Some of the most > interesting things about Shakespeare's audience are the ways which > they're DIFFERENT from us. = You mean that they might not be motivated by material interests? Now that would be different, not to mention subversive. Cheers, Sean. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Teplitz Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 12:42:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Iago's Homosexuality I have often thought that the idea of Iago=92s homosexuality missed the point. It has always seemed to me that Iago=92s masculinity, and perhaps= his hetero-sexuality, is threatened by Othello. Throughout the play, Iago plays a female role next to Othello, and from Iago=92s point of view= , it may be Othello who forces him into it. = As an example, Cassio is the chosen leader of men, not Iago. Then, Iago is sent on a ship with the women, since he is thought of as trustworthy -- i.e. not likely to make advances to women. Upon arrival, Iago plays word games with the women. During the drunken fight involving Cassio, Iago is not seen as able to break up the fight himself. A lot of these examples are, like the Cassio dream speech, initiated by Iago himself, but from his point of view he could feel forced into them. And then every ploy he adopts just feeds his resentment of Othello. So rather than seeking Othello=92s love, Iago is seeking Othello=92s validation of= his power. Now, I admit that these two concepts are not necessarily mutually = exclusive. Iago could easily not want to admit his own attraction for = Othello and/or Cassio, and that result in his perceiving Othello as a threat. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Trace Shelton Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 22:26:13 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0246 Re: Homosexuality >Thoughts sparked by comments on sin in M for M and on homosexuality in >Othello and Midsummer, along with references to Foxe's Martyrs: I'm >rather a novice here compared to some of you, but I question some of the= >comments which seem to indicate that these interpretations of the plays >are absolute. >Homosexuality: certainly Iago's jealously can be explained by sexual >motivations. Can it not also be motivated by political ambitions? Yes, >the homosexuality is one plausible interpretation, but not the only >one. Sorry I cut your message; I left only the part that concerns my assertions. I would like to clarify that I am not proposing that reading Iago as being "attracted to men", if that is suitably P.C., but rather that it is an interesting take, and one that has merit. There is evidence to support this view, and none to totally deny it. As critics, I don=92t believe that we are compelled to resolve exactly the author=92s= intention for the perception of a character; rather, I believe the author, in this case Shakespeare, leaves characters open to interpretation for a reason. Much of the heat I have taken for this proposal derives either from personal distaste for such an assertion, or from displeasure at my use of the term "homosexual". There may or may not have been "homosexuals" as such in Shakesperian England, but this was really not the gist of my proposal. For the peace of mind of those who question the use of this term with regards to Iago, rest assured that I will do the research. What I am looking for is some kind of critical response to my assertion that Iago may have been attracted to Cassio, with some evidence to back it up. I hope that no one will take offense to this, but I thought it needed some clarification. Trace Shelton ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 15:23:12 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0256 A Noise Within's WT The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0256. Friday, 21 February 1997. From: Diane Campbell Date: Thursday, 20 Feb 1997 19:51:32 -0800 Subject: A Noise Within A Noise Within Classical Theatre Company, located in Glendale CA, will be opening the Spring half of their 96-97 season with "The Winter=92s Tale" Feb 26 - April 27. Playing in rotating repertory with "The Winter=92s Tale" is Luigi Pirandello=92s "So It Is!...If So It Seems To You" March 12 - May 3 and Brecht & Weill=92s "The Threepenny Opera" April 2 - May 4. A Noise Within performs in a 145 seat house in the old Masonic Temple building in downtown Glendale. For information and tickets please call (818)546-1924. Diane Campbell ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:12:19 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0257 Re: Iago's Homosexuality The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0257. Saturday, 22 February 1997. [1] From: R.D.H.Wells Date: Friday, 21 Feb 1997 12:29:44 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0246 Re: Iago's Homosexuality [2] From: Stephan B. Paragon Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 03:48:45 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0246 Re: Iago's Homosexuality [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: R.D.H.Wells Date: Friday, 21 Feb 1997 12:29:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0246 Re: Iago's Homosexuality Dear Trace Shelton, On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Terry Hawkes wrote: >> Dear Trace Shelton: Your main problem lies in the term 'latent homosexuality'... Some of the most interesting things about Shakespeare's audience are the ways which they're DIFFERENT from us. Have a look at Bruce R. Smith's excellent 'Homosexual Desire in Shakespeare's England" (Chicago 1991), especially pp. 61-4. > > I wouldn't presume to say whether or not you have a problem. But you may be interested in listening to both sides of this particular debate. Terry Hawkes is undoubtedly right in saying that Elizabethan people are different from us. But while they may talk differently, think differently, feel differently, love differently from us, their similarities to us are probably far greater than their differences. While you are reading Bruce Smith you could also try the final chapter of Steven Pinker's _The Language Instinct_ where he summarises Donald Brown's _Human Universals_. If there were no such thing as human nature you would expect to find as many different forms of humanity as there are human societies. But in fact behind anthropologists' accounts of the strange behaviour of foreign peoples there are clearly certain universals of human behaviour. These include: 'Value placed on articulateness. Gossip. Lying. Misleading. Verbal humor. Poetic and rhetorical speech forms. Narrative and storytelling. Metaphor. Poetry with repetition of linguistic elements and three-second lines separated by pauses ...' [the list goes on for another half page). Good reading, Robin Headlam Wells [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephan B. Paragon Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 03:48:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0246 Re: Iago's Homosexuality Othello... (o.j) all the same. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:20:52 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0258 Re: Woman Hamlet / Gilligan's Island The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0258. Saturday, 22 February 1997. [1] From: Ellen Summers Date: Friday, 21 Feb 1997 13:44:12 -0500 (EST) Subj: RE: SHK 8.0243 A Woman as Hamlet [2] From: Richard A Burt Date: Friday, 21 Feb 1997 18:12:01 -0500 (EST) Subj: Woman Hamlet / Gilligan's Island [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ellen Summers Date: Friday, 21 Feb 1997 13:44:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: SHK 8.0243 A Woman as Hamlet A woman actor played Hamlet in 1989 at the Volksbuehne in what was then East Berlin. This production, which used Heiner Mueller's translation/adaptation of Shakespeare's play, was directed by Siegfried Hoechst; the actor was Cornelia Schmaus. The dramaturg for the production, Anna-Christine Naumann, told me that the rationale for casting Schmaus as Hamlet was that since she was the strongest actor in the company, she was the best equipped to handle the role's demands. The production itself (which I saw performed in Weimar at the Shakespeare Gesellschaft's meeting, and of which I saw only the second half) was intriguing and at its best moments brilliantly effective. The appearance of a woman in the title role, however, created controversy not merely because of the break with convention but also because of the mixed success with which the production's choices addressed the consequent semiotic problems (and opportunities). *Hamlet*'s plot turns upon relationships that are fraught with culturally encoded material related to gender. All of Hamlet's key ties-to a father, to a lover, to a lover's father, to male friends like Horatio or Laertes-are imprinted to a greater or lesser degree with this encoding. The change of Hamlet's gender altered all the valences of these relationships (including of course those with a mother). To my eye, the characterization of Hamlet's relationships did not fully clarify the key issue of whether this was a woman playing a man, or a woman playing a woman (and therefore a daughter instead of a son, etc.) This confusion on my part might have arisen because of my not having seen the first half, but I have some reason to suspect that the production did not succeed in settling these questions (or in leaving them stragetically open as opposed to muddled). I'm all in favor of such experiments in casting, however, partly because of the enormous interest they generate in precisely how a plot works and where its fragilities lie. Of course also I'm in favor of pioneering efforts to open the Shakespearean canon's great male roles to women actors in their prime. Ellen Summers Hiram College [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A Burt Date: Friday, 21 Feb 1997 18:12:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Woman Hamlet / Gilligan's Island Asta Nielsen performed as Hamlet in a 1920 Danish production of a silent film. She's crossed-dressed but turns out to be a woman in love with Horatio (and vice versa). Laurence Danson has written on the film as has Ann Thompson (in an essay forthcoming in _Shakespeare, the Movie_). The Gilligan's Island episode is #72, "The Producer." It guest stars Phil Silvers and was co-directed by Ida Lupino. Hamlet is indeed set to Carmen, with the "To Be or Not to be" and "What a rogue and peasant slave am I" soliloquies condensed into one and revised "To flee or not to flee, that is the question that I ask of me" and set to Carmen's "Hanabera" aria. The skipper as Polonius sings a revised version of "To thine own self be true" sung to the "Toreador" aria. Gilligan is Hamlet, the Howells are Gertrude and Claudius, Ginger is Ophelia, Mary Ann is Laertes, and the Skipper is Polonius. After the producer gets off the island, the castaways hear over the radio that his production of Hamlet, the Musical is a big success on Broadway. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:34:18 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0260 Re: Macbeth Apparitions The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0260. Saturday, 22 February 1997. [1] From: Mark Mann Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 03:08:28 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0253 Q: Macbeth Apparitions [2] From: Ron Ward Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 22:36:10 +1300 (NZDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0253 Q: Macbeth Apparitions [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Mann Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 03:08:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0253 Q: Macbeth Apparitions My company, The Arden Shakespeare Company, is currently presenting Macbeth here in Columbus, Ohio (till next Sat.)...and we solved the apparition problem in the most simple way - we didn't have them! The ground level thrust stage of our theatre is very intimate, and I grouped the weird sisters around Mac (one on each side, and first witch standing behind, crouched over him so that her hair switches his face)...at the appearance of each apparition, a different witch takes on the character, as if from channeling, while Macbeth stares past the steam rising from the cauldron, into the audience, which is about four feet from him. When the future kings show up, Mac simply reacts to seeing them, as do the witches in their own ways...he already describes them, so why see them? Another production I directed, which was a modern dress version, Mac and the girls were down front and I rear-projected slides, through fog, of Scottish coats of arms, on which appeared angry faces and arms with swords clutched in their fists...the rest of the show also had slides, details taken from period woodcuts ( brick and stone walls for interiors...stylized trees taken from old tapestries, etc, for Birnam) but the actors never looked at them...but this doesn't help you, I suppose for outdoor staging...especially if you start in the daylight hours, as we used to at Actor's Summer Theatre in Columbus. I suppose you could do it w/o the spirits, and use sound and lights to convey them, which is more theatrical, and gives your crew something useful to do. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Ward Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 22:36:10 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0253 Q: Macbeth Apparitions I don't know about bloodcurdling but I have seen open air Shakespeare using shadows projected on a white sheet from the back. This can be disguised as a window or mirror (inside apparitions) or part of the skyline or other natural outdoor features. It could even be totally hidden by moveable trees in the outdoors and be revealed by an unearthly wind. If you want to be a bit more ambitious you could use proper back projected film onto the screen or a combination with a screen lit by red spotlights etc. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:26:09 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0259 Re: DC's Shakespeare Theatre's AYL and a Question The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0259. Saturday, 22 February 1997. [1] From: James Schaefer Date: Friday, 21 Feb 1997 14:28:34 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0250 DC's Shakespeare Theatre's AYL and a Question [2] From: Miles Edward Taylor Date: Friday, 21 Feb 1997 17:18:11 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0250 DC's Shakespeare Theatre's AYL and a Question [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Schaefer Date: Friday, 21 Feb 1997 14:28:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0250 DC's Shakespeare Theatre's AYL and a Question "Has anyone heard ..." the lines in AYLI delivered in such a way as to suggest a lesbian relationship among the sisters. Yes, to the point of tedium: it seems to be the new orthodoxy. Fine, if you want to shade the characters in that direction; it gives a different cast to the sisters' relationship later, when Rosalind gets hot about Orlando. But does it reveal anything else about either. Jim Schaefer [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Miles Edward Taylor Date: Friday, 21 Feb 1997 17:18:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0250 DC's Shakespeare Theatre's AYL and a Question I just taught AYLI, and we in fact looked closely at the idea that there's some distinct homoeroticism between Rosalind and Celia. Besides the lines you cite, there is Celia's irrational distress at Rosalind's love for Orlando, which dissolves immediately upon the entrance of Oliver. But for most of the play, Celia strikes me as a jealous lover. Miles Taylor ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:39:57 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0261 RE: Sins in MM; Q: Miranda and Prospero The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0261. Saturday, 22 February 1997. [1] From: James P. Saeger Date: Friday, 21 Feb 1997 19:21:44 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0252 RE: Sins in MM [2] From: Magdalena Viana Date: Friday, 21 Feb 1997 19:05:07 -0300 Subj: Miranda and Prospero [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: James P. Saeger Date: Friday, 21 Feb 1997 19:21:44 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0252 RE: Sins in MM Gabriel Egan concludes that in _Measure_ "the ethical questions are, finally, irrelevant." Can't we, though, see the play as *posing* the question of relevancy rather than dismissing it? Characters continually ask if Angelo and/or the Duke have the moral right to pass judgment on others. Angelo strongly dismisses the connection between law and personal ethics: any connection would make law impossible to uphold-"You may not so extenuate his offence..." (2.1.27). But most (?) of the other characters put weight on personal morality (even Lucio in his comments about the Duke). Isabella's ethical dilemma may also pose questions about how characters differently treat moral issues for themselves and for others. Despite her vehemence against sleeping with Angelo, she's quite ready to let Mariana do the same thing. Elsewhere she says "Oh, were it but my life..." (3.1.103): might not sacrifices of virginity and life be comparable (fornication v. suicide)? To follow Chris Fassler's point, isn't her readiness for martyrdom (Catholic not Protestant) tainted by this dramatic-and possibly theological-equivocation? Whatever Isabella's (or the audience's) ethical dilemma might be, she seems to sum up her approach with the line, "I have spirit to do any thing that appears not foul in the truth of my spirit" (3.1.197). But I've not been able to figure out whether she's constructing an inner moral framework or rather voicing an implicit agreement with Angelo that outward appearance of morality is all that matters. Still pondering.... James P. Saeger Vassar College [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Magdalena Viana Date: Friday, 21 Feb 1997 19:05:07 -0300 Subject: Miranda and Prospero I've been re-reading _The Tempest_ lately, since I have a paper to do, and I was wondering if there was any possibility of understanding Prospero's attitude toward Caliban as a cover for what he feels about Miranda (I'm trying to suggest an incestuous desire, of course). Any comments or suggestions are welcome. Magdalena Viana Letras,Universidad del Salvador. Buenos Aires, Argentina. chucky@satlink.com.ar ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 08:10:46 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0262 Re: Macbeth Apparitions The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0262. Sunday, 23 February 1997. [1] From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 09:59:03 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0253 Q: Macbeth Apparitions [2] From: G. L. Horton Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 10:42:02 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0260 Re: Macbeth Apparitions [3] From: Cornelius Novelli Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 16:04:06 EST Subj: RE: SHK 8.0253 Q: Macbeth Apparitions [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 09:59:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0253 Q: Macbeth Apparitions Interesting timing, since I just last night saw a student (the definition of tight budget) production of Macbeth. In this version, each of the three witches drank a potion and "channeled" one of the speeches usually spoken by an apparition. What made it work, I think is that Macbeth also drank. When he asked about Banquo and was told to seek no more, he snatched the cup and drank before the witches could stop him. He then collapsed to the ground and we saw the line of kings as he did (although there had been no other special effects). Annalisa Castaldo [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: G. L. Horton Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 10:42:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0260 Re: Macbeth Apparitions I've seen big puppets: crowns, masks, and draped material-carried high by "invisible" cast members as if floating through the air. G.L.Horton -- Newton, MA, USA ghorton@tiac.net [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cornelius Novelli Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 16:04:06 EST Subject: RE: SHK 8.0253 Q: Macbeth Apparitions I saw a wonderful MACBETH, probably in '82 or '83, done outdoors by SHAKESPEARE & COMPANY, dir. Tina Packer. As I remember, the apparitions were done simply and impressively but I don't recall details-perhaps moving in isolation across a wall/parapet. I'm sure that their promptbooks & memories could provide useful information. The outdoor setting certainly helped, with a surround of darkness, looming trees, and sometimes wind and scudding clouds. --Neil Novelli ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 08:17:23 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0263 Re: Rosalind & Celia The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0263. Sunday, 23 February 1997. [1] From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 09:25:28 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0259 Re: DC's Shakespeare Theatre's AYL and a Question [2] From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 12:11:33 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: Rosalind & Celia [3] From: C. David Frankel Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 20:35:57 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0250 DC's Shakespeare Theatre's AYL and a Question [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 09:25:28 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0259 Re: DC's Shakespeare Theatre's AYL and a Question Greetings SHAKSPEReans! >"Has anyone heard ..." the lines in AYLI delivered in such a way as to >suggest a lesbian relationship among the sisters. I have two small statements: 1) They are cousins, not sisters. 2) We seem to have lost Eve Sedgwick's useful distinction between homosocial and homosexual somewhere along the line, no? All the best, Brad Berens [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 12:11:33 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Rosalind & Celia Miles Taylor writes: > There is Celia's irrational distress at Rosalind's > love for Orlando, which dissolves immediately upon the entrance of > Oliver. But for most of the play, Celia strikes me as a jealous lover. It seems far more reasonable, and in keeping with the tenor of the rest of the play, to treat Celia's anger as a result of simple neglect by her best friend, rather than ardent jealousy. Notice how she's dragged around by Rosalind, but then totally ignored when Orlando arrives, except when she's dragooned into performing the mock marriage between Orlando and Ganymede (which our Celia, when I played Touchstone many years ago, found absolutely ludicrous and foolhardy-and insulting, since it was the only time in the whole scene that Rosalind spoke directly to her). Certainly there is a potential for homoeroticism in the play, in both the Ganymede-Orlando (widely acknowledged) and Rosalind-Celia pairings (now discussed), not to mention the comedy of Phebe-Ganymede. But I think trying to mine lesbianism from the text here is more an exercise in literary theory than in dramatic likelihood. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 20:35:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0250 DC's Shakespeare Theatre's AYL and a Question For an interesting exploration of AYLI, you might take a look at Camille Paglia's _Sexual Personae_. She notes, for example, that "the childhood liaison of Rosalind and Celia is also homoerotic", although she goes on to note that "because of the premodern prestige of virginity, the union of Rosalind and Celia is surely emotional and not overly sexual." (202-3) cdf ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 08:27:39 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0264 Re: MM Sins; Woman/Hamlet; Ideology; Dover Cliff The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0264. Sunday, 23 February 1997. [1] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 15:36:28 GMT Subj: RE: Sins in MM [2] From: Lisa S. Starks Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 17:31:18 GMT Subj: Woman as Hamlet [3] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 14:14:27 -0500 (EST) Subj: Ideology [4] From: Paul Worley Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 21:49:44 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0142 Re: Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 15:36:28 GMT Subject: RE: Sins in MM Daniel Lowenstein digresses > When Gabriel Egan stops theorizing and starts engaging > in what old-fashioned people like myself regard as > literary criticism, his comments on this listserver > are almost invariably insightful. As you might expect, I consider 'literary criticism' to be a highly politicized theoretical construct, the creation and sustaining of which requires constant effort. (After all, 'drama' isn't obviously 'literary' until worked on to make it so.) Charles Ross is > curious to know precisely at what point Gabriel > Egan feels sorry for Satan in Paradise Lost. I thought > we were past that. When he takes the existential decision to fight a battle he knows he can't win. (Book 1 esp. lines 157-270) I'll try to catch up with the others who've got past that response. Gabriel Egan [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa S. Starks Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 17:31:18 GMT Subject: Woman as Hamlet On Asta Nielsen as Hamlet, see also J. Lawrence Guntner (Technische Universitat Braunschweig), "Expressionist _Hamlet_: The Gade/Nielsen _Hamlet_ (1920) and the History of Shakespeare on Film" in "Shakespeare and Film," a Special Double Issue of _Post Script: Essays in Film and the Humanities_, guest ed. Lisa S. Starks (forthcoming). Lisa S. Starks Texas A&M University-Commerce [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 14:14:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Ideology Daniel Lowenstein is right to place the stress in my sentence on "imperatives." Also important were the words "in very large degree." I certainly never meant to suggest that the works of Shakespeare or works of art, generally, are not made of political, economic, and historical material. They are, of course. This being recognized, I think three questions are raised. One question is, are the works of Shakespeare or any other writer *reducible to* the history they contain, or the economic conditions or political systems they represent? I hope that the answer is "of course not" and that we can profitably distinguish between the history in the work, the history of the work, and the transformation of that material into something that is aesthetically powerful. Because I think that what makes great works great-and certainly this would be true of those Daniel Lowenstein mentions-is not the history, economics, and politics they contain per se, but the qualities of the representation and transformation of that material. Another question, touching the uses made of imaginative literature throughout history, is, are the works of Shakespeare *reducible to* their various appropriations? It's been repeated several times on this list recently by different contributors that value is not inherent in a work, but assigned by readers, and the question is only, is that value assigned for ideological reasons, or for cultural reasons that are not necessarily the same thing as ideological ones? But as it's been expressed on this list, this view, which certainly expresses a truth-that value is an experience in an interaction between text and reader-seems to edge towards the absurd proposition that there's nothing there in the text in the first place until it's been used or appropriated. But what's there in the text is the record-a complex and conflicting and partial record, of course-of a remarkable human achievement, whether it's the achievement of a man, Shakespeare, or of some other individual or group of individuals. So is Shakespeare *reducible to* the uses we make of him? Of course not. A third question touches the experience of the text by any individual reader in the late twentieth or any other century, and the experience of Shakespeare by the individuals who have written the great criticism of Shakespeare's works. Are these responses *reducible to* the consciously or unconsciously espoused ideological positions of the critics or individuals who have them? Or does aesthetic response transcend ideology to the extent that the response is full, complete, and engaged? Is Samuel Johnson, when he asserts the general truth of Shakespeare's plays, simply writing the propaganda of colonialism? Or is he trying, with the power of his intellect and imagination, to touch and elaborate something that he believes is there in the plays, capable of being experienced by any reader at any time, contributing to their power as he experiences it? While aesthetics and politics and economics, and history, and biology, and all else are connected in important ways, these three sets of questions and my answers to them suppose simply that the aesthetic can meaningfully be distinguished from these other areas-as they can from it, unless we'd like to hold that economics, politics, and history are reducible to the aesthetic-and at times should be so distinguished. I have a question for Professor Hawkes that I think summarizes these issues: what does he do when students enter his classroom with a sincere love of the works of Shakespeare? Surely such students still exist. Does Professor Hawkes scream "Colonialist!" at them, and does he try, by working his ideological-critical magic, to convert them from their belief? Or can a love of the literature coexist with a capacity to criticize its appropriations? If the answer to the second question is "yes," then the only point that I would seek to make about the separability of the aesthetic from the ideological is, I think, made. If not, if to learn from Professor Hawkes a student must renounce her love of the literature, and if Professor Hawkes undertakes the challenge and sets out to destroy that love, then I would suggest that Professor Hawkes's way of looking at things is psychotic. I am reminded of a piece of extraordinary good sense from the usually sensible Camille Paglia in a lecture she gave at MIT. She described her horror when a feminist critic was describing some gorgeous high-fashion pictures of women with rhetoric about "strangulation," "bondage," "decapitation." Her horror increased when she thought of the students in the audience who might be uncritically accepting this rhetoric and prevented from experiencing the beauty of these pictures or of other (to some) ideologically problematic depictions of men, women, children, or whomever or whatever. Paglia concludes, "when you destroy young people's ability to take pleasure in beauty, you are a pervert." Paul Hawkins [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Worley Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 21:49:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0142 Re: Edgar, Gloucester, and "Dover Cliff" << As Derek Wood writes, "too much truth" is problematic. "Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say." John M. Boni, >> Surely "what we ought to say" is the lie, and "what we feel" is speaking the truth. Edgar, even more than Albany, is full of faith in the heavens "the gods are just/ the dark and vicious place where thee he got, cost him his eyes" and "look up, my lord" to Lear at the end where Kent, who has shared Edgar's optimism till now, says to let him die. Albany's a bungler at best. Paul Worley ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:40:03 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0265 Re: Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0265. Monday, 24 February 1997. [1] From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 05:07:24 -0500 Subj: SHK 8.0264 Re: Ideology [2] From: Michael Yogev Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 12:28:12 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0264 Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 05:07:24 -0500 Subject: SHK 8.0264 Re: Ideology Paul Hawkins makes my lectures sound rather more exciting than they are. I only rarely scream 'Colonialist!' at audiences these days, usually settling for a mere palsied shake of gory locks and clenched mutterings of 'They hate us youth'. As for being 'psychotic', or even, as he implies, 'a pervert', I suspect these qualities require more energy (to say nothing of prosthetic investment) than I can currently muster. My capacities in the old 'ideological-critical magic' department apparently remain the envy of the ungodly, but citizens of the Republic will soon be able to judge of that for themselves. I'm scheduled to give a couple of talks in the USA in March and April. Details are available from the usual agencies. It's not a pretty sight, of course, and protective clothing is advised, but I'd be delighted meet - indeed, to scream at - any list-members who promise not to become hysterical at the prospect. You can't miss me. I'll be the one with the cloak and fangs. T. Hawkes PS: OK, I'll confess. I do occasionally aim to change the way my students think about literature. We used to call that 'education', guv. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Yogev Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 12:28:12 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0264 Ideology This is in response to Paul Hawkins' comments on ideology as distinct from aesthetics. As will become abundantly clear from my remarks, I share the suspicions and critiques of the "aesthetic" voiced by Gabriel Egan and Terence Hawkes, and it seems to me that the two figures invoked by Hawkins in his defense of the "aesthetic" are perfect exemplars of why this category is, yes, ideologically over-determined. Samuel Johnson was steeped in continental neoclassicist views of drama, and clearly also a child of the conservative response to the English Revolution. Both these historical and artistic trends presuppose a universal standard of "art" based on a problematic assumption of an equally universal "human nature". Johnson criticizes Shakespeare for failing to follow some of the classical unities, while excusing him for violating some of them and, in effect (like Pope), saying that when Shakespeare breaks the rules, the rule is that rules should be broken. But all we really need to do is look at Johnson's definition of "enthusiasm" in his Dictionary to see how much a product of the Enlightenment and of its ideological fiction of "general humanity" or "human nature" he really is. As for the other authority cited by Hawkins, Camille Paglia ("usually sensible!?"), I wonder how and why he uses her comments on beauty at all, for she is the same person who has explained rape as a natural urge in all men who are driven by sexual needs women should simply learn to accept as part of our culture. High fashion models, as those terribly ideological and anti-aesthetic feminist critics point out, create and perpetuate a nearly impossible standard of beauty that is destructive for young women who strive without success to live up to it (see the statistics on teenage bulemia and anorexia in young women) and for men who come to expect nothing less but may feel nervous and inadequate when actually confronted with someone that beautiful. Fashion models themselves make enough money to allow them to rationalize or ignore the damage they do, not to mention that done by the "beauty" and fashion industry itself. Shakespeare himself recognizes how empty such standards of beauty really are in his sonnet "My Mistress' Eyes". Now there's an ideological lesson for you! I'm surprised that Hawkins will invoke such "authorities" in his criticism of those "ideological" readers of Shakespeare, but even more mystified by the fact that he seems to assume that the only true, complete appreciation of Shakespeare's works comes from its aesthetic beauty, whatever that might be. Indeed, there are lines of great poetic grace and charm in Shakespeare, but why must we assume that students who "love Shakespeare" will love his works any less if they come to appreciate the subtle or not so subtle ideological currents his dramas address, and as Jean Howard and others point out, often subvert or contest? Isn't that in fact the role of drama in any society? The late Victorian "art for art's sake" movement was itself clearly an ideological response to abhorrent contemporary social and economic contexts, not a miraculous discovery of some essential truth about art. Why cut off Shakespeare from contemporary concerns (his own, and ours) that threaten to make his works even more relevant that simply worship of his "greatness" can ever hope to do? Michael Yogev Dept. of English University of Haifa ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:48:09 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0266 Re: Rosalind & Celia The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0266. Monday, 24 February 1997. [1] From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 05:32:55 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0263 Re: Rosalind & Celia [2] From: Mark Mann Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 07:59:57 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0259 Re: DC's Shakespeare Theatre's AYL and a Question [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 05:32:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0263 Re: Rosalind & Celia First, I would like to say I find this discussion very engaging in part because (warning: shameless self-promotion) I will be giving a paper that focuses largely on Celia & Rosalind at the SAA conference next month...and there has not been very much published on this relationship (whether seen as "psychological" or "formal") yet. Second, I would like to ask Mike Taylor where in the text of the play he finds evidence for Celia's "irrational distress" at Rosalind's love for Orlando? Even though I have heard this position argued before (though maybe you could add a nuance that would finally persuade me otherwise), I see no IMPEDIMENT raised by Celia to Rosalind's love for Orlando - if anything Celia seems to take Orlando's "side" here. I do, however, find textual evidence to support Joseph "Chepe" Lockett's claim that Celia's perception of Ros's "love prate" (and mock marriage) is "absolutely ludicrous and foolhearty" and certainly Celia COULD very well be justifiably angry at her cousin, but she seems more bored and exasperated than angry (with the possible exception of her scolding Ros on what she would perceive as "misusing" her sex and walking not in "trodden ways"). Thirdly, I do agree that it doesn't really make much of a difference whether Ros and Celia had a homosexual or homosocial bond, but then to pursue this logic, since it "doesn't matter", playing them homosexually would be no more of a violation of the text than playing them as mere friends- aside from the fact (or at least strong probability) that the contemporary conceptual distinction between homosexual and heterosexual is somewhat of an anachronism if applied to S's time, there seems to be the assumption that characters in Shakespeare's plays are HETERO until proven HOMO that inform some of these comments that challenge the Folger production. I guess I'll just have to see how McGinnis and company DO this-it COULD "get in the way" but it could also serve to emphasize the complexity of their relationship and allow US to take Celia less for granted as a simple sounding board for Ros. ------Chris Stroffolino [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Mann Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 07:59:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0259 Re: DC's Shakespeare Theatre's AYL and a Question << "Has anyone heard ..." the lines in AYLI delivered in such a way as to suggest a lesbian relationship among the sisters. Yes, to the point of tedium: it seems to be the new orthodoxy. Fine, if you want to shade the characters in that direction; it gives a different cast to the sisters' relationship later, when Rosalind gets hot about Orlando. But does it reveal anything else about either. >> Hear Hear!! Please, please, PLEASE spare me the psychosocial revisionism...too often "innovations" of this sort are all about the director's inability a reckon with what he/she is given on the page...and indicates an ego-driven need to "top" what Shakespeare has given us...if one can't direct, with clarity, a play by Will, then get out of it...do a Marowitz play, or write your own. If you have a cause to flog, i.e. homoeroticism between Rosalind and Celia, or Iago and Othello, then get on a soapbox and shout it to the commuters, but keep it off the stage...or write a thesis to be read by your closest friends and family, who'll applaud your deep, deep insight and origionality...as for me, Rosalind and Celia are cousins who are close as sisters, and Iago is a disgruntled ancient who lacks any sense of proportion and perspective with relation to his position in Othello's service...to suggest all these Freudian/Paglia submotives is simply to be dull, and merely demonstrates that you, like many others, passed Psych 101. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:55:56 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0267 Re: Apparitions ; Miranda and Prospero; Woman as Hamlet The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0267. Monday, 24 February 1997. [1] From: Helen Ostovich Date: Sunday, 23 Feb 1997 10:42:25 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0262 Re: Macbeth Apparitions [2] From: David Lindley Date: Sunday, 23 Feb 1997 14:08:36 GMT Subj: Miranda and Prospero [3] From: Mikko Nortela Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 16:32:02 +0200 (EET) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0243 A Woman as Hamlet [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Sunday, 23 Feb 1997 10:42:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0262 Re: Macbeth Apparitions When a group of my students performed this scene a couple of years ago, the actor playing the apparitions was inside the cauldron (actually a table turned on its side and draped with black stuff); she appeared as or held up the various apparitions (bloody babe, tree limb, etc.) but for the line of kings, and mirror was lifted up and Macbeth peered in. We knew what he was seeing! This tactic was very simple, but it worked magically in a darkened room. I don't know about outdoors. The circling of the witches and the atmosphere of dread helped a lot. Helen Ostovich Department of English / Editor, _REED Newsletter_ McMaster University [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Sunday, 23 Feb 1997 14:08:36 GMT Subject: Miranda and Prospero Last week I saw the Shared Experience Company's production of The Tempest, at the end of a very long tour. There were many interesting - even controversial - features of the production, but their emphasis might provide some suggestions for Magdalena Viana. In the first place they introduced, before the opening storm scene, a dumb show in which Miranda and Caliban sported one with the other - Miranda was clearly sexually attracted to a (not very monstrous) Caliban, placing his hand upon her breast. They were interrupted by Prospero, and the play then continued with the storm. This rather dodgy addition (which necessitated Miranda speaking her condemnation of Caliban in 2.1. hesitantly, as if under her father's orders) nonetheless fitted with the whole emphasis of the production upon Prospero's need to renounce his control over a dearly-loved Miranda as she grew up (and this Miranda was costumed in a brief shift for the greater part of the play, emphasising her sexuality). Where, I think, this became interesting was in the way it brought out the parallel between Caliban and Ferdinand that is explicit in the play's presentation of them both entering bearing logs, and built on it to underline the way in which Prospero's anger at Caliban's attempted rape is close to the insistent policing of Ferdinand's sexual advances upon his daughter. But the picture was further complicated by the use of a female Ariel. Like many recent productions - that of the English Shakespeare Company in 1992, and, famously, the RSC production in 1993 for example, there was frequent suggestion of Ariel's unwillingness to serve Prospero further. But where the RSC made Ariel greet his freedom with a spit (at least in the earlier days of the production), and the ESC had Ariel moving like a zombie throughout the production, only breaking into a run at the moment of liberation, this production clothed its Ariel in a tight tabard with long drooping sleeves, and when Prospero finally granted freedom Ariel tore off this constraining garment, undid her hair, and contemplated the freed body with evident delight and amazement. To the audience the sexual body thus revealed brought Prospero's affection for his 'chick' Ariel into relationship with his love for his daughter - and underlined his regret at having to surrender both. This was emphasised all the more by Caliban's 'I'll seek for grace' being followed by his creeping over to Prospero who, kneeling on the stage, cradled him in his arms - acknowledging 'this thing of darkness' as 'his' in unambiguously emotional/psychological terms. The suggestion that the threat of incest and the need to avoid it is one of the play's motors is not, of course, a new one. Ruth Nevo suggested as much in Shakespeare's Other Story some time ago. David Lindley University of Leeds [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mikko Nortela Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 16:32:02 +0200 (EET) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0243 A Woman as Hamlet I have tried to find time for finding an exact pages I'm referring to. But there will never be a minute in my calendar... If I remember it right (which I in this case believe I do), there is an interesting add to this discussion in James Joyce's Ulysses (Chapter 9, so called Scylla and Charybdis -episode). In early 20th century some woman even performed the whole Hamlet by herself in Ireland! There they have, of course, a very strong tradition of one-man-performances, but the idea of Hamlet being played all alone! And by a woman. Sounds interesting, and if someone has more information from this, I'd be more than happy to know about it. Mikko Nortela University of Jyvaskyla manortel@cc.jyu.fi ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 10:01:50 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0268 Q: Tony & Cleo The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0268. Monday, 24 February 1997. From: Leonard Wasserman Date: Sunday, 23 Feb 1997 20:20:00 -0500 Subject: Tony & Cleo Today, I saw Anthony and Cleopatra at New York's "public theatre." Has anyone else seen it? Any comments? Why isn't it done often? I have to run now - 'bye. Yours, Gabriel Wasserman ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 08:31:52 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0269 Re: Female Hamlets The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0269. Tuesday, 25 February 1997. [1] From: Eric Weil Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 10:46:25 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Woman/Hamlet [2] From: John Mills Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 09:42:29 -0700 (MST) Subj: Female Hamlets [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Weil Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 10:46:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Woman/Hamlet I don't recall where the person who started this thread resides, but Peace College (a women's school) in Raleigh, NC is putting on an all-female _Hamlet_ Wed. Feb. 26 through March 2. Performances are at 8PM and tickets cost $2. Call (919) 508-2350 for more information. Eric Weil Shaw U. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Mills Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 09:42:29 -0700 (MST) Subject: Female Hamlets Mrs. Siddons played it on at least one of her Benefit nights and was favorably reviewed. Siobahn McKenna did it off-Broadway in the late fifties or early sixties. Judith Anderson toured with it around 1970, chiefly to University campuses; I saw it at SUNY Binghamton. It was essentially a concert performance, though with costumes and some stage action. She made no attempt to impersonate the character as a male, let alone a youthful male. But, superb actress that she was, she gave a reading of the mind and heart of Hamlet which was comparable to the best that I have seen. John Mills ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 08:39:21 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0270 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0270. Tuesday, 25 February 1997. [1] From: Harvey Wheeler Date: Monday, 24 Feb 97 19:49:40 UT Subj: Branagh Request [2] From: David Sauer Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 18:53:21 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0075 Videos: Question and Response [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harvey Wheeler Date: Monday, 24 Feb 97 19:49:40 UT Subject: Branagh Request This is about the Branagh Hamlet. I don't want to impose on others... so, has anybody saved from this list a representative collection of the (briefer) evaluations they'd be willing to upload to me privately...? More general question: Is there a consensus on the pedagogical properties of the film? I am wondering specifically about dividing it into eight or so special segments and using it over an extended period along with the relevant segments of the text. Harvey Wheeler verulan@msn.com [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Sauer Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 18:53:21 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0075 Videos: Question and Response I am working on an article on Branagh's Hamlet, and what I am examining are sequences I call "interpolations." But skimming through the MLA bibliography, the word is not used as I am using it, and I don't know what the film/adaptation term is for what I am trying to study. Can someone supply me with a correct word with which I might search the MLA or other data base, or examine theories of genre adaptation in order to deepen my theoretical sense of this area. The scenes I call interpolations are those which are added to the text of the play. For example, there was great debate on this LIST over whether Hamlet had sex with Ophelia. But what interests me is not whether this occurred, but the term for the seven shots of them together used in the film. A similar case is the shots of Priam and Hecuba (Gielgud and Dench) given during the Player King's speech, or the cuts of Old Hamlet having poison poured in his ear, shown several times. Is there a term for these interpolations? I'd appreciate any suggestions of places to look into the theory of such additions to the text. David K. Sauer sauer@shc.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 08:47:15 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0271 Re: Rosalind & Celia The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0271. Tuesday, 25 February 1997. [1] From: Edward Gero Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 14:52:25 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0266 Re: Rosalind & Celia [2] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 00:33:38 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Rosalind & Celia [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward Gero Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 14:52:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0266 Re: Rosalind & Celia > . . . that inform some of these comments that challenge the Folger production. > > I guess I'll just have to see how McGinnis and company DO this-it COULD > "get in the way" but it could also serve to emphasize the complexity of > their relationship and allow US to take Celia less for granted as a > simple sounding board for Ros. > > ------Chris Stroffolino Just a point of information: The production in question is being done by The Shakespeare Theatre (formerly located at the Folger Library, but now a seperate entity housed at the Lansburgh Building on 7th and E Streets NW) and the actress in question is Kelly McGillis not McGinnis... We actors are sticklers for detail especially when it comes to published mentions. Regards, Edward Gero Company Member Shakespeare Theatre [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 00:33:38 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Rosalind & Celia Mark Mann strongly dislikes the suggestion that Rosalind and Celia might have erotic feelings towards each other: > Hear Hear!! Please, please, PLEASE spare me the psychosocial > revisionism... Epizeuxis such as this often indicates a deep-seated terror of the ideas being repudiated. Hmm. > too often "innovations" of this sort are all about the > director's inability a reckon with what he/she is given on the > page...and indicates an ego-driven need to "top" what Shakespeare > has given us... Note the insistent yoking of psychological terms ('ego' 'drive') with the archaic sexual language ('top'). The raw sexuality of this repudiation bursts through in a frenzy of imagined sexual/textual interpenetration of a 'Shakespeare' which is both a vulnerable body and a vulnerable text. > If you have a cause to flog, i.e. homoeroticism between > Rosalind and Celia, or Iago and Othello It is imagined that only with violence ('flog') can the hated idea be advanced by anyone. And note that this violence is again overtly sexual (flagellation). > then get on a soapbox and shout it to the commuters, but keep > it off the stage The antithesis of two kinds of 'platforms' is of interest here. The 'commuters' are obviously the 'computers' which, via SHAKSPER, have disseminated the loathsome idea. > ...or write a thesis to be read by your closest friends > and family, who'll applaud your deep, deep insight and > origionality The repetitive thrust of 'deep', which drives 'in' the hated idea, leads naturally to the parapraxis of 'origion'. This speaks clearly of the 'o-region' which it is feared will be penetrated. Okay Mark, I'm convinced. There IS something in all this Psych 101 stuff! Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 08:53:48 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0272 Re: Gilligan's Island; Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0272. Tuesday, 25 February 1997. [1] From: Thomas Bishop Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 10:22:41 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0258 Re: Gilligan's Island [2] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 22:11:46 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0265 Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 10:22:41 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0258 Re: Gilligan's Island Let it also be mentioned that Phil Silvers, character name "Harold Hecuba" or "HH", denounces the performances as dreadful and then proceeds to reenact the whole thing in high gear (with all the Stoppards out?), playing all the roles him self until he finally collapses of exhaustion. Who says there's no such common culture any more? Tom [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 22:11:46 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0265 Re: Ideology Terry Hawkes writes: >I'm scheduled to give a couple >of talks in the USA in March and April. Details are available from the >usual agencies. It's not a pretty sight, of course, and protective >clothing is advised, but I'd be delighted meet - indeed, to scream at - >any list-members who promise not to become hysterical at the prospect. >You can't miss me. I'll be the one with the cloak and fangs. You see, I was correct. This is the advanced guard of the Cultural-Materialist colonial invasion of the Americas. They want to bring us back into the Pale. They want to stop us from reading Moby-Dick and force us to read Capital. Let us say, "No in thunder." Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:03:23 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0273 Re: Tmp.; MND; Ant. The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0273. Tuesday, 25 February 1997. [1] From: Syd Kasten Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 07:55:00 +0200 (IST) Subj: SHK 8.0267 Miranda and Prospero [2] From: Scott Crozier Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 17:55:59 +1100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0102 Re: Current thoughts on MND [3] From: Jack D. Spiro Date: Monday, 24 Feb 97 17:07:18 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0268 Q: Tony & Cleo [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Syd Kasten Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 07:55:00 +0200 (IST) Subject: SHK 8.0267 Miranda and Prospero David Lindley's review of the Shared Experience Tempest (SHK 8.0267 Miranda and Prospero) evoked enjoyable memories of a performance I saw here in Jerusalem, one of the stops in their tour. A facets of the production he didn't mention was the integration of movement (Liz Ranken, choreographer) into the exposition, which worked well enough for me to suggest that Bernice Kliman might find something of interest in viewing the ballet *Romeo and Juliet* danced to the music of Prokofiev. Both the Kenneth Macmillan and John Cranko versions are quite dramatic. A Verdi version of Shakespeare such as Othello, being a switch of language as well as of genre, might be too far out, but no less enjoyable to glean. Best wishes Syd Kasten [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 17:55:59 +1100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0102 Re: Current thoughts on MND Although this is a very late reply to the comment on MND (our server has only just revived itself after a lot of reshaping) I would have thought that rather than transposing Athens for the wood, in the 20th C. our woods are the skyscrapers of the city and the dark alleys of concrete and brick. As urban populations, we don't know trees and out folklore is more akin to the mythologies of the street than the rites of midsummer. Regards, Scott Crozier [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack D. Spiro Date: Monday, 24 Feb 97 17:07:18 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0268 Q: Tony & Cleo Yes, I saw A&C in Washington. Is it the same company? I wasn't sure it could be done, but it was done beautifully. But it was difficult to believe in Cleopatra. I forgot the name of the actress, but I would not have traveled from Brooklyn to Manhattan for her, much less from Rome to Egypt. The rest of the cast was brilliant, and the production remained loyal to the original. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 06:08:24 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0274 Re: Rosalind & Celia The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0274. Wednesday, 26 February 1997. [1] From: Peter D. Holland" Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 15:05:58 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0266 Re: Rosalind & Celia [2] From: Mark Mann Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 11:55:48 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0271 Re: Rosalind & Celia [3] From: William Schmidt Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 20:27:23 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0271 Re: Rosalind & Celia [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter D. Holland" Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 15:05:58 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0266 Re: Rosalind & Celia Probably because not many of the correspondents on this topic have yet seen the production, the discussion has missed the point that, though others describe the relationship hinting at lesbianism, the actors playing Rosalind and Celia do not play it that way at all. In other words, the assumption by people at Duke Frederick's court in this production that close friendship between Rosalind and Celia must be sexual says much more about the courtiers than it does about Rosalind and Celia. Since the production rather overplays the court as a decadent world (in which Le Beau watches Oliver being tortured while doing lines of cocaine), the gap between what people say about a relationship and what the audience can see the relationship as being seems significant. Anyway, this is a tiny facet of an excellent production with the best Jaques (Floyd King) I have ever seen - he alone is worth a trip to DC and the price of admission! [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Mann Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 11:55:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0271 Re: Rosalind & Celia << Mark Mann strongly dislikes the suggestion that Rosalind and Celia might have erotic feelings towards each other: > Hear Hear!! Please, please, PLEASE spare me the psychosocial > revisionism... Epizeuxis such as this often indicates a deep-seated terror of the ideas being repudiated. Hmm. > too often "innovations" of this sort are all about the > director's inability a reckon with what he/she is given on the > page...and indicates an ego-driven need to "top" what Shakespeare > has given us... Note the insistent yoking of psychological terms ('ego' 'drive') with the archaic sexual language ('top'). The raw sexuality of this repudiation bursts through in a frenzy of imagined sexual/textual interpenetration of a 'Shakespeare' which is both a vulnerable body and a vulnerable text. > If you have a cause to flog, i.e. homoeroticism between > Rosalind and Celia, or Iago and Othello It is imagined that only with violence ('flog') can the hated idea be advanced by anyone. And note that this violence is again overtly sexual (flagellation). > then get on a soapbox and shout it to the commuters, but keep > it off the stage The antithesis of two kinds of 'platforms' is of interest here. The 'commuters' are obviously the 'computers' which, via SHAKSPER, have disseminated the loathsome idea. > ...or write a thesis to be read by your closest friends > and family, who'll applaud your deep, deep insight and > origionality The repetitive thrust of 'deep', which drives 'in' the hated idea, leads naturally to the parapraxis of 'origion'. This speaks clearly of the 'o-region' which it is feared will be penetrated. Okay Mark, I'm convinced. There IS something in all this Psych 101 stuff! Gabriel Egan >> Well done, Gabriel...blew your horn in quite a penetrating manner...impressive angling of view, using the time-honored method of avoiding the topic by concentrating on the speaker...congrats on having made it all the way to Psych 103. ......cheers, Mark [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Schmidt Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 20:27:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0271 Re: Rosalind & Celia I've been following the Rosalind & Celia discussion, but my point is a little different: Although the homoerotic suggestion was made clearly enough early in the First Act it then just seemed to disappear (into air, into thin air?). What happened? It's an interesting enough idea, but-once that particular box is opened-I think that the company and director have an obligation to see it through to the end. Any thoughts? And any thoughts about the way this idea would play out in the Forest of Arden? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 06:14:42 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0275 Re: Tony & Cleo The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0275. Wednesday, 26 February 1997. [1] From: Framji Minwalla Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 11:34:39 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0268 Q: Tony & Cleo [2] From: Jeff Myers Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 17:22:42 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0273 Re: Tmp.; MND; Ant [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Framji Minwalla Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 11:34:39 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0268 Q: Tony & Cleo I saw the NYC production of A&C the same day Gabriel did, and thought it dreadful. Vanessa Redgrave directed her strident politics into the play, and while politicizing Shakespeare may not be a bad idea, politicizing to point of shifting the meanings of the play to what might be considered their exact opposite is disastrous, here. Redgrave plays Cleopatra as Elizabeth I, with high-ruff collar and tight corset. Antony, of course, becomes Essex. And Octavius, cast as a 16 year old boy (played by a woman), the epitome of radical catholicism. The production is muddy, the performers often unintelligible, making the play, ultimately, boring to watch. Everyone in the NYC area, be warned. This is not worth seeing at all. Framji Minwalla [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 17:22:42 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0273 Re: Tmp.; MND; Ant. >Yes, I saw A&C in Washington. Is it the same company? I wasn't sure it >could be done, but it was done beautifully. But it was difficult to >believe in Cleopatra. I forgot the name of the actress, but I would not >have traveled from Brooklyn to Manhattan for her, much less from Rome to >Egypt. The rest of the cast was brilliant, and the production remained >loyal to the original. I always wonder if Shakespeare's audience made the same kind of remarks about the young boy squeaking the part on his stage, or did the fact that it was a boy eliminate expectations of mythical beauty so often decried as lacking in modern actresses? Jeff Myers ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 07:55:46 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0276 Q: *Cardenio* The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0276. Wednesday, 26 February 1997. From: Leonard Wasserman Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 15:14:31 -0500 Subject: Q: *Cardenio* Is *Cardenio* *The Second Mayden's Tragedy*, as Charles Hamilton said? Does E. Sams agree with Hamilton on this point? Any comments about Cardenio? I know everybody BOOs at Hamilton's guess about the Second Mayden's Tragedy (hereafter SMT), but, you never know... Has anyone suggested anything besides SMT (Don't tell me about Double Falsehood)? If not, we'll have to stick with Hamilton's theory, crazy as it may sound. Your honour's all in duty, Gabriel Z. Wasserman ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:22:01 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0277 Gilligan; MND; Female Hamlet; Dover; Hamlet/Ophelia; Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0277. Wednesday, 26 February 1997. [1] From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 08:53:11 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0272 Re: Gilligan's Island; Ideology [2] From: Dale Lyles Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 13:16:46 -0500 (EST) Subj: MND [3] From: G. L. Horton Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 13:29:54 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0269 Re: Female Hamlets [4] From: Derek Wood Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 17:57:40 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0264 Re: Dover Cliff [5] From: Mark Mann Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 12:15:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0270 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* [6] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 21:19:28 -0500 (EST) Subj: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 08:53:11 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0272 Re: Gilligan's Island; Ideology I'd like to add that I referred to the Gilligan's Island episode this semester while TA'ing my first Shakespeare class. It was only after watching that show as a young child (never mind how old I am, thank you - smile) that I began to hear references and phrases on other shows, the news, etc... Fortunately, PBS was young as well. Back then you didn't get Sesame Street, you got "I Claudius" or in this case, versions of Shakespeare performed by hardly known, but highly qualified actors. I pay homage to Gilligan for illuminating my mind to Shakespeare daily. I can still remember the tunes!!! JoAnna P.S. I like the Addams family, too (smile). [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 13:16:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: MND The idea of using the 20th c.'s mean streets for an analogue of the Athenian woods is apt, but what does one do with all the language of the play? It becomes more problematic than labeling one's handguns "Sword," etc. I've been thinking about the maltreatment of women in the play, trying to decide how much my being bothered by that ugly fact can affect my treatment of the script. Here's what I'm thinking-Can we / Do we not have an aesthetic of cruelty anyway underlying most of our comedy? Here's my test question: What would happen to the play if we switched Titania and Oberon? What if we monkeyed with the language and the blocking just a touch and had Oberon fall in love with Bottom? Is the play destroyed? My hypothesis is this: if the feminist reading is correct in an essentially exclusive manner, that the play derives its "humor" from a patriarchal paradigm, then it will be funny only when Titania is the victim. If, on the other hand, our culture's comedy is based on an element of pain anyway, then Oberon-as-victim, while certainly a rug-puller, should still be funny, and in the same way. So what do you think? Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company http://www.shenandoah.peachnet.edu/~dlyles/nctc/ [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: G. L. Horton Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 13:29:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0269 Re: Female Hamlets >I don't recall where the person who started this thread resides, but >Peace College (a women's school) in Raleigh, NC is putting on an >all-female _Hamlet The original poster cross-posted. Fascinating discussions of this topic are presently going on in rec.arts.theatre.misc; humanities.literature.authors.shakespeare; the Theatre and ASTRA-L mailing lists, and maybe some others. I've been pontificating on the subject in some of the above places. If interest continues, I may forward some of my remarks to SHK. G.L.Horton -- Newton, MA, USA ghorton@tiac.net [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Derek Wood Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 17:57:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0264 Re: Dover Cliff > Edgar, even more than Albany, is full of faith in the heavens "the gods > are just/ the dark and vicious place where thee he got, cost him his > eyes" and "look up, my lord" to Lear at the end where Kent, who has > shared Edgar's optimism till now, says to let him die. Albany's a > bungler at best. > > Paul Worley Why is Paul so critical of Albany? Although Albany is still a little naively sympathetic to "friends" and hostile to "foes" at the end, not having learned what he should have about "seeming friends," he has come a long way since the play began, most of it on his own. His willingness to divest himself of power at the end is almost as frightening as Lear's at the start, but he does it out of good will and a sense of justice. He is a man of great charity, "ready to dissolve" on hearing of Gloucester and unable to bear more painful detail. His first anger with Goneril is for behaviour far less horrible than that she later reveals: her early unkindness to her father (4.2): "Wisdom and goodness to the vile seem vile." But Albany is a bit lucky for a while: events seem to support his optimistic belief in the gods' goodness: "This shows you are above / You justicers, that these our nether crimes / so speedily can venge!" This sort of luck helps both Edgar and Albany to hold on; both have looked into the depths and need help to believe the heavens are just. If they are not, Albany knows that "Humanity must perforce prey on itself." Edgar, when he thinks he has hit bottom, ("the lowest and most dejected thing of Fortune"), only then glimpses a horror he had not imagined: "World, world...thy strange mutations make us hate thee...." Albany and Edgar hold on in the desperate hope that justice is inscribed in the universe, and so Albany has no trouble dealing with the death of the sisters, but both will have great difficulty coping with the "justice" dealt out to Lear and Cordelia. Edgar has another glimpse of what is unbearable, the "image of that horror." and Albany just wants out. He wants to give up and hand over everything to anybody. The play ends with Edgar's death wish which immediately follows Kent's. So I worry about Edgar's "faith in the heavens." Shakespeare shows us several characters constructing God in their own images. For Albany the gods are "justicers" and he is relieved to see they avenge evil. Edgar believes with him and is equally relieved that they ingeniously "make instruments to plague us" out of our own vices. Practical, commonsensical Kent, utterly baffled by the mysterious inscrutability of heredity and education, that "one self mate and make" could beget such different children, throws up his hands and resigns meaning to the stars "The stars above us govern our conditions." Is this belief or despair? Cordelia, kind and compassionate and all-forgiving, believes in "kind gods," gods who forgive and who comfort and heal human suffering. And Gloucester believes in sadistic gods who are like wanton boys who kill us for sport; but then he would, wouldn't he after what he has been through? Every one in the play creates god in his/her own image. Edmund is his own god but so too is Edgar: he plays god, creates fiends with "a thousand noses", cliffs, seas, sampire collectors-and all to "cure" despair. And godlike he does it. And godlike, he later deals out death and justice. God is fashioned by each character as that character wills. And the human beings in the play often call on god. Remember: Gloucester goes in to his house to arrange what comfort he might for Lear and Kent says,"The Gods reward your kindness." We next see Gloucester being blinded as he prays to see the gods' "winged vengeance overtake such children." Also, Albany prays that Cordelia may be saved: "The Gods defend her," and she is carried in dead. Myself, I'm not too hopeful about any of the participants' "faith in the heavens" at the end of the play. "All's cheerless, dark and deadly." Derek Wood. St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, NS [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Mann Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 12:15:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0270 Re: Branagh's *Hamlet* Re: the question of whether Hamlet slept with Ophelia... The best answer ever given on this topic was by John Barrymore, who when asked this burning question, replied : " Only in the Chicago company" Cheers...Mark Mann [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 21:19:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Ideology Michael Yogev is wrong to suggest that I have claimed that "the only true, complete appreciation of Shakespeare's work comes from its aesthetic beauty," or that Shakespeare should be "cut off. . .from contemporary concerns (his own, and ours)," or that "students who `love Shakespeare' will love his works. . .less if they come to appreciate the . . .ideological currents his dramas address." I say no such things. In fact, the question I asked Professor Hawkes indicates that I think students can both love Shakespeare's works and perform ideological criticism, but I suspect Professor Hawkes would have to disagree. And I don't discuss Camille Paglia's views of date rape, nor were the fashion images Paglia mentions of destructively thin women, as I recall. But since the subject has been raised, and having read Paglia's views on date rape, I must point out that Michael Yogev's remarks perpetuate the popular (or academic) misconception of Paglia's views at odds with what she has actually written. She is perfectly deranged when so distorted, but "usually sensible" when actually read. Instead of what Michael Yogev has read into my post, what I wrote is quite modest and ordinary: that Shakespeare's works-and great literature generally-possess a considerable aesthetic power that is *not reducible to* whatever in them may be ideological (or economic or political or historical) and that the aesthetic response of any reader is *not reducible to* her ideology. By the phrasing of his last paragraph Michael Yogev would seem prepared to concede at least the first part. He perhaps only finds it a bit of a bore to "simply worship. . .[Shakespeare's] greatness." To each his own. As for the second point, Yogev's demonstration of the ideological in Johnson is peculiar, because Johnson's partial rejection of the unities-a rejection of some key components of the neoclassicist views Yogev mentions-is surely evidence of the freedom from ideology that defines good and great reading. I'm glad that the possibility of being "psychotic" and a "pervert" gave Professor Hawkes a momentary vision of a more energetic him, but he avoids the question that I had asked: can students love Shakespeare and be critics of the ideological currents running through him and his appropriators? If so, would this not establish some space for individual aesthetic response outside of ideology? Professor Hawkes confesses that he "do[es] occasionally aim to change the way. . .students think about literature." While I wouldn't dream of telling someone of his eminence how to teach, I encourage my students to decide for themselves what they should think about literature. That's what I call education. Paul Hawkins ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:31:35 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0278 Announcements: The Shakespeare Institute; ACTER The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0278. Wednesday, 26 February 1997. [1] From: Stanley Wells Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 12:34:14 GMT Subj: Re: The Shakespeare Institute [2] From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Sunday, 23 Feb 1997 09:21:39 -0500 (EST) Subj: ACTER's upcoming performances and an open date [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stanley Wells Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 12:34:14 GMT Subject: Re: The Shakespeare Institute Subscribers to Shaksper may like to know - indeed, some very well know already - about opportunities for full-time study in Stratford-upon-Avon. The Shakespeare Institute of the University of Birmingham offers one-year taught courses leading to the Diploma in Shakespeare Studies or the M. A. in Shakespeare Studies and supervision for research degrees on Shakespeare or other aspects of Renaissance literature and drama - M. Phil., minimum of one year, and M. Litt. and Ph. D., minimum of 2 years. Faculty includes Russell Jackson - Branagh's literary adviser on Hamlet and all his other Shakespeare projects - John Jowett, joint-editor of the Oxford Shakespeare and a General Editor of the forthcoming Oxford Middleton, Martin Wiggins, a General Editor of the World's Classics Drama Library, and Pamela Mason, who has special interests in theatre and film studies. We work closely with the Royal Shakespeare Theatre and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. Shaksper contributor Peter Holland will succeed me as Director in September, and the indefatigable and talented Gabriel Egan is one of my Ph. D. students! More information from me at The Shakespeare Institute, Church Street, Stratford-upon-Avon, Warks., CV 37 6HP. Stanley Wells [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Sunday, 23 Feb 1997 09:21:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: ACTER's upcoming performances and an open date ACTER's exciting performance of *Romeo and Juliet* can be seen at Allegheny College Wed., Feb. 26th at 8 p.m.(email dbaker@admin.alleg.edu for info), Slippery Rock University, Thurs., Feb. 27th at 8 p.m.(david.skeele@sru.edu), Santa Monica College, Friday, Mar. 7 at 8 and Sat. March 8 at 2 and 8 p.m. (jlouff@smc.edu), and Thurs-Sat. March 13-15 at Berea College (john_bolin@berea.edu). We also have an opening March 9-15, 1998 for *A Midsummer Night's Dream*. Contact me if you are interested. Cynthia Dessen, General Manager, ACTER csdessen@email.unc.edu 919-967-4265 (phone/fax) ACTER website: http://www.unc.edu/depts/acter/ Mail to: 1100 Willow Drive, Chapel Hill NC 27514 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:31:50 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0279 Re: *Cardenio* The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0279. Thursday, 27 February 1997. [1] From: Jonathan Hope Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 14:28:38 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0276 Q: *Cardenio* [2] From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 10:30:29 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0276 Q: *Cardenio* [3] From: John Robinson Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 19:03:32 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0276 Q: *Cardenio* [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Hope Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 14:28:38 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0276 Q: *Cardenio* > Is *Cardenio* *The Second Mayden's Tragedy*, as Charles Hamilton said? No. > Does E. Sams agree with Hamilton on this point? I can't speak officially for Eric, but in private communication he's been quite open to Hamilton's idea - I'd say more because the idea seems so outrageous, rather than because he thinks it is likely > Has anyone suggested anything besides SMT (Don't tell me about > Double Falsehood)? If not, we'll have to stick with > Hamilton's theory, crazy as it may sound. Sorry to puff myself for the second time in two weeks, and to mention the DF play, but on pages 89-100 of *The Authorship of Shakespeare's Plays* I give evidence that shows that *DF* doesn't look linguistically like Theobald's other plays, and is consistent with it being an adaptation of a text which contained two divergent idiolects - one looking like Shakespeare's, the other looking like Fletcher's. So if you're one of those boring people who likes to take evidence into account before coming to conclusions, *DF* stays in the frame as about as good a candidate for Cardenio as we have. Jonathan Hope Middlesex University [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 10:30:29 -0500 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0276 Q: *Cardenio* There have been some recent biographies on Shakespeare (Shakespeare: The Facts perhaps?) that have dismissed, though only summarily, Hamilton's argument, assigning the play to Middleton. There has been disagreement concerning Hamilton's handwriting analysis, although I personally, albeit being ignorant in the science, find his case convincing for claiming Q wrote the play out. This is not to say that he "wrote" it. Again, most responses to this play assign the play to Middleton. I believe the author of Shakespeare: The Facts, argues against Cardenio as SMT but does not offer an alternative. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Robinson Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 19:03:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0276 Q: *Cardenio* Nice try. But just because no one has a better theory does not mean we have to accept a crazy one. It seems to me that Mr Hamilton has made other questionable statements in the past. I believe he has written that all of Shakespeare's will is in Shakespeare's hand; I also believe he contends that Shakespeare ghost wrote all-are most of-Sir Francis Bacon's works. He is not a reliable source of info. But sure, he might be right-it's just not likely. John Robinson ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:38:27 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0280 Re: Macbeth Apparitions The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0280. Thursday, 27 February 1997. [1] From: Nancy N. Doherty Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 10:27:30 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0253 Q: Macbeth Apparitions [2] From: Billy Houck Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 16:35:43 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0253 Q: Macbeth Apparitions [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nancy N. Doherty Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 10:27:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0253 Q: Macbeth Apparitions I directed a production 2 years ago, outdoors, tight budget. I suggest that given the circumstances of the supernatural[?], witches, Banquo's ghost, etc. that the idea of the apparitions be viewed in context as a whole - taking in the fact that any availability of lighting effects are nill. Because the play is short, a black out by intermission was impossible. Effects for the cauldron scene were difficult. Our set, costumes, were bases on Waite's Tarot deck - a house of cards so to speak. Our stage is typical of out door structures - a deck, two side platforms of a central one. Under the central platform were three rotating panels that could be positioned according to the scenes. For that particular scene we covered the back of each panel [4x8] with silver mylar so that light and image would reflect. Armed head was Macduff, bloody baby became bloody Duncan carrying two swaddlings in his arms, crowned child was Fleance each turned in sequence. When the witches say "Show, show, show" each turned back on their panels with a full revolve to reveal Banquo holding a mirrored reflecting ball [garden gazing variety]. His position was reflected off all three panel, light bounced everywhere - hence the line of kings. This solution allowed for easy entrances and exits and voice over with dubbing provided voices. On the women in Shakespeare note - my Lady was also played pregnant and showing. It allowed us to emphasize her resolve, gave a twist to "bring forth", turned her faint into a miscarriage, and added meaning to "barren septre" and "he has no children". We aslo played it in the sleepwalking scene where she cradled it singing "Thane of Fife".... Your friend may contact me directly at my e-mail address. Hope this may help. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 16:35:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0253 Q: Macbeth Apparitions When I directed Macbeth 2 summers ago, I was able to borrow a video projector. We just made a movie of each of the apparitions, as well as Banquo and that floating dagger, and projected them right onto someone's shirt or a handy tapestry. When Macbeth was sick of seeing Banquo and screams "No more enough!", he tore down the tapestry. Billy Houck Eagle Theatre I've also seen outdoor productions where the "visions" were all in the "cauldron" and Macbeth practically had his whole head down inside the thing. If you can act it, it works. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:11:23 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0281 Re: Lr.; AYL; MND The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0281. Thursday, 27 February 1997. [1] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 09:29:30 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0277 Dover Cliffs [2] From: Jung Jimmy Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 14:43 -0500 Subj: Rosalind & Celia [3] From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 21:21:20 +1100 (EST) Subj: Re: MND [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1997 09:29:30 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0277 Dover Cliffs Derek writes: > Myself, I'm not too hopeful about any of the participants' "faith in the > heavens" at the end of the play. "All's cheerless, dark and deadly." I'd be a little more upbeat, perhaps, in remembering that judgement and sin are, theologically, demonstrations of the absolute difference between God and man, and that such a distinction is the necessary underpinning to redemption. The structure of Romans points in this direction, first exploring the sins of both Gentiles and Jews, before expanding on grace. Similarly, the Edwardian homilies start with talks about our sinfulness, before moving on to our being forgiven. Cheers, Sean [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jung Jimmy Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 14:43 -0500 Subject: Rosalind & Celia First I was curious, now I'm just confused. Peter D. Holland, is correct in noting that it is not R&C who suggest the homoeroticism, but the other characters talking about them. In fact, once the production had opened the topic, there was at least one occasion where I was surprised they did not allow the cousins to follow through on the suggestion. Act 1, scene 3: CELIA No, hath not? Rosalind lacks then the love Which teacheth thee that thou and I am one: Shall we be sunder'd? shall we part, sweet girl? Having pondered the various responses, I'm beginning to think that if your gonna use the homoerotic angle, it might be more interesting to see the homoerotic stuff emphasized between the cousins, then you get a sense of loss and transition as love changes. However, I still think it is very odd that the daughter of a banished duke should remain in the court, or that the daughter and heir of a sitting duke should leave the court and follow her cousin into banishment. I believe the intimacy between C&R is described repeatedly to justify both these circumstances and here, in the 1990's, it does have the fortunate benefit of hinting at the gender and sexual confusion in the forest. (Which may answer William Schmidt's question about where the homoerotic suggestion disappears to in the second act. It's played out between Orlando and Galymede, Rosalind and Phebe) As has been suggested, we are talking about a particular production, a production that not everyone has seen; so I should also point out that Le Beau gives Orlando a serious kiss, just after warning him about the Duke's temper. This physical homoeroticism seemed less awkward than the vague hints of homoeroticism stemming from the lines we've been discussing. In part, I took Le Beau as the stereotypical fop (e.g., Osric). He is also part of a very decadent court, cocaine, torture, bimbos, even to some degree the gladiatorial nature of the wrestling. Orlando is surprised by the kiss and nicely set up for Ganymede's odd proposal to be his Rosalind. I'm not familiar with Eve Sedgwick's useful distinction between homosocial and homosexual (or for that matter the distinction between homosocial, heterosocial and social); but I do think it makes a difference if Ros and Celia had a homosexual or homosocial bond. Doesn't it change the context of Ros's becoming a man to woo Orlando if she is homosexual? (perhaps I'm reading too far beyond the text. I'm sure Hawkes will be along shortly to ask if and of Lady Macbeth's children were gay?) jimmy PS: My real surprise, in this production, is still the bloody nature of Duke Frederick's court, especially as portrayed while he is torturing a few folks. Has anyone seen him that mean before? PPS: Peter Holland, did you really come from to see a show in DC? High praise indeed. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 21:21:20 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: MND I can't see why Dale Lyles is worried by the possible disjunction between a C20 visual style-the mean streets-for sets, costumes etc, and Shakespeare's language. I would have thought that all of us would be thoroughly used to this convention (even though some people might not like it). Surely we've all seen plays by Shakespeare and his contemporaries performed in periods dating from several centuries BCE to some time in a science fiction future, not excluding the present day. One example that springs to my mind is Michael Bogdanov's English Shakespeare Company cycle of the history plays, especially _Henry V_ with the English army setting off to the Faulklands War. I think it's ceased even occurring to me as a problem when I see a play in such a setting. I'm always curious to know, incidentally, what the opponents of updating and other directorial "interventions" in these plays feel about seeing productions of, say, _Julius Caesar_ set in the Roman period, and having the characters wearing togas while still speaking Elizabethan English. I assume the defenders of "authentic" Shakespeare are only happy seeing the plays performed in the reconstructed Globe in London in Elizabethan costume, and ideally with an audience of Renaissance English persons with all their various attitudes, beliefs, local knowledges, etc. intact. Or perhaps they prefer the plays in the safety of their studies. Would Mark Mann care to comment on this? As for swapping Oberon and Titania, it's been done. (Hasn't everything?) Some students at the University of Queensland a few years back did a (substantially rewritten and very clever) disco version called _Midsummer Night Fever_, set in a nightclub, which is another possible C20 inflexion of the woods. The Oberon and Titania figures were the proprietors of the nightclub, and it was the male figure who was bewitched in the way Titania is in _MND_. And I've heard of a fairly recent production in California (Santa Cruz? I can't remember but someone on SHAKSPER is bound to know) where the actors playing Theseus and Hippolyta doubled, as they often do, the roles of Oberon and Titania, but chiasmatically, so that the male actor playing Theseus then played Titania, and the female actor playing Hippolyta played Oberon. Maybe someone who saw it can give more details about how it worked. But I would challenge the idea that Dale's suggested transposition of the roles, where Oberon falls in love with Bottom, would work as comedy *"in the same way"*. It would be a quite different play working in quite different ways, but possibly still in the service of patriarchal dominance, changing everything and nothing. Audiences might well find it funny, but patriarchal comedy has never hesitated to ridicule any man (especially a king of the fairies) who allows himself to be topped (Mark Mann again!) by women. Isn't this what the charivari was largely about? Patriarchal comedy doesn't require Titania to be the victim; it's far more subtle and complex in its workings to be limited to such a simple response. I'm also disturbed by the dismissal (if that's what it was) of the issue of the maltreatment of women as merely part of a comic aesthetic of cruelty. That's why I drew attention to Louis Montrose's very sophisticated argument in the first place, even though I've simplified it horribly for the purposes of this discussion. Mea culpa. Montrose's point, I think, is that this is not merely comic cruelty but a highly politicised reaction provoked by male anxiety about female power. Adrian Kiernander ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:15:56 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0282 Shakespeare on the Great Lakes The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0282. Thursday, 27 February 1997. From: Ron Dwelle Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 09:32:41 -0500 Subject: Shakespeare on the Great Lakes This may be of interest to someone on the list: I happened to be reading the 1840 journal of Charles W. Penny, written during his expedition from the outpost of Detroit into the wilderness of Lake Superior. (The journal was published in 1970, under the title _North to Lake Superior_). Penny was apparently a "young gentleman" and proto-entrepreneur who accompanied some geologist friends (led by Douglass Houghton) while they surveyed the shores of Lake Superior, seeking copper and iron deposits. They traveled by small boat, propelled by voyageur-type paddlers (he refers to them affectionately and admiringly as "our sea dogs"). Early in the journal, he reports on a typical sabbath day of rest: "We read the Bible I dare say much more than we would have done had we been in Detroit. Shakespeare was duly honored, as he is every day when we travel. When on the water, some one of the party usually reads his plays to the others." Throughout the journal, he frequently alludes to Shakespeare, often quoting or paraphrasing. For example: "Night before last we caught three whitefish and one trout; last night two large whitefish. One can never get tired of them in this latitude. The meat is so fine, hard, and white, and so sweet, that all other fish seem 'flat, stale and unprofitable' when compared to them." The familiarity with Shakespeare was interesting, particularly because Penny was not college educated (he began his first business in Detroit at the age of 19) and the whole company was made up of geologists, draftsmen, and other technical types. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:30:30 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0283 Qs: Facsimiles; Desdemona's Guilt The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0283. Thursday, 27 February 1997. [1] From: Pevez Rizvi Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 97 14:55:56 GMT Subj: Facsimiles [2] From: Michelle Walker <954walker@alpha.nlu.edu> Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 12:21:11 CST Subj: Desdemona's Guilt [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pevez Rizvi Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 97 14:55:56 GMT Subject: Facsimiles I recently bought a paperback modern-type facsimile of the 1622 quarto of Othello. [Someone asked about this a while ago. It is published by Prentice-Hall as part of a current series called Shakespearean Originals: First Editions. Their aim is to print the first edition of all plays in the canon, whether from a quarto or the Folio. They've printed Q1 Hamlet, Q1 Henry V etc.] I'd like to be able to buy a facsimile of the Folio. The Norton costs 100 pounds here in England and I imagine there are many like me who can't justify the expense. A fellow Shakespeare enthusiast on the internet has informed me of another facsimile published by Applause (New York, 1995), editor Doug Moston. My local bookshop has tried lots of computer searches and phone calls and are confident that it is not available in the UK. They say that the cost of importing a single copy for me from the States would be over 50 pounds. Can any list members help me with the following questions? * Is this Applause facsimile a good one? Is it 'diplomatic' or photographic? Is it edited in any way? * Is there an outlet in the UK which can supply a copy at a reasonable price? * Are there any other facsimiles of F which are priced for the pockets of private individuals rather than university libraries? [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michelle Walker <954walker@alpha.nlu.edu> Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 12:21:11 CST Subject: Desdemona's Guilt I have a question that no one has seemed to be able to answer, or that I haven't found the right sources. At the end of "Othello" Desdemona accepts her death at Othello's hands and I want to know why. I have been searching our feeble library for possibilities and they are few and far between. Does anyone know where I should look/ How about some feedback? My argument is that Desdemona seems to be an independent woman who would not take any sh@t from a man, regardless of how much she loves him. Thanks for any suggestions, Michelle Walker ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:35:10 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0284 RE: Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0284. Thursday, 27 February 1997. [1] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 20:28:25 +0000 (GMT) Subj: RE: Ideology [2] From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 17:25:03 -0500 (EST) Subj: Invasion! [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 20:28:25 +0000 (GMT) Subject: RE: Ideology I'd like to butt in on a question Paul Hawkins asked Terry Hawkes: > he avoids the question that I had asked: can > students love Shakespeare and be critics of the > ideological currents running through him and > his appropriators? To say one 'loves' Shakespeare is ambiguous. Some people want to emote about certain lines of poetry and don't care where they come from. Others feel nostalgic for their schooldays and the texts they were made to learn. Only quite recently has 'appreciation' (saying what's good about a text) become optional. 'Criticism' and 'appreciation' were the practical skills of discrimination to be demonstrated in order to enter the ranks of 'sensitive readers' who knew just why the canon was the way it was, with Shakespeare at the top. That is, the taught skills sustained an ideological construct and passed it off as the most natural thing in the world: the best thoughts and words of the best people. Times have changed. One doesn't have to prove one likes the stuff. Would Paul agree that Terry Hawkes "loves Shakespeare" if Terry merely admits to taking great pleasure from the job that he does? The texts are, after all, only grist to the scholar's mill. Concerning the students... > I encourage my students to decide for themselves > what they should think about literature. That's what > I call education. But you don't let them set the exam paper, do you? They can't really "decide for themselves" but only choose from a range of permitted positions. Or would you let candidates in a Shakespeare exam decide for themselves that there is nothing worth commenting on in any Shakespeare text? Gabriel Egan [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 17:25:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Invasion! In response to Hawkes's pending tour, Bill Godshalk writes: > You see, I was correct. This is the advanced guard of the > Cultural-Materialist colonial invasion of the Americas. They want to > bring us back into the Pale. They want to stop us from reading > Moby-Dick and force us to read > Capital. Let us say, "No in thunder." > Yours, Bill Godshalk Too late, Bill. We've been infiltrating higher education for years, poisoning your students' minds and planning our revolution. You should have been more vigilant. Best give yourself up quietly. Is Terry Hawkes coming close to NW Ohio? I don't know who to ask . . . unless Terry Hawkes himself will reveal all. Simon Morgan-Russell Department of English Bowling Green State University========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:38:59 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0285 Re: *Cardenio* The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0285. Friday, 28 February 1997. [1] From: John King Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 09:04:27 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0279 Re: *Cardenio* [2] From: Timothy Reed Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 13:23:17 -0700 Subj: *Cardenio* [3] From: David J. Kathman Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 15:12:38 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0279 Re: *Cardenio* [4] From: John Mucci Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 12:10:50 -0500 Subj: Cardenio [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John King Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 09:04:27 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0279 Re: *Cardenio* >Nice try. But just because no one has a better theory does not mean we >have to accept a crazy one. It seems to me that Mr Hamilton has made >other questionable statements in the past. I believe he has written >that all of Shakespeare's will is in Shakespeare's hand; I also believe >he contends that Shakespeare ghost wrote all-are most of-Sir Francis >Bacon's works. He is not a reliable source of info. But sure, he might >be right-it's just not likely. I have read CARDENIO, and also I have read Hamilton's book IN SEARCH OF SHAKESPEARE, in which he expounds his theories. Almost all of them stem from his contention that the will is actually in Shakespeare's hand. As for ghost-writing for Bacon, what Hamilton actually says is that Shakespeare's alleged handwriting appears in several Bacon manuscripts, leading to the conclusion that he may have worked as a scribe- possibly even being asked to doctor some material, but that (even Hamilton admits) can never be more than speculation. My question is this: why must Hamilton's theories be dismissed so completely without any serious consideration? I am not convinced that SECOND MAYDENS TRAGEDY is actually CARDENIO, but I must say that the arguments Hamilton has put forth in support of many of his ideas are reasonable to me. This, after all, is one of the most respected men in his field, who has spent most of his life exploring and solving mysteries through handwriting, and his opinion has been considered reliable enough in countless courts of law. Now, when he applies his expertise to a new area, bringing his own knowledge and sensibilities to the study of Shakespeare, he is met with a barrage of skepticism (understandable) and ridicule (inexcusable). Why? Is it so impossible that Shakespeare could have handwritten his own will? People do it, even today. Is it so impossible that he could have picked up some extra money working for Sir Francis Bacon when the theatres were closed by the plague? I think not, especially since we know he at least had connections in the right circles. Perhaps I am naive, and I certainly don't claim to be an expert on all the facts surrounding Shakespeare and his life... However, I DO know enough about those facts to know that NOBODY can claim to be an "expert" about it, really; and until someone discovers something that fills in all the numerous blanks, we should all be open to the possibilities of any theory that comes along, no matter how "crazy" it may seem. John King. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Timothy Reed Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 13:23:17 -0700 Subject: *Cardenio* As alluring as it is for many to believe that *The Second Maiden's Tragedy* is the unearthed *Cardenio*, the evidence simply does not bear it out. Hamilton's arguments based on the similarities of the characters in *2MT* and the original Cervantes are nothing more than wishful thinking; his handwriting analysis calls on methods reminiscent of the worst excesses of self-deluded Baconians like Elizabeth Wells Gallup; and his analysis of the sublime and exquisite nature of the language of the play is laughable. There is no solid evidence that Shakespeare penned the manuscript, especially since his whole thesis on this point is predicated by his earlier "proof" that Shakespeare penned the entirety of his will. The language of the play is simply not consistent with the works of the mature Shakespeare that is postulated by the dates in the Stationer's Register. Having recently performed the role of The Tyrant, I can claim an intimate familiarity with the play from the seldom heard actor's point of view and make the completely subjective and easily debatable point that "It just doesn't sound the same and play the same as Shakespeare." Flame away if you must, but I've got to go on gut instinct on this one. I will concede that there are one or two scenes that Shakespeare *might* have had a hand in; but half the play? No. Timothy Reed The Upstart Crow Theatre Company, Boulder, CO [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David J. Kathman Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 15:12:38 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0279 Re: *Cardenio* Regarding *Cardenio*, *The Second Maiden's Tragedy*, and *Double Falsehood* (Lewis Theobald's supposed adaptation of *Cardenio*), Jonathan Hope wrote: >> Has anyone suggested anything besides SMT (Don't tell me about >> Double Falsehood)? If not, we'll have to stick with >> Hamilton's theory, crazy as it may sound. > >Sorry to puff myself for the second time in two weeks, and to mention >the DF play, but on pages 89-100 of *The Authorship of Shakespeare's >Plays* I give evidence that shows that *DF* doesn't look linguistically >like Theobald's other plays, and is consistent with it being an >adaptation of a text which contained two divergent idiolects - one >looking like Shakespeare's, the other looking like Fletcher's. For what it's worth, Don Foster's SHAXICON points to a similar conclusion - the sections of *Double Falsehood* which are though to be based on Shakespeare's portion show a rare-word distribution which is extremely consistent with Shakespeare's work from around 1612. Also, somebody recently posted a query on the humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare newsgroup asking about Hamilton's claim that *The Second Maiden's Tragedy* is *Cardenio*, and I append my response below. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu ********************************** The book you're talking about was written by Charles Hamilton, an authograph expert with an amateur interest in Shakespeare. The short answer to your questions is that no Shakespeare scholar I'm aware of takes Hamilton or his conclusions seriously. The scholarly consensus, on the basis of internal evidence, is that *The Second Maiden's Tragedy* was written by Thomas Middleton, though a few years ago Eric Rasmussen wrote an article in Shakespeare Quarterly arguing that a few lines of manuscript additions may be in Shakespeare's hand. (Rasmussen's arguments have been disputed.) The main problem I have with Hamilton's methodology is that it's so incredibly subjective. The only undisputed examples of Shakespeare's handwriting are six signatures plus two words, "By me" (though even some of these have been questioned); it is also widely accepted that Shakespeare wrote three pages of the manuscript play *Sir Thomas More*. In his 1985 book *In Search of Shakespeare*, Hamilton looked at these six signatures, compared them to the body of the will, and decided that they were in the same handwriting, despite the fact that this conclusion had been rejected many times over the years by dozens of prominent paleographers. He then looked at a bunch of other documents and declared that dozens of them are also in Shakespeare's handwriting, including some legal documents from the files of Francis Bacon. Hamilton does provide some letter-by-letter comparisons, but he brushes aside any differences, relying primarily on the "feel" of a document; he claims to be able to tell if a document is in Shakespeare's handwriting without even reading it or looking at the individual letters. This is a pretty subjective way of doing things, and if other people don't share Hamilton's "feel" for a document, why that just shows how closed-minded they are, according to Hamilton. For the specific example of *The Second Maiden's Tragedy*, there's an additional complication. Shakespeare's signatures, plus the additon to *Sir Thomas More*, are all written in secretary hand, an older form of cursive which is all but indecipherable to a twentieth-century reader. Modern English handwriting is descended from italic script, which in Shakespeare's day was mainly used by the upper classes; however, it was starting to gain a foothold, and within a few decades would completely supplant secretary hand. The two types of writing are extremely different in appearance; it takes special training for a modern reader to be able to read secretary hand (and even then it can be a pain), but modern readers have no trouble reading italic hand. Now, as I said, all the examples we have of Shakespeare's handwriting are in secretary hand, and they're rather messy, as though he was writing in a hurry. The manuscript of *The Second Maiden's Tragedy* is written in a very neat italic hand, generally agreed to be that of a playhouse scribe. But Hamilton insists that the play is in Shakespeare's handwriting, and in fact the handwriting is his main argument; his attempts to use internal evidence are weak and unconvincing. But how can you compare a messy secretary hand to a neat italic hand? Well, here Hamilton resorts again to "feel"; he can just tell that this italic hand is the way Shakespeare would have written in italic, if we had any examples of italic handwriting by Shakespeare to compare it to. I, personally, don't buy it. The one feature of the Cardenio book that I found most interesting was the facsimiles of the handwriting of a few dozen of Shakespeare's contemporaries. I guess it's also worth having as an edition of *The Second Maiden's Tragedy*, though I think Hamilton changed the characters' names to fit his Cardenio claim. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Mucci Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 12:10:50 -0500 Subject: Cardenio John Robinson is a little off the beam when he says Charles Hamilton contends that Shakespeare ghost wrote all-are most of-Sir Francis Bacon's works." - he uses such an example in his book IN SEARCH OF SHAKESPEARE to demonstrate the lengths others will go to convince him of paranormal activities. What is extraordinary about Hamilton is that if you believe Cardenio is by WS, you have to believe the whole linkage that Hamilton has set up: namely, that Shakespeare wrote the last will and testament himself; that he suffered a stroke as he was writing it, and that many other documents exist in Shakespeare's hand, such as all the application drafts for John Shakespeare's coat of arms, and the scene from Thomas More. His analysis of the Cardenio manuscript (or the SMT, as you like it), concludes that it is one in the same person who penned it as the will. I suppose the only optional belief Hamilton has with no real proof, is that WS's son in law Quiny poisoned him, thus accounting for the erratic script on the last page of the will. JMucci ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:03:36 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0286 RE: Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0286. Friday, 28 February 1997. [1] From: Thomas Bishop Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 17:42:30 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0284 RE: Ideology [2] From: Bruce Coggin Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 16:50:48 U Subj: Re: SHK 8.0284 RE: Ideology [3] From: Naomi Liebler Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 97 19:56:30 EDT Subj: RE: SHK 8.0284 RE: Ideology [4] From: Charles Ross Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 09:58:20 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0284 RE: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 17:42:30 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0284 RE: Ideology Gabriel Egan writes a propos of Shakespeare's plays: > The texts are, after all, only grist to the scholar's mill. Res ipsa loquitur. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Coggin Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 16:50:48 U Subject: Re: SHK 8.0284 RE: Ideology Great Caesar's ghost! The hubris of a statement like "the texts are, after all, only grist to the scholar's mill" (Gabriel Egan, 27/02/97) simply takes the breath away. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Naomi Liebler Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 97 19:56:30 EDT Subject: RE: SHK 8.0284 RE: Ideology In reply to Simon Morgan-Russell's question about Terry Hawkes's American itinerary: How close is NW Ohio to NE New Jersey? Terry will be speaking at Montclair State University on Thursday, 3 April, sometime between 3 and 6 p.m. (tba). For directions, please write to Dr. Sally McWilliams, Dept. of English, MSU, Upper Montclair, NJ 07043. You can also e-mail her: McWilliamss@saturn.montclair.edu, but please include your snail-mail address, as she is not prepared to e-mail separate sets of directions to all and sundry. Terry's talk is entitled "Harry Hunks, Superstar." BY the time you send your request for directions, we'll have nailed down the time of the talk more precisely, and Sally can give you that information as well. Montclair State University is about 12 miles due west of midtown NYC. You could plan to spend the rest of the weekend in the Big Apple, which is particularly delightful in Spring. Do come! Cheers, Naomi Liebler [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Ross Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 09:58:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0284 RE: Ideology I have trouble following some of the discussion on ideology. I am not much of a philosopher. In order to clarify remarks by Gabriel Egan may I be permitted to pursue, in this Shakespeare forum, my query on when he feels sorry for Satan in Paradise Lost? Egan: "When he takes the existential decision to fight a battle he knows he can't win." 1. Is there a difference between a decision and an existential decision? 2. Should we distinguish the battle Satan knows he can't win from the battle he should not win? The convicted murderer looking at me with hate-filled eyes across the TV screen knows he can't win and he also knows he should not win. The revolutionary who attracts my sympathy often knows he cannot win but it may be that he should win. To feel sorry for Satan requires the latter, Romantic reading. Charles Ross ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:40:45 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0290 Re: Female Lear; Regan; Shrew; Desdemona's Guilt; Hamlet's Sleeping The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0290. Friday, 28 February 1997. [1] From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 04:40:03 -0500 Subj: Female Hamlet [2] From: Jameela Ann Lares Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 17:06:27 -0600 (CST) Subj: Regan [3] From: Kezia Vameter Sproat Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 05:38:47 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0186 Q: Shrew [4] From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 13:44:38 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0283 Qs: Desdemona's Guilt [5] From: John Velz Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 16:37:28 +0200 Subj: Re: Hamlet Sleeping with Ophelia... [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 04:40:03 -0500 Subject: Female Hamlet A production of King Lear featuring Kathryn Hunter as the King has just opened in Leicester. Terence Hawkes [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jameela Ann Lares Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 17:06:27 -0600 (CST) Subject: Regan Thanks to Harry Hill for answers to my posting on Regan. I've have forwarded them on to my student. Jameela Lares University of So. Miss. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kezia Vameter Sproat Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 05:38:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0186 Q: Shrew Joanna Koskinen asked about Baptista and Kate. Coppelia Kahn wrote an excellent article, I think in MLA or MLN, around 1974 that I think is crucial for understanding that play. No arcane reason is needed to explain the young woman's anger if you recognize, as I believe Shakespeare recognized, that the traditional power assigned to fathers for marrying off daughters is terribly oppressive to daughters (women). It's a nasty business, one-half notch up from selling slaves. For that reason, to achieve a happy ending, in the comedies, heroines are usually fatherless, or Daddy is off in the forest. That's necessary so the female character on stage can be more than a puppet, can truly act and interact. Somewhere early in Shrew, Baptista makes clear to Petruchio that Kate will do her own choosing. You could also look at my 1975 dissertation, not listed in the usual feminist places. Kezia Vameter Sproat [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 13:44:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0283 Qs: Desdemona's Guilt For Michelle Walker: Check out the following for the variety of feminist readings of D as subject/object and the text's gender politics generally: Dympna Callaghan's *Woman and Gender in Renaissance Tragedy*; Irene Dash's *Wooing, Wedding, and Power*; Shirley Garner's "S's Desdemona," *S Studies* 9; Gayle Greene's "'This that you call love': Social and Sexual Tragedy in *Othello,* *Journal of Women's Studies in Literature* 1; Coppelia Kahn's *Man's Estate*; Carol Neely's *Broken Nuptials*; Marianne Novy's *Love's Argument*, Mary Beth Rose's *The Expense of Spirit*; my *The Art of Loving*. Don't recall offhand, of course, whether each of the above deals with D's final lines per se. You should also be able to find lots of more recent stuff as well -- feminist Shakespeareans keep returning to that text again and again. Regards, Evelyn Gajowski [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 16:37:28 +0200 Subject: Re: Hamlet Sleeping with Ophelia... >The best answer ever given on this topic was by John Barrymore, who when >asked this burning question, replied : " Only in the Chicago company" > >Cheers...Mark Mann This story was on the SHAKSPER Listserv about a year ago and the reply was "Only in Cleveland". Cheers, Mark, John Velz ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:45:58 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0291 Qs: MV Film; Norton Ed. CD-ROM The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0291. Friday, 28 February 1997. [1] From: Troy Swartz Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 12:08:31 -0500 Subj: Qs: Merchant of Venice [2] From: Kenneth Adelman Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 13:13:22 -0500 (EST) Subj: Norton CD-Rom [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Troy Swartz Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 12:08:31 -0500 Subject: Qs: Merchant of Venice I have just a short question I'd like to throw out to you all. I'm curious if any of you have heard anything about a film production of Merchant of Venice. Several months ago I read a short piece on the WWW about it, but it was relatively vague. From what I understand it's taking a gay interpretation; but then again, I may be wrong. So if any of you could help, say with director, possible release date, players, etc. I'd be much obliged. Thanks, Troy A. Swartz Susquehanna University [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Adelman Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 13:13:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Norton CD-Rom I read recently in the "Chronicles of Higher Education" that along with the new Norton version of the complete works is a CD-Rom by Norton. Has anyone used it yet? Are there advantages to it? If terrific, how so and where you get it? Thanks for the info. Ken Adelman ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:49:50 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0292 CFP: Shakespeare Yearbook, X The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0292. Friday, 28 February 1997. From: Michele Marrapodi Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 11:22:24 +0100 Subject: Re: Call for Papers Call for Papers "Shakespeare and Italy" number of SHAKESPEARE YEARBOOK, X (1999), edited by Holger Klein and Michele Marrapodi Colleagues interested in offering a contribution to "Shakespeare and Italy" are invited to send a brief outline, preferably by the end of April 1997, to the general editor Professor Holger M. Klein, Institut fuer Anglistik und Amerikanistik, Universitaet Salzburg, Akademiestr. 24, A-5020 Salburg, Austria (Tel. +43-662-8044-4422; Fax: +43-662-8044-613; e-mail: Holger.Klein@sbg.ac.at), with a copy to the co-editor Professor Michele Marrapodi, Facolt=E0 di Lettere, Viale delle Scienze, Universit=E0 di Palerm= o, 90128 Palermo, Italy (Tel. +39-91-6560278; Fax: +39-91-421494; e-mail: Marrapod@mbox.unipa.it). Contributions to the reception-centred volume may cover any aspect of reception, notably translations, adaptations, imitations, parodies/travesties, all forms of intertextual use in the receptor country's literature, furthermore theatre productions, production reviews, trends of criticism, the role of Shakespeare in other areas of the receptor culture (curricula, journalism, advertising, etc.), and the impact of the country or area and language concerned - i.e. in this volume, X (1999), the impact of Italy and Italian - on Shakespeare. A style sheet will be sent out on acceptance of the proposal. Articles should not exceed 25 pages A4 (including notes), line spacing 1.5, with all notes as end notes and automated note numbering. Contributions should be submitted in hard copy and on a disk, using IBM or IBM-compatible MS DOS Word for Windows 6 (or, at a need, WordPerfect). All contributions will be double-read before final acceptance. The deadline for submitting the final contributions to the "Shakespeare and Italy" number of SHAKESPEARE YEARBOOK, X (1999), is 30 September 1998. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:14:33 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0287 Re: Facsimiles The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0287. Friday, 28 February 1997. [1] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 22:49:36 GMT Subj: Re: Facsimiles [2] From: Brother Anthony Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 08:50:01 +0900 (KST) Subj: Re: Qs: Facsimiles [3] From: Peter Donaldson Date: Friday, 28 Feb 97 11:03:34 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0283 Qs: Facsimiles [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 22:49:36 GMT Subject: Re: Facsimiles Pevez Rizvi writes > I recently bought a paperback modern-type facsimile > of the 1622 quarto of Othello. Someone asked about > this a while ago. It is published by Prentice-Hall as > part of a current series called Shakespearean > Originals: First Editions. Even their best friends wouldn't call what you bought a facsimile and many would say it is not even a diplomatic reprint. Would one of the editors care to offer a new term to describe these books? I don't think it's necessarily the buyer's fault if they are unclear about what they are getting. Gabriel Egan [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brother Anthony Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 08:50:01 +0900 (KST) Subject: Re: Qs: Facsimiles The Applause facsimile in paperback cost me $45, the address of their UK distributors is given in the book as Applause Books 406 Vale Road Tonbridge (Kent) TN9 1XR Tel 01732 357755 Fax 01732 770219 The US address is 211 West 71st St New York NY 10023 Tel (212) 595 4735 Fax (212) 721 2856 For academic works on literary topics published in the US I have found the Seminary Co-op Bookstore very valuable: 5757 S. University Ave Chicago, IL 60637 Tel (312) 752 4381 Fax (312) 752 8507 email books@semcoop.wwa.com They will mail books overseas, they inform at once on availability, and orders can be paid by credit card. They accept email orders from members too, and from potential future members. Since we are on the topic, I would point out that scholars in the US or elsewhere wishing to order books published in the UK will find the Blackwells Bookstore page on the WWW 'visit to the Oxford bookshop' very useful, since it gives access to their complete stocklist, volumes you want to order can be marked, then at checkout a secure link allows you to transmit credit card details; people living far away will find the mailing option "Accelerated Surface Mail" extremely useful, since it gives the speed of airmail for little more than the price of regular surface mail. It is so easy that it is quite dangerous! PS: I failed to mention that the Applause facsimile is a photographic reproduction with the pages reduced to about 90% the size of the originals with an appendix listing the various copies of the folio used for various pages. Br Anthony Br Anthony (An Sonjae) Sogang University Seoul, Korea anthony@ccs.sogang.ac.kr [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Donaldson Date: Friday, 28 Feb 97 11:03:34 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0283 Qs: Facsimiles Though Shakespearean Originals reprint the text of the Folio or earliest quarto of the plays in the series, I wouldn't regard them as type-facsimiles, which usually reproduce in later type the layout of the page, rule lines, ornaments, and other details. The Applause Facsimile is very similar to the Hinman facsimile and follows its choices of Folio pages to reproduce for all but a handful of pages, which are taken from New York Public copies. It is reduced in size and is a paperback. The 1968 Norton facsimile can sometimes be found at used bookstores. I bought one last year in pretty good condition for $50. I've bought quarto photofacsimiles for as little as $4, but have seen them for 10 times that, especially near Stratford, England (Shakespeare country, they explained). The new Norton is expensive, but well worth the expense. There is a new and substantial introduction by Peter Blayney. Peter Donaldson ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:21:41 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0288 Re: Rosalind and Celia The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0288. Friday, 28 February 1997. [1] From: David Skeele Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 11:32:15 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0266 Re: Rosalind & Celia [2] From: Steven Marx Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 11:10:31 -0700 Subj: Re: Rosalind and Celia [3] From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 21:21:19 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: Rosalind and Celia [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 11:32:15 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0266 Re: Rosalind & Celia To Mark Mann: If I were you, I'd be grateful that Gabriel Egan chose to attack the speaker rather than the argument - the speaker is undoubtedly the sturdier of the two. And though I shouldn't presume to speak for Mr. Egan, I suspect that the jocularity of his approach arose from boredom with the ideas he is compelled to refute. The solipsistic notion that one's own interpretation is "what's on the page" (and therefore doesn't constitute an "interpretation" at all), while most others are merely the maunderings of ego-crazed directors and promotion-hungry scholars, has been debunked so thoroughly and so convincingly (on this list and elsewhere) that it should no longer need addressing. I also suspect that there are many on this list who are offended by your implication that homosexual desire is merely some contemporary fashion-one that could not possibly have been present in "Will's" words. This assertion is clearly an interpretive one, though probably not one that would impress your family with its originality and insight. Of course you are correct that some interpretations are weaker than others, and I for one would be happy to hear a reasoned and specific argument concerning which interpretations (of any Shakespeare play) you personally prefer. But when faced with the anti-intellectual posture which pits "common sense" against radical directors and scholars, I can only trot out what seems to be our condescending comment du jour: "Haven't we gotten past that?" David Skeele [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Marx Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 11:10:31 -0700 Subject: Re: Rosalind and Celia I have a vague memory of being surprised a few years ago by the physicality of affection between Roz and Celia in the 1939 Olivier film of AYLI, especially while they're out in the woods. At one point, when a messenger enters, they seemed to be rollicking in bed. Steven Marx http://www.multimedia.calpoly.edu/libarts/smarx/ [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 21:21:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Rosalind and Celia Years ago, at the Hollywood Bowl on a lovely summer night, I saw a production of AYL in which Joan Van Ark played Celia. What struck me was the way Celia dominated the play at the start: e.g., it is her idea that Rosalind and she leave the court and go to the Forest of Arden. Only then does the character of Rosalind emerge as the main female character. It seems to me that Shakespeare frequently does this sort of thing, shifting the dramatic focus from one character (or more) to someone who turns out to be the main character. In the case of Rosalind and Celia, Celia's assertiveness at the beginning gives added believability and force to her quick decision to marry, which prompts Rosalind to move from "thinking" (as Orlando puts it) to doing, from being a "busy actor" who pretends to someone who commits to the 'real' act of marrying. As to the relationship between Rosalind and Celia, people might want to (re)read Carroll Smith-Rosenberg's classic essay, "The Female World of Love and Friendship," about female intimacy in the early modern period. Her argument is based on 18-19th c examples, but seems to me to hold for the 16-17th c as well (e.g., Katherine Philips' poems to female friends). In a society that sets up strong gender roles, intimate relationships between people of the same gender can be indulged to quite a degree without seeming as physically consequential as they do in an era like ours when gender roles are seen as under siege, constructed, inessential, etc. (I use those adjectives to try to reflect various assessments and attitudes-i.e., some people endorse the current situation, while others do not). It should be obvious that I am ignoring in this posting the complex play with gender that marks this play. It seems to me that Shakespeare's play takes heterosexuality as its base, and then plays with the gender-bending possibilities his transvestist theatre makes possible. So I would argue that any discussion of Rosalind and Celia should begin with a discussion of what is possible in female relationships within a heterosexist context. There is a range of what is possible, and Smith-Rosenberg (as well as other feminist historical critics) can help clarify that range. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:29:13 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0289 Re: Shakespeare on the Great Lakes The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0289. Friday, 28 February 1997. [1] From: Harry Hill Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 15:05:22 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0282 Shakespeare on the Great Lakes [2] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 19:00:41 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0282 Shakespeare on the Great Lakes [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 15:05:22 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0282 Shakespeare on the Great Lakes Quite interesting, that note about a young man and his companions reading and quoting our man on the lakes in the mid-1800's, because it reminds us into the humility of knowing that our man's stuff seeped everywhere, with the colonisers and the habitues of the music halls, the factory floor, the fishmarket, the church and synagogue, the public pools of towns and cities, debtors' prisons, the workhouse and the poorhouse. My mother left school when she was 15, my father at 14. She would quote, after her favourite "It was the schooner Hersperus, etc...", an amazing amount of our man, as would my father who went barefoot until 12, slept in the same bed with three brothers and a sister and became a lab assistant before leaving to fight the Mersemetrou in 1915 in Egypt, and could quote "Now is the winter....", "Farewell, a long farewell to all my greatness", "All the world's stage..." among other chestnuts; later in his life when he was director of a chemical factory, I heard some of his workmen exchanging quotations beside the controls of a flash roaster that prepared sulphuric acid for fertilizers. My Uncle Duncan, a reader of electric meters, did the same, as did my Auntie Lily who played the organ at the crematorium and other places where they sing. Now, the last of these memories are of the fifties, the first of the forties. To today. My French Canadian neighbours in Montreal do it, my friends in Norwegian mountain villages do it, I heard a German hitchhiker get quite far with "Sein oder nicht sein; das ist hier die Frage". The ones for whom it is far less of a habit have been, I think, my students, but I intend to ask them tomorrow, and tomorrow. The young man on the Great Lakes had grown up in a society that played the piano in the parlor, knew ny heart great swatches of the Book of Common Prayer including of course many of the Psalms of David, took "elocution" for as long as they went to school, went to the theatre and the music hall to see melodrama and hear comics and soubrettes just as today they watch the soaps, the sitcoms and the emergency-room series of playlets and get their Holinsheds and laughs from CNN and Dave Letterman. Tout ca change.... We'll be OK. Harry Hill [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 19:00:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0282 Shakespeare on the Great Lakes It's not that surprising, in fact you'll find in reading about Edwin Booth's early career that when he made his grand tour of the Gold Mining country in the 1850's(?) he got pelted regularly if he tried to improv his lines, or if he went blank. Seems even the prospectors had Shakespeare in their homes, along with the KJ Bible, and knew the stuff by heart, or at least the greatest hits. I believe this is before anyone got the bright idea of expurgating the texts, even. Andy White Arlington, VA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:53:34 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0293 King John in NZ The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0293. Friday, 28 February 1997. From: Ron Ward Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 23:30:08 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0284 RE: various Have just seen King John. Open air production in Wellington NZ. One of an annual series of plays by the university. Nice to note that the audience were mostly young; possibly largely English students (about 200 on the night I went; the season is about three weeks).I am reminded by such nights that S. does the educating he always does so well, whether he was university trained or not. The Dell behind the Botanical house is very well suited to S. This production utilised all the natural features of the place effectively with very good lighting effects. My own particular interest was, as always, the music. Began with rebec and cornamuse but it sounded as if they were playing Phillip Brownlee compositions (the cornamuse player). That seemed a bit of a strange thing to do with period instrument and did not work either, because the cornamuse is not really an outdoor instrument. The balance was not convincing. Phillip should have used krumhorn or even recorder which he is something of an expert on. Scoring always depends on whether you go for Elizabethan music which S was more likely to have used in his productions, or 12th century instrumental (minstrel music?) The singers of sacred music were effectively scattered through the production (eg wedding of Louis and the English princess). Mostly they sang well and added good atmosphere. The most spectacular effect was achieved with a set of large Japanese drums played by a well schooled team; and used with great effect in the later battle scenes. Finally the use of electric guitar was innovatively done. It was used more as a sound effect box with its screaming and wailing adding to the drums with surprisingly good results. KJ is full of great and memorable one liners typical of S (my favourite, "New made honour doth forget men's names.") Falconbridge has similarities with other later S characters. His whole job seems to lighten the play which otherwise would appear to take a grim and pessimistic view of human nature. Week willed and vacillating men and possessive women all fight without scruple. I notice on the internet that several other productions of KJ are going on. Anyone know how the music was dealt with?========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 08:47:09 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0294 Re: Facsimiles The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0294. Saturday, 1 March 1997. [1] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 10:16:56 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0283 Qs: Facsimiles [2] From: Andrew Murphy Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 15:39:11 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0283 Qs: Facsimiles [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 10:16:56 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0283 Qs: Facsimiles > Is this Applause facsimile a good one? Is it 'diplomatic' or > photographic? Is it edited in any way? My copy of the Applause facsimile was purchased direct from Book Stacks Unlimited, of 200 Public Square, Suite 26-4600, Cleveland, Ohio, 44114-2301. I understand that Applause has been threatened with legal action by Norton and will not be shipping any more, but maybe Book Stacks still has a few copies left. They have a web page, by the way, which I'm sure you can find using any decent search engine. The surface postage to Canada cost $7.50 (US), and the book itself ran to $45.00 (also US). The edition is an ideal facsimile. It's constructed photographically, in other words, but using the best pages from the surviving 1623 copies. There are no notes on the pages themselves, except for through-line numbering (the subject of the legal dispute, I understand). There is a brief introductory essay. I'm given to believe that various efforts are being made to fill this gap, including a new Norton edition some time in the near future. Cheers, Sean. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Murphy Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 15:39:11 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0283 Qs: Facsimiles The applause facsimile was produced in the same way as Hinman's - using an amalgam of pages from a selection of the Folger copies of F1. It has, however, been withdrawn from circulation, I believe owing to problems regarding the use of TLNs, which, seemingly, are owned by Norton. I know of no other F1 facsimiles currently in print, though one or two F1 texts were included in the Shakespearean Originals series. A full copy of F1 in facsimile is included in the electronic Arden though I presume that if you can't manage a hundred quid for the Norton you could hardly manage the best part of three grand for the Arden CD!. Andrew ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 08:55:24 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0295 Re: Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0295. Saturday, 1 March 1997. [1] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 10:29:03 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0284 RE: Ideology [2] From: Lysbeth Benkert-Rasmussen Date: Friday, 28 Feb 97 13:49:00 CST Subj: Ideology Revisited [3] From: Lee Gibson Date: Friday, 28 Feb 97 13:42 CST Subj: Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 10:29:03 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0284 RE: Ideology > But you don't let them set the exam paper, do you? They can't really > "decide for themselves" but only choose from a range of permitted > positions. Or would you let candidates in a Shakespeare exam decide for > themselves that there is nothing worth commenting on in any Shakespeare > text? One assumes that students who felt that there was nothing worth commenting on would not sign up for the course. Of course, they could also write a fervently brilliant paper, defending literalism, if they so chose. Even to say that "there is nothing worth commenting on" would be to comment. As for whether students can set the final exam, I always derive examination questions from matters that have been discussed in class. While I do have some control over class discussion, it is hardly absolute. I would even say that all teaching, even lecturing, is a sort of dialectic between my concerns and those of my students, in which their responses condition me as much as mine conditions them. Unless one is to take the humanist position (or, to save argument, what some on this list choose to term "humanist" position) that as a teacher, one is an absolutely free individual, then the students do, in part, set the exam. Alternatively, I suppose, one could take the fascist position that only I am in a position to tell others what they ought to think, but I rather doubt that either you or Paul would take such a position. Of course, I can't speak for how Paul teaches. Cheers, Sean. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lysbeth Benkert-Rasmussen Date: Friday, 28 Feb 97 13:49:00 CST Subject: Ideology Revisited I have been pondering the whole issue of transcendence, and a few belated thoughts have occurred to me. Could Shakespeare's "transcendence" be due in large part to the fact that he is the perfect product of the English Renaissance educational system? Grammar school encouraged boys to see language as an infinitely malleable sophistic tool, and the cleverest writers (and therefore most manly men, if you believe Walter Ong and Richard Lanham) were those that could produce poetry that meant as many things at once as possible - double entendre taken to its most artistic (and sophisticated, if you'll excuse the pun) level. This would mean that Shakespeare's transcendence comes not from the universality of the ideas represented in the plays, but instead from their "re-interpretability." They can be virtually whatever we most want them to be. Witness the huge variations from production to production. Any thoughts on this? Lysbeth Em Benkert benkertl@wolf.northern.edu [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lee Gibson Date: Friday, 28 Feb 97 13:42 CST Subject: Re: Ideology Gabriel Egan's crack that Shakespeare's plays are nothing more than "grist for the scholar's mill" embodies a peculiarly characteristic trait of the solipsistic Postmodern Mind: its complete and total disregard for anything outside itself. Shakespeare's plays, first, last, in between, and foremost, are for audiences to attend. Period. Anything else is, at best, a second order epiphenomenon. Lee Gibson Department of English Southern Methodist University ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 09:04:37 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0296 Re: Norton Ed. CD-ROM The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0296. Saturday, 1 March 1997. [1] From: Mark Rose Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 11:39:56 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0291 Qs: Norton Ed. CD-ROM [2] From: Anna Karvellas Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 15:03:41 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0291 Qs: Norton Ed. CD-ROM [3] From: Richard A Burt Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 15:51:48 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0291 Qs: Norton Ed. CD-ROM [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Rose Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 11:39:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0291 Qs: Norton Ed. CD-ROM Re the CD-ROM associated with the Norton. It is terrific: there's nothing like it on the scene. I know since I'm editing it. (No bias here.) The CD-ROM focuses on six plays: Merchant, 1 Hen 4, Dream, Hamlet, Othello, Tempest. In addition to texts of the plays, of course, it has key selections which are acted out by a London group, also film and audio clips, and the passages are gateways into an inventory of topical discussions-eg. "What does Titania look like?" : conceptions of fairies from early modern to present, with images natch-and exemplary descriptions of productions from Restoration to present including descriptions of operatic adaptations, etc, plus stuff on sources. It's a LOT of fun and a great learning tool for students. How to get it. The MND section is going to be bundled in with each copy of the Norton Sh. as a freebie (I believe). The full CD-ROM will be available in September and will cost $15 if ordered with the Norton Shakespeare $30 as a standalone. It may be possible to sample the MND section in advance: not sure. I will query Norton and post to this list if I have more info. Anyone interested is also welcome to email me directly. With no bias or self-interest at all, Mark Rose [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anna Karvellas Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 15:03:41 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0291 Qs: Norton Ed. CD-ROM I, too, am glad to hear of the interest in the Norton Shakespeare Workshop CD-ROM. We are indeed including a free copy of the CD-ROM demo (it focuses on _A Midsummer Night's Dream_) in all books sampled to professors. We will begin to ship at the end of next month. If you aren't already online to be sent a copy, contact your local Norton representative or email me (akarvellas@wwnorton.com) and I'll forward your request to the representative. More ordering information and samples of CD-ROM are available on our web site: www.wwnorton.com/college/english/shakespeare/cdrom.htm You can also access from the this site the "Teaching with the Norton Shakespeare CD-ROM" forum. It just went up yesterday. Let me know if I can be of any additional help. Anna Karvellas W. W. Norton [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A Burt Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 15:51:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0291 Qs: Norton Ed. CD-ROM A sales rep who visited me recently (named Mathew Arnold, oddly enough) told me that the Norton will be available for purchase as of late march (at the time of the SAA) and that one may buy it solely as a text or as a text with a CD-Rom. (I think that there is a CD-Rom for students adn one for teachers as well). Best, Richard ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 09:12:11 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0297 Q: Anachronisms The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0297. Saturday, 1 March 1997. From: Tom Sullivan Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 19:14:53 -0600 Subject: Anachronisms A friend who teaches history asked me about anachronisms in Shakespeare. All I could produce was the chiming of the clock in JC. Are there others as well-known or as obvious? Thanks Tom ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 09:19:59 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0298 Re: MV Film; Hamlet's Sleeping With Ophelia The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0298. Saturday, 1 March 1997. [1] From: Susan Keegan Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 13:34:21 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0291 Qs: MV Film [2] From: Tom Bishop Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 13:43:33 -0500 Subj: Re: Hamlet's Sleeping With Ophelia [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Keegan Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 13:34:21 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0291 Qs: MV Film This is to Troy Swartz who was looking for film versions of Merchant. I've had tremendous luck looking things up on the Internet Movie Database. You may search by title, actor, director, etc. http//us.imdb.com Good luck. Susan Keegan Mendocino College [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Bishop Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 13:43:33 -0500 Subject: Re: Hamlet's Sleeping With Ophelia >>The best answer ever given on this topic was by John Barrymore, who when >>asked this burning question, replied : " Only in the Chicago company" >> >>Cheers...Mark Mann This joke is, I think, something of a topos. My favorite answer was supposed to have been given by an equally arch senior director, [fill in your name of choice], who opined: "In my experience, Hamlet is almost always sleeping with Ophelia. Unless, of course, he's sleeping with Laertes." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 09:23:12 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0299 Oxford The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0299. Saturday, 1 March 1997. From: William Proctor Williams Date: Saturday, 01 Mar 97 04:04 CST Subject: Oxford If anyone is interested in summer study at Oxford University (for credit) during 1997, they might want to visit our Web page at: http://www.niu.edu/acad/english/oxford.html or get in touch with me. William Proctor Williams Department of English Northern Illinois University ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 09:17:05 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0300 Re: Anachronisms The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0300. Sunday, 2 March 1997. [1] From: Jody Tate Date: Saturday, 1 Mar 1997 06:28:04 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0297 Q: Anachronisms [2] From: Marcia Tanner Date: Saturday, 1 Mar 1997 12:22:30 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0297 Q: Anachronisms [3] From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Saturday, 1 Mar 1997 12:01:51 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: ANACHRONISMS [4] From: Lars Engle Date: Saturday, 1 Mar 1997 12:22:35 -0500 Subj: Another anachronism [5] From: Jay Johnson Date: Saturday, 1 Mar 1997 14:24:41 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0297 Q: Anachronisms [6] From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Saturday, 1 Mar 1997 22:41:37 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0297 Q: Anachronisms [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jody Tate Date: Saturday, 1 Mar 1997 06:28:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0297 Q: Anachronisms Chimneys are also mentioned in JC and I do believe somewhere near the end of The Winter's Tale that eye-glasses are mentioned. I'm sure others will have more specific answers, and I'm sure that there are more anachronisms than these. Jody U. of Washington, Seattle [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcia Tanner Date: Saturday, 1 Mar 1997 12:22:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0297 Q: Anachronisms An additional anachronism in JC is Brutus' dogearing ("I will turn down the page") of what he's reading in the tent at Sardis. I remember discovering many as I have read, but that's all I can come up with at the moment. Marcia tannerm@scnc.okemos.k12.mi.us [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Saturday, 1 Mar 1997 12:01:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: ANACHRONISMS There are many in Shakespeare, I think. Aside from Hermia's NUNNERY and JC's clock. Would the CLOWN (I wish you all the joy of the worm) in A&C (which I just saw in NYC) be considered an anachronism?----chris s. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lars Engle Date: Saturday, 1 Mar 1997 12:22:35 -0500 Subject: Another anachronism Hector cites Aristotle on young men's unfitness for moral philosophy in *Troilus* 2.2.166-8. [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jay Johnson Date: Saturday, 1 Mar 1997 14:24:41 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0297 Q: Anachronisms Another obvious anachronism is Richard, Duke of Gloucester's reference to Machiavelli in 3 H6: "I can add colors to the chameleon,/ Change shapes with Proteus for advantages,/ And set the murtherous Machevil to school." (3:ii:191-3). Cheers, Jay Johnson Medicine Hat College [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Saturday, 1 Mar 1997 22:41:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0297 Q: Anachronisms Imogen reading a book in bed in Roman Britain is the most obvious anachronism I can think of off-hand but all of the history and Roman plays are loaded with historical mistakes. Annalisa Castaldo ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 09:24:03 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0301 Re: Facsimiles The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0301. Sunday, 2 March 1997. [1] From: Jerry Bangham Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 19:29:51 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0287 Re: Facsimiles [2] From: Laura Fargas Date: Saturday, 1 Mar 1997 15:04:30 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0294 Re: Facsimiles [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Bangham Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 19:29:51 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0287 Re: Facsimiles The Stage and Screen Book Club (it used to be Fireside Theatre) has the Norton Facsimile for $ 89.99. Also the script and film diary of the Branagh Hamlet for $ 11.99. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laura Fargas Date: Saturday, 1 Mar 1997 15:04:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0294 Re: Facsimiles While it may not satisfy scholarly needs, this may be worth a mention, since economy is a consideration: in 1954, Yale University Press brought out a facsimile First Folio which is a photographic facsimile of a First Folio then (and still?) in the possession of the University, and specifically of Yale's Elizabethan Club. It had previously belonged to the British collector Henry Huth. The principal editor was Helge Kokeritz. I mention it because it went into at least three printings, and I have seen copies of it for sale in used book stores (in the US) over the years for $10-$20. Laura Fargas ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 09:34:09 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0302 Re: Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0302. Sunday, 2 March 1997. [1] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Saturday, 01 Mar 1997 10:43:38 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0295 Re: Ideology [2] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Saturday, 1 Mar 1997 17:19:06 -0500 (EST) Subj: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Saturday, 01 Mar 1997 10:43:38 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0295 Re: Ideology I found Lysbeth Em Benkert's idea that Shakespeare's "transcendence" might derive not from his supposed presentation of supposed universals, but from his background in Elizabethan rhetoric, quite fascinating. It avoids the usual (maybe misplaced) political critique, that the universals supposedly presented are all imperialist, colonialist, Tory, or otherwise bad. Instead of "Shakespeare in the Bush" refuting the transcendence of Hamlet, it would tend to confirm it, but in an altogether different way. I think it also ties in with contemporary religious concerns fairly well, particularly the nominalism of the *via moderna*, and doubts about universals that had been in the air since at least the church fathers. In a time of radical religious flux, one would imagine that these doubts would be amplified. Moreover, it ties nicely into certain very recent, post-modern revaluations of rhetoric as escaping the logocentrism of western metaphysics. Instead of Shakespeare being viewed as some sort of misplaced metaphysician (a la Tillyard), he'd become a player with language, a function much closer (IMHO) to that of a poet writing for the stage. One might also note that the Renaissance school system (if my memory of *Small Latin and Less Greek* is correct) encouraged students to be able to take either side in a rhetorical debate. One of the first examples Erasmus suggests concerns the view of love in the Phaedrus. Which, I suppose, spills over into the discussion of Rosalind and Celia! There's a book in this idea, waiting to be written. Cheers, Sean [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Saturday, 1 Mar 1997 17:19:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Ideology Harold Bloom describes our profession as in "flight from the aesthetic." Gabriel Egan seems to be in flight from questions about the aesthetic. He asks whether I would "agree that Terry Hawkes `loves Shakespeare' if Terry merely admits to taking great pleasure from the job that he does." If Professor Hawkes answered this way, I would think that he was avoiding the question, as Gabriel Egan is by immediately leaving the question of an individual student's admittedly ambiguous `love' of the literature to criticize the bad old days when if you didn't cut it as a `sensitive reader' you were left out in the critical cold. In speaking of an individual's love of Shakespeare, I am not speaking of the institutions of criticism and appreciation as they once existed. Criticism may have used to be to some extent a boy's club, everyone congratulating each other's `sensitivity.' The lack of broad-mindedness that may have characterized it is not something I'd care to defend. "One doesn't have to prove one likes the stuff" anymore. No one now is asking anyone to prove anything, perhaps only to acknowledge whether or not they do like it, and whether or not their students' liking and their critical projects would be incompatible. But when Gabriel finds that in the bad old days, "the taught skills sustained an ideological construct," who says it's specifically ideological? That aesthetic judgments emerge from ideology to serve ideological ends, and that the reading skills that encourage or nourish the aesthetic judgments sustain the ideological construct is a part of what's being disputed. Assuming that I don't really let students decide for themselves what they should think about literature, Gabriel asks, "Or would you let candidates in a Shakespeare exam decide for themselves that there is nothing worth commenting on in any Shakespeare text?" In fact, students have had that option, the option of writing a depreciation of Shakespeare, with one condition: they have to be prepared to argue their position meticulously. I tell my students that in my class and in their papers, any response is in order, as long as it can be developed and argued. Since criticism is a conversation, the only inadmissible response is a dogmatic refusal to participate in the conversation-a refusal to argue one's position, or a willingness only to state one's view and retreat. I think that there are key distinctions that are here being blurred. An individual's aesthetic response is distinct from what may have been the dogmatic institution of literary appreciation. That institution is distinct in significant ways from the dominant ideologies of its time. And I do think there's a difference between a proselytizing, ideological teacher, and a broad-minded and-dare I say it-non-ideological one, which no one can be so presumptuous as to claim to be, but which every teacher can strive to become. Paul Hawkins ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 09:55:31 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0303 Re: Will, *Cardenio*; Canon The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0303. Sunday, 2 March 1997. [1] From: Gabriel Z. Wasserman Date: Saturday, 01 Mar 1997 19:03:30 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0279 Re: *Cardenio* [2] From: Gabriel Z. Wasserman Date: Sunday, 02 Mar 1997 08:50:57 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0279 Re: *Cardenio* [3] From: Gabriel Z. Wasserman Date: Sunday, 02 Mar 1997 08:50:57 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0279 Re: *Cardenio* [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Z. Wasserman Date: Saturday, 01 Mar 1997 19:03:30 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0279 Re: *Cardenio* John Robinson wrote: > I believe he has written > that all of Shakespeare's will is in Shakespeare's hand; I also believe= > he contends that Shakespeare ghost wrote all-are most of-Sir Francis > Bacon's works. He is not a reliable source of info. But sure, he might > be right-it's just not likely. = Crazy though it may sound, I Gabriel Wasserman agree with Hamilton on the point about the will being in Will's handwriting-even SMT might possibly be in his handwriting, even if Middleton composed it. Your lordship's all in duty, Gabriel Z. Wasserman [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Z. Wasserman Date: Sunday, 02 Mar 1997 08:50:57 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0279 Re: *Cardenio* John Robinson wrote: = > Nice try. But just because no one has a better theory does not mean we= > have to accept a crazy one. It seems to me that Mr Hamilton has made > other questionable statements in the past. I believe he has written > that all of Shakespeare's will is in Shakespeare's hand; I also believe= > he contends that Shakespeare ghost wrote all-are most of-Sir Francis > Bacon's works. He is not a reliable source of info. But sure, he might > be right-it's just not likely. A little while ago, George Wolff, producer of NYC's Public Theater, told my father that the Public is planning to produce *Cardenio*, as well as *The Two Noble Kinsmen*. Knowing my interest in the subject, my father told me about it. I am wondering whether they are doing *Double Falsehood*, *The Second Mayden's Tragedy*, their own candidate, or whether they have found the original Cardenio. Your Honour's all in duty, Gabriel Z. Wasserman Post Scriptum: Is *Double Falsehood* available in print? [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Z. Wasserman Date: Saturday, 01 Mar 1997 20:37:26 -0500 Subject: Shakespeare's Canon Is this what the Shakespeare Canon looks like today? [By the way, it's in no particular order] COMEDY |TRAGEDY | HISTORY Midsummer Night's Dream | Hamlet | Edmund Ironside=87 = Much Ado About Nothing | Julius C=E6sar | Troublesome Raigne of King John Love's Labour's Lost | Macbeth | King John Love's Labour's Won* | King Leir | Edward III Measure for Measure | King Lear (Q) | Richard II The Taming of The Shrew | King Lear (F) | Henry IV, Part 1 The Taming of A Shrew | Antony & Cleopatra | Henry IV, Part 2 Merry Wives of Windsor | Hamlet (Q1) | Famous Victories of Henry V Q1 of above | Hamlet (Q2 & F) | Henry V (Q1) Comedy of Errors | Titus Andronicus | Henry V (F) Two Gentlemen of Verona | Timon of Athens | Henry VI, Part 1 Twelfth Night | Coriolanus | Contention Between the Houses of = York & Lancaster As You Like It |Troilus and Cressida | Henry VI, Part 2 (F) All's Well that Ends Well |Othello | Richard, Duke of York | Romeo and Juliet | Henry VI, Part 3 (F) TRAGICOMEDIES | | Sir Thomas More (Hand D) Merchant of Venice | | Henry VIII (With John Fletcher) | | ROMANCES | | Pericles | | Cymbeline | | Two Noble Kinsmen (With John Fletcher) | Cardenio* (With John Fletcher) | The Winter's Tale | | The Tempest | | POEMS Venus and Adonis The Rape of Lucrece The Sonnets The Phoenix and the Turtle The Funeral Elegie A Lover's Complaint Shall I Die There Was A Lover and His Lass Yes, I jus HAD to say that! *Lost, though LLW may be and extant comedy, and CAR may be Double Falsehood, or, according to Charles Hamilton, the Second Maiden's Tragedy ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 10:09:27 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0304 Re: MV Film; MND; Ant.; Great Lakes; Norton CD The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0304. Sunday, 2 March 1997. [1] From: Brooke Brod Date: Sunday, 2 Mar 1997 02:18:33 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0291 Qs: MV Film = [2] From: Dale Lyles Date: Sunday, 2 Mar 1997 07:05:33 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: MND = [3] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Saturday, 01 Mar 1997 19:11:28 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0275 Re: Tony & Cleo = [4] From: Louis Marder Date: Sunday, March 2, 1997 Subj: Re: Shakespeare on the Great Lakes = [5] From: Louis Marder Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 01:07:06 PST Subj: Re: Norton CD = [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brooke Brod Date: Sunday, 2 Mar 1997 02:18:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0291 Qs: MV Film I believe there is an unfinished film version done by Orson Welles, but I may be wrong. If I am correct, I saw excerpts in a program of trailers and other clips from unfinished projects by Welles presented by the Seattle Film Festival. This would have been around 5 years ago. = Brooke Brod [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Sunday, 2 Mar 1997 07:05:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: MND Many thanks to Adrian Kiernander's remarks on Montrose's article [which I've been unable to track down, so far; I persever]. I'm still absorbing the remarks and don't yet know whether I agree or disagree. However, a brief sally: Kiernander says that of course an audience would laugh at switching Oberon and Titania, since patriarchal comedy will always ridicule a man who allows himself to be topped... Hmm. Oberon "allows," but Titania is "victimized." Hmm. That patriarchal stuff is harder to escape than you might think. = Or (and this just occurred to me) is that a feminist paradigm infecting that language? Either way... Hmmm. = Dale Lyles <---male in a predominantly female field and thus sensitive to these things> Newnan Community Theatre Company http://shenandoah.peachnet.edu/~dlyles/nctc/ [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Saturday, 01 Mar 1997 19:11:28 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0275 Re: Tony & Cleo I agree. While some parts may have been good, though I can't think of which just now, its feeling was, overall, confused. The time period was very confusing (Having Augustus C=E6sar sing a rap song ["Drink 'Til the World Goes Round"] in seventeenth century dress is a good illustration of that!!) Your honour's all in duty, Gabriel Z. Wasserman [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Marder Date: Sunday, March 2, 1997 Subject: Re: Shakespeare on the Great Lakes Hi, Read my chapter on Shakespeare in America and S. in the Schools in His Exits and His Entrances: The Story of Shakespeare's Reputation. = Lots of interesting material in the book on the pervasivenes of Shakespear in the U.S. and everywhere. When people went West, they usually had two books, the Bible and Shakespeare. One of my subscribers to SNL gave me a set of two volumes of S which he said his grandfather had in his cart which he pulled from Ohio to Utah. A nice addition to my collection of editions of S. Louis Marder, 3/1/97, avon4@j;uno.com. [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Marder Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 01:07:06 PST Subject: Re: Norton CD Dear Mark Rose and Anna Karvellas: 3//1/97 6PM - I am happy to hear about the Norton editions and the CD-ROMs of the six plays. = To Mark: I am sure that you have heard about the Shakespeare Data Bank which I have been working on alone with some research assistants. I have a mass of information from hundreds of sources. How are you getting your data in? Do you have a professional staff that is being paid for their contributions? I'd like to know as much as possible about all the topics you have. I decided to concentrate on Macbeth and must have about 10 megabytes of data on every character, place name, source, imagery, over 600 questions and answers, - anything that has appeared in print is grist for my mill. There must be some way that we can help each other. There should be a story in the SNL about your work. I am preparing a list of all computerized programs and written an as yet unsent letter to all of us to see if we can make a special platform so that users can go from ROM to ROM until they find what they want - without exits one program and then having to seek out others. Interoperatibility is the key word. We can discuss this further when I hear from you. Louis Marder: Contact me at avon4@juno.com. Many thanks. For Anna Kavellas: You have read my remarks to Mark Rose. I would like to hear from you and certainly to have a review set of what you have done so I can enter a very informative item in the Shakespeare Data Bank - the eventual source for all data about anything. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 09:30:35 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0305 Re: Facsimiles The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0305. Monday, 3 March 1997. [1] From: Louis Marder Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 11:40:20 PST Subj: Re: Facsimiles [2] From: Ken Steele Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 07:49:32 -0500 Subj: Facsimiles [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Marder Date: Saturday, 22 Feb 1997 11:40:20 PST Subject: Re: Facsimiles Mention has been made of the Yale Folio. Fredson Bowers told me when it came out: "Louis, be careful about what you say about the Yale Facsimile. It is the only "facsimile" with errors!" What happened is that when they made the negatives to print this edition, the pages showed many show-throughs. To avoid difficulties in reading they used a pen or brush to obliterate what showed through. In doing this, they obliterated some of the ascenders of the d's and decenders of the y's, etc., disguised some punctuation destroying the character of the letters. See the articles in The Shakespeare Newsletter for several reviews and comments. (Vol. 4, 1954, pp15,34,37,40,41 and Vol. V. 1955, pp.27,33 ) Professor Helge Kokeritz put act, scene, and line numbers at the foot of each wide-margined page which measured 9 x 11 1/4, a reduction of about 5%. Charles Tyler Prouty wrote a brief Introduction that suffered unfortunate comparison with W.W. Greg's huge volume on the folio that he was preparing as an introduction for his own facsimile of the Folio. This latter edition had been expected and there were some who said that Yale rushed its edition into print to grab the market. With 3200 in the first edition and two subsequent editions in which they claimed that all the "errors" were corrected, the Oxford facsimile never did appear. Some British critics were accused of anti-American bias. Actually a reviewer said that not all the copies were bad, but had suffered in the printing. But after all, the edition was sold for $12.50 (it had foundation support) with a $2.50 discount for SNL readers. It was called "the poor man's Folio". A two volume interleaved limited edition of twenty-five copies was also issued and sold for $25.00. Halliwell [Philliipps'] octavo edition of 1887 was printed with ten lines to the inch; the Yale with seven lines, making it easier to read. Charlton Hinman, the great folio collator said that the HP had "touched up" and interpolated better pages, but it was quite correct after all. See my Bibliography of first folios in SNL which I compiled for 1973, the 300th anniversary of the first. Most of these are in my own collection if anyone wants to come to look at them. Consult Charlton Hinman's two volume analysis of the Folger's folio collection for all you would want to know about the great volume. Louis Marder >Avon4@juno.com. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ken Steele Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 07:49:32 -0500 Subject: Facsimiles I've been waiting for the more eminent textual scholars among us to point this out, but so far none has. There are some serious "editorial" issues, even in the purchase of a supposed "facsimile" text of Shakespeare. Other than quasi-facsimile transcripts, which are obviously not the "text itself," the real risk in purchasing a facsimile other than the Norton is that you will be seduced into believing you have the First Folio as originally printed (whatever that is) in front of you. Randy McLeod and Steve Urkowitz will be quick to point out that, even if you are reading the Hinman (Norton) facsimile, that nothing can be trusted. But at least Hinman did the most thorough job researching stop-press variants and type damage in the Folio, and presented the "later" versions more carefully than most "cheap" facsimiles. Notwithstanding its shortcomings, the Hinman facsimile is the most scholarly approach to a Folio facsimile so far. Anything else is a quasi-talismanic, perhaps spiritual experience, but not a scholarly text. Whatever you do, don't blindly use a facsimile - ANY facsimile - for scholarly work on Shakespeare. Yours, Ken Steele, President & Creative Director Stainless Steele Communications ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 09:38:26 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0306 Re: MV Film The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0306. Monday, 3 March 1997. [1] From: Hugh Davis Date: Sunday, 2 Mar 1997 10:58:33 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0304 Re: MV Film [2] From: Troy Swartz Date: Sunday, 2 Mar 1997 22:22:04 -0500 Subj: Merchant of Venice [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hugh Davis Date: Sunday, 2 Mar 1997 10:58:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0304 Re: MV Film > I believe there is an unfinished film version done by Orson Welles, but > I may be wrong. If I am correct, I saw excerpts in a program of > trailers and other clips from unfinished projects by Welles presented by > the Seattle Film Festival. This would have been around 5 years ago. > > Brooke Brod Orson Welles completed filming on his version of Merchant of Venice, wherein he would play Shylock, but while he was editing the film, the middle three reels were stolen (it's discussed by Welles in _Cahiers du Cinema_, no. 12 (1982): 47-48; there's also a detailed article on the project in _Sight and Sound_ 55 (1986) by Rosenbaum). Welles spent the latter years of his life trying to complete such projects as this film, his version of King Lear (released to video in a constructed form a year or two back), and his adaptation of Don Quixote. Although editors have tried to recreate Welles' visions for Lear and Quixote, I don't think enough footage is available to release a film from his Merchant film. Perhaps someone will just make the existing footage available in some incomplete form. -Hugh Davis [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Troy Swartz Date: Sunday, 2 Mar 1997 22:22:04 -0500 Subject: Merchant of Venice Fellow SHAKESPEReans: I believe I've found a partial answer to my own question, which concerned with an upcoming film version of 'Merchant of Venice'. It appears to me that the film is based upon an apparently modernized version, which was performed at the Goodman Theatre (Chicago, IL) in November 1994 and directed by Peter Sellars. I found the information in a review of the aforesaid performance and a performance at the NY Shakespeare Festival, directed by Barry Edelstein. I come to the conclusion that, yes, a film is being made because the reviewer, James Norris Loehlin of Dartmouth College, makes the following statement: "...it received national media coverage, went on to tour Europe, and is being made into a film." However, I have heard nothing other than this reference about the film. Now my major question is whether any of you happen to know Mr. Sellars or anyone in the film industry and would happen to have any idea of a possible release date, cast, etc. If you'd like to check out the review, it is in "Theatre Journal" and is a free-access edition on Johns Hopkins University's *Project Muse*: http://calliope.jhu.edu/demo/theatre_journal/48.1pr_shakespeare02.html Again, thanks for any info. Troy A. Swartz ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 09:41:42 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0307 Q: Hamlet Criticism The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0307. Monday, 3 March 1997. From: David Mycoff Date: Sunday, 2 Mar 1997 19:08:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Hamlet criticism for frosh My colleague Graham Paul and I shall soon be conducting a first-year ("freshman") seminar, Page to Stage: Shakespeare and Modern Theatre, and are looking for an anthology of Hamlet criticism suitable for students in such a course. Does anyone know of a text that has worked well for such? Off-list responses may be sent to my e-mail address: dmycoff@warren-wilson.edu. Thank you. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 09:47:29 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0308 Re: MND; Tmp. The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0308. Monday, 3 March 1997. [1] From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 17:16:11 +1000 (EST) Subj: Re: MND [2] From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 13:26:20 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0267 Miranda and Prospero [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 17:16:11 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: MND Dale It would certainly be my reading of patriarchal politics that any "real" man would not "allow" himself to be topped, hence the significance of the title of Natalie Zemon Davis's "Women on Top". Any man who disgraced the institution of masculinity by not managing to overwhelm any attempt at female dominance over him was worthy of ridicule. (How are you supposed to signal irony in email?) Perhaps the difference between a man "allowing" (perhaps I should have used quotes) himself to become subordinate and a woman suffering maltreatment or physical brutality (I don't recall using the word "victim" with reference to Titania-if I did I regret it) is the difference between having a massive institutional backup supporting and egging you on (in the case of a man in a patriarchal society) and having those forces ranged against you (if you're a woman). Of course it's much more complex than that, especially if the woman happens to be Elizabeth I, so I'd encourage you to persist, find and check out the subtleties of the Montrose article. Any Greenblatt book should be easily found in the US, surely. (Don't shatter my illusions, please.) All the best Adrian [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 13:26:20 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0267 Miranda and Prospero Well, David Lindley wrote and told us about an interesting - and certainly original - *Tempest*, and having just this weekend seen a reasonably good amateur production - with another to come from one of Australia's major touring companies, I thought I'd chuck my five cents in (we don't have two cent pieces here any more). I admit I have trouble with a sexualized Miranda, given the insistence in the text on her virginity. Of course it's possible to interpret (and play) this as purely a misguided conviction of Prospero's, but I still think that to imply some connection between Miranda and Caliban - to say nothing of any incestuous jealousy on Prospero's part - is to undermine one of the major themes of the play, indeed, of most of the late plays. Hermione's fidelity in *Winter's Tale*, Perdita and Marina's chasteness - in the latter case almost a palpable force - all connect with the figure of Miranda to indicate - to my mind - a particular concern with this issue. Costuming Miranda to underline her sexuality seems to me a little heavy-handed, as does the invented encounter with Caliban. Either alone would have been almost too much - but the two is definitely overkill. If this is an idea a production wants to explore, surely there are more subtle ways of doing it. Similarly, desexualising Ariel is no new thing - but to present, at the end of the play, a naked, somehow liberated sprite seems a little far from the notion of an airy spirit - this is no subtle body. A recent production in Sydney featured noted Australian actress Gillian Jones as Ariel, in what was essentially a see-through cheesecloth outfit - and yet I would say there was nothing sexual about her performance - and certainly not in her relationship with Barry Otto's Prospero. The production I have just seen had a young, white leotard clad Ariel, performing her tasks with the occasional assistance of three other (female) sprites similarly clad in blue, red and green, the four together symbolising the alchemical elements. I don't know whether the intention was to deliberately foreground the player's bodies, but there was certainly no sexualisation here either. I think it *is* reasonable to parallel Caliban and Ferdinand - but only to emphasise their difference. Again, the nobility of the chaste maid's suitor is a common theme in the late plays (and I include the initially dissolute Lysimachus in this), and one not lightly ingnored. I have seen three productions in the past few years wihich played Prospero's admonition of 'No tongue!' before the masque as an interruption to passionate kissing. Not subtle, guys. Ariel is, to me, the character who makes or breaks performances of *The Tempest*. A mincing Ariel (for example, David Dixon in the BBC version) turns me off right away, despite the fact that there may be other qualities to the characterisation that appeal to me. The Cheek by Jowl production which toured here in 1989 had a male Ariel, costumed almost like an escapee from a Sinbad movie. A very stiff, very emotionless, almost disinterested Ariel - but it worked. There was the sense of this spirit labouring under an unappreciated burden, but it was not overdone. I liked it. Ariel's sexuality, if any, is an issue I am interested in. I have yet to hear of a production with a male Ariel that implied any kind of physical relationship with Prospero. And while it is hard to imagine an ethereal spirit such as the Ariel-of-the-text with a carnal side, I think it can be done - but only if the production is prepared to engage with the incubus/succubus notions in medieval demonology (what would James have to say?). This would also have interesting implications for Miranda's status in the scheme of things ... The same Cheek by Jowl production was notable in a number of ways - a Geordie Caliban, audibly distinct from the rest of the cast; a very Maggie Thatcher-ish 'Queen' of Naples (well done, too); and a black Miranda. This is, I know, no new idea, and certainly it added a strange and interesting dimension to the play. I have wondered, before now, if one can take the idea that Prospero is Caliban's father, and extrapolate from that through the question of Miranda's absent mother, to specuate further about the witch Sycorax. Exiled from Patagonia via Naples? But with a black Miranda and a white Caliban ... I have seen several productions here in Australia with an Aboriginal actor playing Caliban - the colonial metaphors of the plays are, I think, inescapable in any performance of the play in Australia. The Bell Shakespeare Company, however, is to tour later this year with an Aboriginal actress playing Miranda, to Bell's Prospero. I have yet to hear any more detail about the production, but I shall be interested to see where they take it. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 09:51:32 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0309 Conference for Teachers of Shakespeare The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0309. Monday, 3 March 1997. From: Susan Brock Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 12:43:00 +0000 Subject: Conference for Teachers of Shakespeare To all Shakespeare teachers, The International Shakespeare Association and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust will hold the third conference for teachers of Shakespeare at the Shakespeare Centre, Stratford-upon-Avon, from 27 July to 2 August 1997. It remains the aim of the conference to bring togther teachers of Shakespeare from the primary, secondary and tertiary levels on a multi-national basis and to accommodate a wide range of teaching interests and concerns. This year the theme will be physical, audible and visual Shakespeare and will include practical sessions on speaking Shakespeare, on physical acting styles and the use of film and TV versions of Shakespeare's plays in teaching. Speakers will include Adrian Noble, Artistic Director of the Royal Shakespeare Company, Andrew Wade, the RSC's voice specialist, and Dr Russell Jackson, Fellow of the Shakespeare Institute and Text Adviser to Kenneth Branagh on his films of Much Ado about Nothing and, more recently, Hamlet. Members of the conference will have the opportunity to see the current repertoire of the RSC in Stratford, including Hamlet, The Merry Wives of Windsor, Henry VIII (or All Is True), Cymbeline and Much Ado about Nothing, as well as Thomas Kyd's The Spanish Tragedy. The registration fee is Stlg 90, excluding accommodation and theatre tickets, and applications are requested by 31 May. For further information or to register immediately: write or fax to Dr Robert Smallwood, The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, Henley Street, Stratford-upon-Avon CV37 6QW, UK. Tel +(44) 1789 201804; Fax +(44) 1789 294911. email to Dr Susan Brock, International Shakespeare Association, slbrock@intershake.demon.co.uk Susan Brock ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 10:05:29 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0310 Re: Hamilton; Anachronisms; Desdemona's Guilt; Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0310. Monday, 3 March 1997. [1] From: John Robinson Date: Sunday, 2 Mar 1997 22:10:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0303 Re: Will, *Cardenio*; Canon [2] From: Bob Marks Date: Monday, 03 Mar 1997 07:17:34 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0300 Re: Anachronisms [3] From: Trace Shelton Date: Sunday, 2 Mar 1997 22:35:01 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0283 Qs: Desdemona's Guilt [4] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 11:08:37 GMT Subj: Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Robinson Date: Sunday, 2 Mar 1997 22:10:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0303 Re: Will, *Cardenio*; Canon Well, I have learned a valuable lesson; namely, to be more careful what I say and how I say it. When I first replied on the subject of Cardenio and Mr Hamilton's books I wrote the "just because no one has a better theory does not mean we have to accept a crazy one." I should have put "crazy" in quotes since I was responding to, and using, Mr Wasserman's word choice regarding acceptable theories about SMT. I also felt my choice of qualifiers "it seems to me" and "I believe" would make it clear that I was reconstructing my opinion from memory-I read In Search of Shakespeare several years ago. At any rate, if I was "off the beam" (an interesting expression in my case since I used to be a high-steel worker) thanks for the correction, I'll be more careful in the future. Now to the business at hand. I have never heard of the above listed poem "There was a Lover and His Lass" what can anyone tell me about it. Thanks John Robinson [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Marks Date: Monday, 03 Mar 1997 07:17:34 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0300 Re: Anachronisms Lear has many anachronisms. Supposedly set in England something like 800 BC. Yet clearly not much more than medieval or even modern in King James day. Bob Marks [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Trace Shelton Date: Sunday, 2 Mar 1997 22:35:01 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0283 Qs: Desdemona's Guilt >I have a question that no one has seemed to be able to answer, or that I >haven't found the right sources. At the end of "Othello" Desdemona >accepts her death at Othello's hands and I want to know why. I have >been searching our feeble library for possibilities and they are few and >far between. > >Does anyone know where I should look/ How about some feedback? > >My argument is that Desdemona seems to be an independent woman who would >not take any sh@t from a man, regardless of how much she loves him. > >Thanks for any suggestions, Michelle Walker My advice would be to check out the World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM. It includes every article on Shakespeare or his work written in the last few years. I cannot emphasize enough how much more useful this database is than, say, MLA International, at least for Shakesperian researchers. As for your argument, I would respond that Desdemona is not all that independent, except for the first Act, and takes sh@t from Othello throughout the course of the play. He actually strikes her in the presence of Lodovico, and she yet attempts to regain his good graces. I think it is to her credit, in one sense, that she tries in vain to prove to Othello that she is a loving wife, but she is far too naive to realize how far gone Othello is at this point. Furthermore, I would argue that she does not "accept" her death, but rather pleads for mercy: "O, banish me, my lord, but kill me not!" At this point, she has only rhetoric as a possible weapon, as Othello is physically stronger by a long shot. This is only my personal opinion, of course. Excelsior! Trace Shelton [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 11:08:37 GMT Subject: Re: Ideology Charles Ross asks > Is there a difference between a decision > and an existential decision? Yes, as there is between a car and a red car. Which part of this is unclear? > The convicted murderer looking at me with hate-filled > eyes across the TV screen knows he can't win and > he also knows he should not win. The revolutionary > who attracts my sympathy often knows he cannot win > but it may be that he should win. To feel sorry for > Satan requires the latter, Romantic reading. Literary effects (ah, my Romanticism is exposed) can evoke from me the sympathy for the convicted murderer which, as you say, I should reserve for the revolutionary. Doesn't Milton first bring me to feel sympathy precisely in order to force a later re-assessment in favour of the moral distinction you make? As so often happens in these discussions, it's turned out that we are in complete agreement after all. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 09:38:07 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0311 Re: Anachronisms The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0311. Tuesday, 4 March 1997. [1] From: Charles Ross Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 11:55:54 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0297 Q: Anachronisms [2] From: Jean Peterson Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 16:00:52 +0200 Subj: Anachronisms [3] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 23:00:13 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0297 Q: Anachronisms [4] From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 18:12:53 -0500 Subj: Anachronisms [5] From: Cliff Ronan <"cr06@swt.edu, dr12"@swt.edu> Date: Monday, 03 Mar 1997 21:31:43 -0600 Subj: Re: Anachronism [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Ross Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 11:55:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0297 Q: Anachronisms Hector cites Aristotle in Troilus and Cressida. Charles Ross [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean Peterson Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 16:00:52 +0200 Subject: Anachronisms Anyone who wants to consider seriously what the myriad anachronisms (a character named "Pistol," not-yet-invented sack as the potation of choice, etc) in the history plays might "mean" must have a look at Phyllis Rackin's *Stages of History: Shakespeare's English Chronicles.* (Cornell UP, 1990). The whole book is well worth reading, but Rackin's Chapter 3 addresses anachronisms specifically. For another view on that famous chiming clock in JC, see Sigurd Burkhardt's "How Not To Murder Ceasar" in his *Shakespearean Meanings.* Jean Peterson Bucknell University [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 23:00:13 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0297 Q: Anachronisms Tom Sullivan writes > A friend who teaches history asked me about > anachronisms in Shakespeare. All I could produce was > the chiming of the clock in JC. > Are there others as well-known or as obvious? Well, apparently, lesbian desire in AYLI is one. I'm reliably informed that lesbianism wasn't invented until the 1960s. How about the reference to a "gun's report" (ie sound) in MND? Rapiers in C12 Denmark (HAM). Theseus in MND being a feudal "duke"? Gabriel Egan [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 18:12:53 -0500 Subject: Anachronisms Annalisa Castaldo's choice of the word "mistakes" to describe the anachronisms found in the Shakespearean canon reminded me of a useful discussion of anachronisms and historiography in Phyllis Rackin's _Stages of History_ (Cornell, 199?). I hope the historian whose query started all this reads it. --Chris [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cliff Ronan <"cr06@swt.edu, dr12"@swt.edu> Date: Monday, 03 Mar 1997 21:31:43 -0600 Subject: Re: Anachronism Tom Sullivan might enjoy the long list in Douce's "On Anachronism" in *Illustrations of Shakspeare" (1839; 1968). Here anachronism is simply an amusing blemish. S. Burckhardt's *Shakespeare's Meanings,* however, provides one of many 20th C defenses of ancient, medieval, and renaissance anachronism. The device can be intended not just to shock and delight but also to circumvent censorship (as with the reference to "benevolences" in *R2*) or to suggest an ahistorical continuity (as in a Homeric hero's reference to Aritstotle in *Tro*). For more classification and discussion, see Greene's *Light in Troy,* Rackin's *Stages of History* (etc.), and yours truly's *`Antike Roman.'* Cliff Ronan Southwest Texas State University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 10:00:43 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0312 Re: Facsimiles The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0312. Tuesday, 4 March 1997. [1] From: John Drakakis Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 16:37:42 -0000 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0287 Re: Facsimiles [2] From: Tom Simone Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 11:43:01 -0500 Subj: Folio Facsimiles [3] From: John Velz Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 14:50:12 +0200 Subj: Facsimiles [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 16:37:42 -0000 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0287 Re: Facsimiles I don't think that the word facsimile is used to describe these editions. They are orthographically modernized reprints of the earliest editions. They are emphatically NOT diplomatic editions. Long "s" for example is modernized, and no attempt is made to reproduce the spacing after punctuation etc. They are designed to give modern readers a flavour of what reading an "original" quarto might have been like, along with errors of various kinds. I did the Q1 Richard III but a number of the variants between Q1 and F which I would have liked to have seen printed in the notes at the end of the volume were cut by the publisher for reasons of cost. I think "Shakespeare Originals" in the plural is about right. John Drakakis [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Simone Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 11:43:01 -0500 Subject: Folio Facsimiles Just a note on what I find to be the most nuanced of all the Folio facsimiles, the Sydney Lee version of 1906?. The use of photolithography from a single copy produced a noble volume with far superior resolution of the page than in the Norton/Hinman. Of course, the Lee facsimile was a limited edition of about 1,000 copies and is only usually available in libraries, and it does not pretend to the bibliographic scrutiny of Hinman and his collator. I was, however, recently surprised by the fine quality of print impression in a leaf from an original folio. It retains aura even post-Benjamin. Best, Tom Simone [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 14:50:12 +0200 Subject: Facsimiles Louis Marder's detailed account of the problems in the Yale Facsimile of F1 obviates most of what I sent off to SHAKSPER before I saw Marder's contribution. I might add to his information and that of Ken Steele some tidbits about earlier facsimiles. Lionel Booth made a type facsimile (1865) of F1 in honor of the tricentennial of Sh's birth. It was a labor of considerable magnitude. He was so proud of its accuracy that he offered a large cash reward to anyone who could find an error in it; no one ever claimed the reward. Of course no one knew in the middle of the 19th century what we now know about variants in F1 copies. I own a copy of this facs. which I bought for a very low price from the Folger when they were selling off some extra copies of such books in the late 1960s I believe it was. Henry Clay Folger bought multiple copies of the four Shak. folios later in the nineteenth century with the idea that having multiple copies in one place would someday enable scholars to learn more about the true text of Shakespeare: an uncanny prophecy of Hinman's work in the 1950s in the Folger Library vault that led to his two-volume *The Printing and Proof-Reading of the First Folio of Shakespeare* (Oxford, 1963). I once examined 15 readings in *JC* in the facsimile of F2 in the series of Shakespeare facsimiles that Methuen published early in this century and found that the plates had been tampered with ("sophisticated") to make F2 look more like F1. J. H. P. Pafford had earlier demonstrated that the F1 facs. in the Methuen series had itself been sophisticated. (See Velz "The Text of *Julius Caesar* in the Second Folio: Two Notes" *SQ* 20 [1969]: 95-98; J. H. P. Pafford "The Methuen Facsimile, 1910, of the First Folio, 1623." *N&Q* n.s. 13 [1966]:126-27). Neither Yale, nor Methuen, nor any other facsimile is a safe substitute for the Hinman facsimile from Norton. Now that Norton is bringing out a big moneymaker in their textbook version of the Oxford modern spelling Shakespeare, perhaps they can be induced to serve the scholarly community as they did when the Hinman facsimile appeared in 1968 and scholars were offered a deep discount on a special cloth-bound edn. at the same time that a gift edition was being marketed at several times the price of the scholars' edition. Many of us have been grateful to Norton ever since. It would be a boon to a new generation of scholars if Norton were to make a press run for another deeply discounted edition-again limited to scholars and one-time only. John Velz ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 10:12:23 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0313 Re: MND; Tmp The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0313. Tuesday, 4 March 1997. [1] From: Dale Lyles Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 14:58:03 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: MND [2] From: Julie Blumenthal Date: Monday, 03 Mar 1997 16:03:54 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0308 Re: MND; Tmp [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 14:58:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: MND I understand your distinction and irony between "allowed," etc. However, if you switch Oberon and Titania, then Oberon has no more opportunity to allow or disallow any topping than Titania does in a regular production. I'm having difficulty seeing how an instantly smitten Oberon could be said to "allow" anything. After all, that's the whole point, isn't it? The victim of the juice has no choice. So back to my original question: in what ways would a smitten Oberon be different from the usual Titania? And (this just occurred to me) it is not Hermia and Helena who have the juice applied to them. It is the men. Of course, they awake to bandy about the affections of the women, don't they? It's all too hard a knot for me to untie, so far. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julie Blumenthal Date: Monday, 03 Mar 1997 16:03:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0308 Re: MND; Tmp. > Hermione's fidelity in *Winter's Tale*, Perdita and Marina's chasteness > - in the latter case almost a palpable force - all connect with the I must step in here and attempt to differentiate between virginity and complete lack of sexualization. To my mind, _all_ of the aforementioned ladies show a marvelous sense of sexuality as a character trait; witness Hermione in I ii or Perdita's flower speech in IV iv, as well as some of Miranda's lines. In this I find a major difference from Marina! Notably, I think, because Marina's major role is as a restorer of the past, vs. a way into the future (Mir. and Per.). In fact, most of the proof of their virginity comes as a show of their honor in not succumbing to their 'earthly desires.' There's a difference between not doing it and not wanting to! Vis a vis Ariel - - the extremely popular RSC MND of a few seasons back had a male and fairly melancholic Puck whose depression quite obviously stemmed from his love (physical and otherwise) for Oberon, and his jealousy over Ob.'s infatuation with 'the Indian boy.' To me, it was a highly effective choice which gave Puck a heck of a lot more depth than anything I'd seen before. I imagine a similar male Ariel-Prospero reading could be interesting. Julie Blumenthal ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 10:20:02 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0314 Qs: Branagh's "To be"; Ben Jonson The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0314. Tuesday, 4 March 1997. [1] From: Edna Z. Boris <104757.652@CompuServe.COM> Date: Monday, 03 Mar 97 10:12:15 EST Subj: Branagh's "To be" [2] From: Lim Lee Ching Date: Tuesday, 04 Mar 1997 02:08:14 +0800 Subj: Ben Jonson [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edna Z. Boris <104757.652@CompuServe.COM> Date: Monday, 03 Mar 97 10:12:15 EST Subject: Branagh's "To be" I'm curious to know people's reactions to Branagh's handling of the "To be" speech. Claudius and Polonius are behind a mirrored door in a mirror-filled hall. Hamlet walks directly to that door; they are able to see Hamlet, but Hamlet cannot see them. As he speaks the speech, the camera cuts back and forth from Hamlet to them. At one point Hamlet holds his dagger up to the glass and we see Claudius recoil precipitously. Did anyone interpret this staging as intended to show Hamlet knowing they are there? In Branagh's notes on the scene, he says that Hamlet is "unaware," but he also says that that "Hamlet seems to spell out the whips and scorns as if Claudius was personally responsible." The notes also say that only at "Go thy ways to a nunnery" does Hamlet know they are there when he hears a tiny noise and sees Ophelia's reaction. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lim Lee Ching Date: Tuesday, 04 Mar 1997 02:08:14 +0800 Subject: Ben Jonson This may not be the best place to ask, but does anyone know of any good Ben Jonson related materials(other than the texts to the plays) available on the Web. I can be contacted off-list at: jackbing@pacific.net.sg Many Thanks. ching ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 10:27:57 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0315 MV Film; Memories; Great Lakes; Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0315. Tuesday, 4 March 1997. [1] From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 09:46:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0304 Re: MV Film [2] From: Tom Bishop Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 10:21:02 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0289 Re: Shakespeare on the Great Lakes [3] From: John Velz Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 13:22:27 +0200 Subj: Shakespeare on the Great Lakes [4] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 23:00:18 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0295 Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 09:46:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0304 Re: MV Film Dear Friends, Brooke Brod is probably correct about the Welles MV. It's listed in the British Film Institute on-line catalog as an "unfinished project circa 1969." More interestingly we're also told that "footage from this project can be glimpsed in Oja KODAR'S 1988 feature, JADED." I've been meaning for some time to track down JADED to see for myself, but I've been too busy tracking down the current crop of Shakespeare movies. Ken Rothwell [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Bishop Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 10:21:02 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0289 Re: Shakespeare on the Great Lakes Harry Hill writes of his memories of various people quoting Shakespeare >My French Canadian neighbours in Montreal do it, my >friends in Norwegian mountain villages do it, I heard a German >hitchhiker get quite far with "Sein oder nicht sein; das ist hier die >Frage". The ones for whom it is far less of a habit have been, I think, >my students, but I intend to ask them tomorrow, and tomorrow. I think I hear a song coming on: "Old do it, youth do it, educated and uncouth do it, Let's do it; let's quote the Bard. Actors whenever you look do it; Joseph Banks and Captain Cook do it; Let's do it; let's quote the Bard. "In Montreal the PQ does it, but they do it in French, Jacques Chirac too does it, though it makes him blench; Norwegians fishing on the fjords do it, People say in London even bawds do it. Let's do it, let's quote the Bard." You can all continue on your own. Tom [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 13:22:27 +0200 Subject: Shakespeare on the Great Lakes The correspondence on this subject has been edifying. However, I want to correct Andrew White who thinks expurgated Shakespeare postdates the great days of Shakespeare on the minds and tongues of ordinary people. Not so. Bowdler's first *Family Shakespeare* (in which all the hells and damns are gone but some of the best bawdy undisturbed, as his sister, who did much of the work, did not understand it) appeared in 1807, if memory serves. At the very time Shakespeare was being disseminated by the countless thousands of fascicles (ancestors of modern paperbacks) by Charles Knight (first edn. 1838-43), the expurgated ("bowdlerized") texts were also proliferating. Note that the two movements are related to each other. It is precisely because Shak. had the potential to become a household property that the Bowdlers felt impelled to make him safe for maiden ears (yes, ears; Knight intended that the plays should be read *aloud* en famille, as the installments of Dickens's novels were in the same years). And cf. the title *Family Shakespeare*. Note that the process the Bowdlers started is still alive: V-chips for kiddies of some families in our time to block some of the sex and violence on t.v. We laugh at the Bowdlers for missing the bawdy and catching the irreligious expletives. But we tolerate intolerable violence while up front sex is rated R. My wife dared to teach Romeo and J. out of an unexpurgated edn. to 9th graders 30 yrs ago in Montogmery County MD. The beginning highschoolers responded quite well, on the whole. But that was a different time from both the 1840s and the 1990s. Cheers! John [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 3 Mar 1997 23:00:18 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0295 Ideology Sean K. Lawrence comments > One assumes that students who felt that there was > nothing worth commenting on [in Shakespeare's texts] > would not sign up for the course. Paul Hawkins's comment was that he merely enabled students to form their own ideas about literary texts. As Lawrence notes, the existence of a course presumes that there is value in commenting, and signing up for the course indicates acceptance of this proposition, which is itself an idea about literary texts. > Even to say that "there is nothing worth > commenting on" would be to comment. But it would be nothing more, and so would not attract high marks. > I would even say that all teaching, even lecturing, is > a sort of dialectic between my concerns and those of > my students, in which their responses condition me as > much as mine conditions them. Really "as much as"? The students know you are paid to be there, for which they might expect a certain amount of guiding. If you're pointing them away from blind alleys (such as the temptation to treat a play as merely a poem) and towards the richer pastures, you're conditioning them more than they are conditioning you. Paul Hawkins maintains the position that 'anything goes': > I tell my students that in my class and in > their papers, any response is in order, as long as it > can be developed and argued. Sexist, disablist, racist, and homophobic attitudes can all be developed and argued by students in their essays. Might these be "in order", or should they be noted and refuted? (I don't mean statements that suggest that texts contain these attitudes, but rather statements which are themselves offensive. "The English win the war because the French, then as now, are too effeminate" might be an example.) Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 17:59:51 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0316 [was 8.031] Re: Branagh's "To be" The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.031. Wednesday, 5 March 1997. [1] From: Hugh Davis Date: Tuesday, 4 Mar 1997 22:04:28 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0314 Qs: Branagh's "To be" [2] From: Chris Gordon Date: Tuesday, 4 Mar 97 21:10:11 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0314 Qs: Branagh's "To be" [3] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 5 Mar 1997 00:49:09 -0500 (EST) Subj: To Be Or Not To Be, Nunneries [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hugh Davis Date: Tuesday, 4 Mar 1997 22:04:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0314 Qs: Branagh's "To be" I thought the scene was indicating that Hamlet knew they were there. I am not sure why, except that Hamlet went directly to that mirror out of the many choices. --Hugh Davis [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Gordon Date: Tuesday, 4 Mar 97 21:10:11 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0314 Qs: Branagh's "To be" This scene is one to which I paid particular attention, since I think the staging and the acting of it is quite complex. My reading is that Hamlet is legitimately suspicious when he initially enters but is _not_ aware that Polonius and Claudius are lurking behind the two-way mirrored door. He thus delivers the speech to himself, although we (as privileged viewers) are allowed to see the response from behind the "arras," which I found quite effective. When Hamlet encounters Ophelia, I felt that their initial response to one another was absolutely heartfelt and genuine on both parts. I noticed that when Ophelia was about to begin (or had begun) what I always think of as her "set speech" (one it almost seems Polonius might have penned for her), she glanced toward the room, almost as if to alert Hamlet to the presence of the others. The interchange that followed seemed curiously formal and "acted," as if the two of them knew they were playing a game for the auditors. Not until Hamlet asked Ophelia flat out (but in a whisper in Branagh's interpretation), "Where's your father?" did I have the sense that he was finally testing her, and finds her wanting. She does not whisper back, "Hiding in one of the rooms," and that's the moment when Hamlet seemed to become genuinely enraged, rather than conveying the somewhat wounded anger I saw him as playing up until that point. I found the entire scene marvelously detailed and moving, right up through Hamlet's final gentleness with Ophelia, her wonderful soliloquy, and Polonius's apparently genuine concern for her. This is one reason I keep going back to see the film again. Chris Gordon, four viewings and counting (who would also like to present a metaphorical Oscar for best delivery of a single line by an actor to Rufus Sewall for the power and menace with which he says, "Go softly on.") [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 5 Mar 1997 00:49:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: To Be Or Not To Be, Nunneries My chief problem with most interpretations of this scene, including Branagh's, is that they ignore the fact he has been sent for. He is supposed to walk into the lobby after being told by someone offstage, 'there's someone to see you'. He walks in, reading a book, dealing with questions of taking action against a sea of troubles. By SHEER coincidence, Ophelia shows up, the one girl he has been unable to see for months. She proceeds to accuse him of breaking up with her, when both know perfectly well that it was the other way around ... Which is as much as to ask, Has anyone seen a production of Hamlet in which the meaning of the lines and context of the scene were taken seriously? Andy White Arlington, VA ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 18:12:33 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0317 [was 8.032] Re: Homosexuality; Rosalind and Celia; The Tempest The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.032. Wednesday, 5 March 1997. [1] From: Trace Shelton Date: Tuesday, 4 Mar 1997 10:06:29 -0600 (CST) Subj: Homosexuality [2] From: Mark Mann Date: Tuesday, 4 Mar 1997 14:26:53 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0288 Re: Rosalind and Celia [3] From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Wednesday, 5 Mar 1997 13:44:25 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0313 Re: Tmp [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Trace Shelton Date: Tuesday, 4 Mar 1997 10:06:29 -0600 (CST) Subject: Homosexuality As many of the recent posts involve arguments at least peripherally concerning "homosexuality" as a motive for one or more characters in various plays, I thought that I should clarify the assertions of "new-inventionists" like Bruce Smith. In "Homosexual Desire in Shakespeare's England", U of ChicagoP, 1991, Smith argues that Elizabethans did not categorize themselves by sexual orientation; it never would have occurred to them to do so. "This does not mean . . . that there were no men in early modern England whose sexual desires were turned primarily toward other men" (my ellipsis). He goes on to say "homosexual behavior may be a cross-cultural, transhistorical phenomenon; homosexuality is specific to our own culture and to our own moment in history" (12). In other words, identification of sexual preference is a social construct particular to our century. Of course, Smith's is not the only valid argument, and I rather prefer that of Joseph Cady. He argues in "'Masculine Love,' Renaissance Writing, and the 'New Invention' of Homosexuality" that homosexuality, or rather, a recognized sexual preference for men, did exist in the seventeenth century and before. He cites four Renaissance texts, including one by Bacon and another by Thomas Heywood, which include the term "masculine love". He reasons that this was indeed a marked preference of men for other men, and that this was widely abhorred by the populace in general. He equates other terms used during this time with "masculine love", including "the art of Ganymede" and "sodomy", although Smith has argued that "sodomy" for Elizabethans included anal sex with the opposite gender as well. Cady raises many questions about the methodology used by "new-inventionists", as well as their failure, on the whole, to precisely define what exactly has been newly invented: actual homosexuality or merely awareness of the phenomenon? I think an argument can be made for both sides, though I lean towards Cady, as his evidence shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was recognition of a "masculine love" existing between men during the Renaissance. Cady's article can be found in "Homosexuality in Renaissance and Enlightenment England", edited by Charles Summers, Haworth, 1992, pp. 9-40. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Mann Date: Tuesday, 4 Mar 1997 14:26:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0288 Re: Rosalind and Celia Dear Mr. Skeele, Thank you for your comments, which are well taken. Please understand that I speak from frustration as a theatre professional ( who began as an English major). My love for Shakespeare begins and ends with the words he wrote e, and the characters he made, and the plots he stole...I directed AYLI a few years ago, and so went to bed many a night with scholarly essays and papers and articles, and found ( which forms the root of my frustration) that most lacked the weight needed to build a firm theatrical foundation of the play. Hence my broadside in an earlier post that Shakespeare should be wrested from the English departments, and given to the theatre departments. Understand my tongue is in cheek here-it's simply that I found that ideas explored in a scholarly work, such as homoeroticism between Rosalind and Celia-ideas that would expend whole forests of paper-are ones that would have been explored and rejected in the first week of rehearsals as weak and unsupported by the play as a whole. To use the theatrical phrase, " it doesn't play." I'm not saying that homoeroticism isn't in Shakespeare---quite the contrary, I believe it occurs throughout the canon, in varying degrees of strength and overtness ( I believe it is nearly impossible to play Antonio in Merchant without depicting some homosexual attraction to Bassanio)--but he was, first and last, a man of the stage, and knew his audiences well, and knew that such topics, if played out overtly, would not be looked upon with favor by the censors, and the royals, and the paying customers. Where homoeroticism seems to occur, it occurs in a rather subversive way, masked with enough ambiguity to escape censure should it arise. Again, as I say, I speak from the vantage point of one who directs his plays, and who plays his characters, and as such must be concerned with the throughline of the part-it isn't for me that essay on the minutia of societal influences of etc etc-to quote Jason Robards " If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage". Of course, there are endless interpretations of what is on the page, but one takes the strongest, most supportable, most ACTABLE, and runs with that. Granville-Barker's Prefaces are considered the last word in the practical applications of Shakespeare, as related to performance. I for one, wish there more attention devoted to that line of scholarship, rather than the " Effects of Neo-Romanticism and Quantum Theory in The Tempest, as it Occurs in the Post-Hydrogenous Age", or some such quibble. It isn't that I'm anti-intellectual, but rather anti- insubstantial. In your post, you say there are many who would be offended by my "implication that homosexual desire is merely some contemporary fashion"...of course, I said nothing of the kind. What I said, and perhaps not well, is that it is the current vogue in theatre, to reinterpret Shakespearean characters through a filter of homoerotic intentions, and I have seen many productions bent like birch trees by a windy director, trying to make a personal point ( Hamlet and Horatio as schoolboy lovers, in one such case). Such things don't serve the playwright, or the play-it is a mark of Shakespeare's brilliance that he survives such pedestrian attempts. It is just as bad as presenting Hamlet as an action hero (which happens a lot), when it's his inaction that makes the play. I have nothing against updating the period, or radical multimedia presentations, and indeed have done much in that way myself, as a director. No one argues the validity of such approaches, so long as they tell the story Shakespeare wrote. And of course, finally, I couldn't be less concerned if someone is "offended" by my remarks---this is the nature of discourse. Just be offended for the right reasons. Lastly, no, we haven't "gotten past that"-not yet. The fact that such things "no longer need addressing" reflects only your frustration with the topic-as an "ego-crazed" director myself :) , I know the damage such a person can inflict, and have been trapped in several productions based on an ill-conceived, but " different" interpretation of Shakespeare's plays. Perhaps such things belong on someone's page-but let's keep it off the stage..............................Mark Mann [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Wednesday, 5 Mar 1997 13:44:25 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0313 Re: Tmp Well, I must respond to Julie Blumenthal, who took me to task with: >I must step in here and attempt to differentiate between virginity and >complete lack of sexualization. To my mind, _all_ of the aforementioned >ladies show a marvelous sense of sexuality as a character trait; witness >Hermione in I ii or Perdita's flower speech in IV iv, as well as some of >Miranda's lines. I have to entirely agree! I didn't see chastity as equitable with sexlessness - certainly it would be possible to play Miranda or Hermione or Perdita as sexual beings, without turning them into evil seductresses. >In this I find a major difference from Marina! Absolutely! If there were any female character in the late plays who is anti-sex, it is Marina. I find it hard to imagine a performance of *Pericles* in which she would come across as anything but puritanical ... >Notably, I think, because Marina's major role is as a restorer of the >past, vs. a way into the future (Mir. and Per.). In fact, most of the >proof of their virginity comes as a show of their honor in not >succumbing to their 'earthly desires.' There's a difference between not >doing it and not wanting to! Again, I agree, although in Marina's case I think there is even the 'not wanting to'. Perhaps the born-again virgin movement that has been going on in the US could provide some kind of character background for her! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 18:26:44 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0318 [was 8.033] Re: Anachronisms; Facsimiles; Goddard; Hamilton The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.033. Wednesday, 5 March 1997. = [1] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 04 Mar 1997 14:51:46 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0311 Re: Anachronisms = [2] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 04 Mar 1997 20:20:38 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0312 Re: Facsimiles = [3] From: Louis Marder <76411.3613@CompuServe.COM> Date: Tuesday, 04 Mar 97 16:39:53 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0221 Re: Harold Goddard = [4] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Tuesday, 04 Mar 1997 17:09:49 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0310 Re: Re: Hamilton = [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 04 Mar 1997 14:51:46 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0311 Re: Anachronisms Gabriel Egan asks: "How about. . . {r}apiers in C12 Denmark (HAM)?" Well, Shakespeare's Hamlet couldn't possibly set in the 12th century. Wittenberg didn't open as a university until the early 16th century, about 1502 as I recall. And the "diet of worms" reference is to Luther. No, rather than considering these and other passages as anachronistic, let's consider Hamlet as a 16th century Danish prince. = Shakespeare wasn't legally bound to follow his sources precisely, was he? Yours, Bill Godshalk [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 04 Mar 1997 20:20:38 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0312 Re: Facsimiles Hi, I'm a little confused by both Mr. Velz and our former leader Ken Steele's comments on folios. I realize that certain changes were made in the process of printing the folios, but does this mean that we should necessary use the "ideal" edition of Hinman? Isn't doing so merely to substitute a supposed solidity for the contingency of Renaissance publication practices? Doesn't Hinman's process, of choosing the "best" pages from amongst all those available, merely obscure the contingency available in early modern (or modern, for that matter) printing, while not truly eliminating it? Does Hinman provide us with anything but false confidence? Curiously, = Sean Lawrence. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Marder <76411.3613@CompuServe.COM> Date: Tuesday, 04 Mar 97 16:39:53 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0221 Re: Harold Goddard I remember when I was in graduate school at Columbia University in N.Y. that Oscar James Campbell came into the lecture hall with a long face. = He said he had just received Goodard's M of S and was mad at this many who presumed to know the meaning of Shakespeare. When I moved to Kent State University in 1956 I became acquainted with Eleanor Goddard, his daughter, a fairly near neighbor. I mentioned Campbell's comment and she told me that her father had not given that name to the book. He had called it Shakespeare and War and under that name had tried for years to find a publisher, without success. Oxford finally took it on condition that they could change the name - to, cleverly, The Meaning of Shakespeare, a title that would guarantee its sale even until today when everyone wants to know the meaning of Shakespeare. Shakespeare has no one meaning - he has meanings, and that is his virtue and why critics love to write about his work. Who can say them nay? Just as there is no single acceptable issue of the plays - there are only different editions. Louis Marder, avon4@juno.com [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Tuesday, 04 Mar 1997 17:09:49 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0310 Re: Re: Hamilton > Well, I have learned a valuable lesson; namely, to be more careful what= > I say and how I say it. When I first replied on the subject of Cardenio= > and Mr Hamilton's books I wrote the "just because no one has a better > theory does not mean we have to accept a crazy one." I should have put= > "crazy" in quotes since I was responding to, and using, Mr Wasserman's > word choice regarding acceptable theories about SMT. > = > I also felt my choice of qualifiers "it seems to me" and "I believe" > would make it clear that I was reconstructing my opinion from memory-I > read In Search of Shakespeare several years ago. At any rate, if I was > "off the beam" (an interesting expression in my case since I used to be= > a high-steel worker) thanks for the correction, I'll be more careful in= > the future. Now to the business at hand. I have never heard of the > above listed poem "There was a Lover and His Lass" what can anyone tell= > me about it. > = > Thanks > John Robinson = "There was a Louer and His Lass" is a reputedly Shakespearian poem set to music by Thomas Morley. It is found on Pages 204-207 in a book of Elizabethan Madrigals, Rounds, and Lute Songs. I'll be damned if I can remember the title, but I do remember that the editor for the music has a name that is something like Noah Green, and the texts editor is W. H. Auden. I have the book lying around the house somewhere-I saw it just yesterday-and the first verse goes like this, if my memory doesn't fail me: There was a louer and is lasse, With a Hey, with a hoe, with a hey nonnie noe, --------{I don't remember the next line}-------- In spring tme, in spring time, the onely prettie ring time, When birds do sing hey ding-a-ding-a-ding. I'm Sorry if you don't like my memorial reconstruction. Meanwhile, ponder this issue: Is Moli=E9re's play *The Would-Be Gentleman* based on= *Loues Labour's Lost*? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 18:38:06 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0319 [was 8.034] World Shakespeare Bibliography; Critical Survey The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.034. Wednesday, 5 March 1997. [1] From: James Harner Date: Tuesday, 4 Mar 1997 14:48:22 -0600 (CST) Subj: World Shakespeare Bibliography [2] From: Andrew Murphy Date: Tuesday, 4 Mar 1997 20:34:44 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Critical Survey [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Harner Date: Tuesday, 4 Mar 1997 14:48:22 -0600 (CST) Subject: World Shakespeare Bibliography I'm pleased to report that the 1995 volume of the World Shakespeare Bibliography should reach subscribers shortly. Long-time users of the Bibliography will notice some changes in the scope and taxonomy of the annual Bibliography; these changes will also be incorporated into the 1983-95 disk of +The World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM+ (1998). Scope first. Although productions of new adaptations will continue to be listed in the Bibliography, entries for restaged adaptations (e.g., Stoppard's +Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead+; Verdi's +Otello+ or +Falstaff+) will no longer be listed. Video or audio recordings will continue to be included. Taxonomy: General Shakespeareana/Biography and Milieu now how separated sections for Biographical Studies and Milieu. Discussions of the authorship controversy, which used to be lumped in with Biography and Milieu now reside in a separate section of General Shakespeareana/General Studies. Editions and Texts is now subdivided into four sections: General Studies, Complete Editions, Selective Editions, and Anthologies of Excerpts. The former Play Groups division is now Play Groups and Poems (with a section for Poems), and the Apocrypha is now subdivided by title of apocryphal work. And, each of the individual works now includes a separate section for Pedagogy. Where the recent annual volumes sported four indexes, the 1995 volume has two: persons; subjects. The 1987-94 disk of +The World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM+ is scheduled for release in early summer. This one offers 24,768 entries, with another 80,000 or so reviews and other pieces embedded within entries. As always, I encourage SHAKSPEReans to send offprints or notices of their publications, to send reviews and/or programs of local productions, and to notify me of items that might escape our bibliographical net. Each year, we inadvertently omit books or articles because they are unavailable to the local Bibliography staff or our ca. 100 contributors. Jim Harner [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Murphy Date: Tuesday, 4 Mar 1997 20:34:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Critical Survey Please feel free to crosspost the following and please excuse multiple postings. CRITICAL SURVEY The UK-based journal _Critical Survey_ is now entering its eighth year. Previously the journal operated on a rolling themed issue format but, as of this year, the format will change. The three annual issues of the journal will now consist of: a modern issue; an early modern issue; and an eclectic or guest edited issue. The editor for the early modern issue will be Andrew Murphy and submissions should be sent to him at the address below. Submissions should be in the region of 5,000 to 7,000 words in length, though shorter pieces, and exceptionally strong longer pieces, will also be considered. Book reviews and reviews of electronic products (such as electronic editions) are also welcome. In general, reviews should run to about 1,000 words in length. Articles on all aspects of early modern literature and culture will be considered, though preference will generally be given to work which indicates a clear familiarity with contemporary theoretical and critical issues. It is hoped that at least one article devoted to contemporary debates in editorial and textual theory will be included in each early modern issue. All articles submitted will be refereed. For submissions or enquiries, please contact: Dr. Andrew Murphy English Department University of Hertfordshire Watford Campus Aldenham Watford Herts AL1 3BD UK Email enquiries: litradm@herts.ac.uk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 18:47:38 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0320 [was 8.035] Qs: Identity of WH; Shakespeare's Ghosts; Salique Law The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.035. Wednesday, 5 March 1997. [1] From: Neil Hunt Date: Tuesday, 4 Mar 1997 20:10:20 +0000 Subj: Identity of WH [2] From: Sean K. Kelly Date: Tuesday, 4 Mar 1997 18:25:55 +0 Subj: Re: Shakespeare's Ghosts [3] From: Michael O'Neill Date: Tuesday, 4 Mar 1997 17:16:52 -0500 (EST) Subj: Henry V [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Neil Hunt Date: Tuesday, 4 Mar 1997 20:10:20 +0000 Subject: Identity of WH As a new subscriber to the list I am wary of asking questions that have been visited earlier. However, I am also overawed by the quantity of indexed discussions. I am keen to discuss the question of the identity of WH with other subscribers as I have been conducting research in this area. Is there an efficient way to search for previous references to this subject? Thanks in advance for any suggestions. Ronald Hunt [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Kelly Date: Tuesday, 4 Mar 1997 18:25:55 +0000 Subject: Re: Shakespeare's Ghosts I am currently involved in doing some extensive work with the modern appropriation of the traditional ghost story. In light of the recent discussion of the Macbeth apparitions and the recent film rendition of Richard III which omits the ghosts entirely, I thought this might be a timely topic. My question is twofold: 1) can anyone direct me to a work or works on the influence of Shakespeare's ghosts on modern writers (I am most specifically interested in American and French writers, as I am writing on Faulkner at this time, but any others, specifically non-Western writers, would be of interest to me as well). 2) Is anyone able to share instances where they have found the ghosts of Shakespeare to have influenced a work of group of works to any great extent. Though I am aware of and influenced by the readings given by Lacan, Levinas, Derrida, and Garber, I am more interested in how this topic has been approached in more "literary" and "Shakespearian" circles. Any information regardless of the perspective is greatly appreciated. I would also hope that others might choose to discuss their own thoughts on the importance of the ghosts of Shakespeare. Sean K. Kelly Binghamton University (SUNY) mkmankus@mailbox.syr.edu [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael O'Neill Date: Tuesday, 4 Mar 1997 17:16:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Henry V Does anyone have, or can anyone point me to the particulars of the Law Salique which Henry V invoked to justify his invasion and claim to France? I have had difficulty tracking this information down. Thank you. Michael O'Neill ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 18:56:54 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0321 [was 8.036] Re: Ben Jonson The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.036. Wednesday, 5 March 1997. [1] From: Peter C. Herman Date: Tuesday, 4 Mar 1997 14:38:57 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0314 Qs: Ben Jonson [2] From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Tuesday, 4 Mar 1997 20:17:29 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: Jonson [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter C. Herman Date: Tuesday, 4 Mar 1997 14:38:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0314 Qs: Ben Jonson >This may not be the best place to ask, but does anyone know of any good >Ben Jonson related materials(other than the texts to the plays) >available on the Web. I can be contacted off-list at: >jackbing@pacific.net.sg > >Many Thanks. >ching The best place to start would Alan Liu's website, The Voice of the Shuttle. It has an early modern section that contains links to basically everything that's worthwhile out there. Best, Peter C. Herman [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Tuesday, 4 Mar 1997 20:17:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Jonson There are a few essays about Jonson and other 17th c poets available on www.alchemyweb.com/~alchemy/englit/sevenlit/seveness.htm You should also try Voice of the Shuttle, at humanitas.ucsb.edu Sara van den Berg University of Washington ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 19:04:31 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0322 [was 8.037] Re: Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.037. Wednesday, 5 March 1997. [1] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 04 Mar 1997 21:45:17 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0315 Ideology [2] From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 05 Mar 1997 08:02:09 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0315 Ideology [3] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Wednesday, 5 Mar 1997 11:59:05 -0500 (EST) Subj: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 04 Mar 1997 21:45:17 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0315 Ideology > Paul Hawkins's comment was that he merely enabled students to form their > own ideas about literary texts. As Lawrence notes, the existence of a > course presumes that there is value in commenting, and signing up for > the course indicates acceptance of this proposition, which is itself an > idea about literary texts. Right. So Paul and his students, like I and mine, form a certain community of the like-minded. We respect at least that much about each other. Respecting one's students' opinions was Paul's original issue. In fact, I'd say that this is a necessary condition of all true dialogues. Like ours, for instance. I've certainly changed my mind on things after reading your posts, and my student's views are also capable of changing my mind. > But it would be nothing more, and so would not attract high marks. Not necessarily. It might take the form of a sophisticated critique of written language as such, or a radical medieval nominalism uncannily reproducing the works of Ockham, which would certainly merit high marks. Or a complex defense of literalism, as dizzyingly brilliant as that of certain seventeenth-century Protestant hermeneutics. > > I would even say that all teaching, even lecturing, is > > a sort of dialectic between my concerns and those of > > my students, in which their responses condition me as > > much as mine conditions them. > > Really "as much as"? Perhaps I exaggerate, but I would certainly consider that their interests and the direction in which they would like to take discussion ought to be represented on the syllabus and in the content of lectures. I've certainly given up on pursuing certain lines of argument because they did not engage. The students know you are paid to be there, for > which they might expect a certain amount of guiding. If you're pointing > them away from blind alleys (such as the temptation to treat a play as > merely a poem) and towards the richer pastures, you're conditioning them > more than they are conditioning you. But likewise, if they direct me towards engaging with the plot (which I would otherwise take as read), to renew my interest in the poetic qualities of the verse, or to question my assumptions about what is worthy of discussion, then I must certainly give them a hearing. And this would, indeed, lead me to question my own priorities. You might say, they subvert me. > Paul Hawkins maintains the position that 'anything goes': > > I tell my students that in my class and in > > their papers, any response is in order, as long as it > > can be developed and argued. > > Sexist, disablist, racist, and homophobic attitudes can all be developed > and argued by students in their essays. Might these be "in order", or > should they be noted and refuted? (I don't mean statements that suggest > that texts contain these attitudes, but rather statements which are > themselves offensive. "The English win the war because the French, then > as now, are too effeminate" might be an example.) The statement above would not be capable of being developed and argued, because it does not make reference to the textual basis (widely understood, including the broadest possible background on the historical location) on which argument can be reasonably based. In fact, I would be forced to mark down naive sexism for the same reasons that I would be forced to mark down naive feminism. Nevertheless, I would engage with it, and in so doing, I would have to open myself to the possibility of it changing me. Besides, we're not necessarily talking about sexist or homophobic arguments, unless you believe that all statements that something is beautiful are by definition sexist or homophobic. Even if I were to concede that _certain_ limits have to be placed on student interests in order to allow the class as dialogue to come into beingness, this is not to say that aesthetic responses are not to be respected, as a part of the project of engaging with and respecting other people. To do otherwise would be to show a fundamental disrespect for my students, on an ethical par with sexist, racist, disablist or homophobic readings. Cheers, Sean. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 05 Mar 1997 08:02:09 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0315 Ideology EFFEMINATE FRENCHMEN, SWISHY ANGLOS, AFRO-AMERICAN STUDS & ARTSY CANADIANS Gabriel Egan and Paul Hawkins are having quite a civil set-to between a pc yeah-sayer in one corner and an aesthetic free-thinker in the other. If we can tolerate Shakespeare's characters kicking servants and convicting Abraham's descendants for trading in pounds of flesh because in the plays these things are artistically well done, then surely it is our pedagogical duty to accept well wrought arguments about, say, the perceived alternative lifestyles of the French, the perceived thick lips of many non-whites, and other "rascist" or "homophobic" views that we momentarily, in our present charity, think we despise? Harry Hill [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Wednesday, 5 Mar 1997 11:59:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: Ideology The short answer to Gabriel Egan's first question is "Yes." A sinful interpretation of a work of literature that is logically developed and argued in relation to the details of the work-"anything goes" within these limits-would have to be tolerated. It could even be the basis of a good class discussion. The teacher and other students are free to oppose it. The conversation continues. Of course, Gabriel's sample sentence would not seem to lend itself to such development. Since I was once accused of being misogynist by a teacher because I could not agree that Pope's "Epistle II. To a Lady: Of the Characters of Women" was misogynist, I am suspicious of educators who would set themselves up to correct their students' moral failings. But Gabriel continues, by focusing on these things, to flee the question of an individual's aesthetic response. Paul Hawkins ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 08:09:50 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0323 Re: Salic Law The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0323. Thursday, 7 March 1997. [1] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 05 Mar 1997 18:56:11 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.035 Qs: Salique Law [2] From: John Drakakis Date: Thursday, 6 Mar 1997 14:55:33 -0000 Subj: RE: SHK 8.035 Qs: Salique Law [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 05 Mar 1997 18:56:11 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.035 Qs: Salique Law > Does anyone have, or can anyone point me to the particulars of the Law > Salique which Henry V invoked to justify his invasion and claim to > France? I have had difficulty tracking this information down. Thank > you. I believe that the entire text is "In terram Salicam mulieres ne succedant", and is given by Canterbury (1.2.38 of the Oxford, edited by Gary Taylor). Henry does not, however, base his justification for the invasion of France on this quibble, but rather on inheritance through the female line, the very thing that the Law Salique forbids. His claim therefore necessitates the demolition of the law, which Canterbury proceeds to do: Salic land is not France, but part of Germany "'twixt Elbe and Saale'" (1.2.52); the law could not have been formed by Pharamond, who died 421 years before the French possessed this piece of German territory (1.2.57-58); and the house of Valois itself holds France by female succession. I have no idea where this idea that Henry is basing his claim on the Salic law comes from, but it's faithfully repeated by a number of recent critics. If Henry "invokes" this law though, he does so only to demolish it, so that he can base his own claim on inheritance through the female line. Cheers, Sean Lawrence. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Thursday, 6 Mar 1997 14:55:33 -0000 Subject: RE: SHK 8.035 Qs: Salique Law For Michael O'Neill, I presume that you've seen T.W.Craik's footnote in his New Arden edition which refers back to Holinshed. Holinshed refers to "French glossers" though they are not mentioned there. Gary Taylor in his edition refers readers to the apocryphal Edward III where Salic law is also discussed. Cheers John Drakakis ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 08:37:14 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0324 Re: Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0324. Thursday, 7 March 1997. [1] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 6 Mar 1997 14:01:08 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.037 Ideology [2] From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Thursday, 6 Mar 1997 11:27:51 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.037 Re: Ideology [3] From: John Drakakis Date: Thursday, 6 Mar 1997 15:45:57 -0000 Subj: RE: SHK 8.037 Re: Ideology [4] From: Louis Marder Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 12:32:41 PST Subj: Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 6 Mar 1997 14:01:08 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.037 Ideology Several respondents defend the right of students to develop racist, sexist, disablist, or homophobic arguments. Sean Lawrence writes > Even if I were to concede that _certain_ limits have > to be placed on student interests in order to allow > the class as dialogue to come into beingness, this is > not to say that aesthetic responses are not to be > respected, as a part of the project of engaging with > and respecting other people. Certainly at the level of 'dialogue coming into being' one has to prevent racist, sexist, disablist and homophobic opinions being accorded equal status with other ideas in the classroom. If not people who are routinely discriminated against outside the classroom will find that the same goes on inside and that they are still marginalized. Both my employer and my trade union have clear guidelines about this sort of thing, which cannot be circumvented by claiming that the ideas are part of an individual's "aesthetic response". Harry Hill quite explicitly defends freedom of expression (and free-thinking) against 'pc': > If we can tolerate Shakespeare's characters kicking > servants and convicting Abraham's descendants for > trading in pounds of flesh because in the plays these > things are artistically well done, then surely it is > our pedagogical duty to accept well wrought arguments > about, say, the perceived alternative lifestyles of > the French, the perceived thick lips of many > non-whites, and other "racist" or "homophobic" views > that we momentarily, in our present charity, think we > despise? The Bible is jolly well done artistically, so we are bound to "accept well wrought arguments" for infanticide? Don't we challenge Portia's racism and emphasize just how cleverly poetry sneaks in ideas which we don't find acceptable when presented unadorned? (Now I really am sounding like the woolly Romantic). Paul Hawkins too asserts the freedom of the classroom: > The short answer to Gabriel Egan's first question is > "Yes." A sinful interpretation of a work of literature > that is logically developed and argued in relation to > the details of the work-"anything goes" within these > limits-would have to be tolerated. It could even be > the basis of a good class discussion. Wouldn't a Jewish student who found The Merchant of Venice offensive, and found that other students in the room expressed the view that it was an accurate portrayal of Jewish greed, feel distinctly reluctant to have "a good class discussion" if the blatantly racist view was accorded equal status by the teacher? > The teacher and other students are free to oppose it. > The conversation continues. Unless racist, homophobic, sexist, and disablist views are challenged in the classroom, conversation does not continue since the victims of discrimination and abuse are unlikely to feel empowered to challenge the received ideas. > Of course, Gabriel's sample sentence would not seem to > lend itself to such development. That's not my experience. The backlash against the successes of 1970s feminism has developed complex narratives of overreaction which attempt to portray the victims of discrimination and abuse as the new discriminators and abusers. The widespread 'problem' of female domestic violence, as depicted in the media in Britain in recent years, is an example of the development of anti-feminism ideas into thoroughgoing arguments about social policy. > But Gabriel continues, by focusing on these things, to > flee the question of an individual's aesthetic > response. I recall that the question was about 'response' as something separate from the power structure of mediation of texts which we call English Studies. I hope my comments have indicated that I find the separation specious. Gabriel Egan [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Thursday, 6 Mar 1997 11:27:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.037 Re: Ideology For Sean K. Lawrence: Please, by all means, do tell, what exactly is "naive feminism"? Evelyn Gajowski [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Thursday, 6 Mar 1997 15:45:57 -0000 Subject: RE: SHK 8.037 Re: Ideology I think Paul Hawkins' contribution raises a crucial point: when, and under what conditions, does, and/or should, the "liberal" teacher stop being liberal? The difficulty is that the issue can't simply be sidestepped by invoking "aesthetics" as an escape hatch. I don't mean to suggest that aesthetics is simply ideology in disguise, but it is the case that the two are linked. Also Gabriel Egan's and Sean Lawrence's suggestions that teachers take heed of the paying customers (what used to be called "students"), and that in Lawrence's case, their "wishes" should be "respected" (whatever that means), seems to me equally to be caught in ideology. What both Hawkins and Lawrence and Egan seem to want to argue for is a third position: in one case outside politics and ideology (Hawkins) where the formal questions of aesthetics override any other considerations; in the other (Egan, and possibly Lawrence) the third position, that of critique which implies that they can get out of ideology but no-one else can. This is a residually Atlthusserian position which emanates from the assertion that there is a value-free "science" of, say, the literary text, which is accessible to critique. But unfortunately Lawrence gives the game away when he invokes "respect" for the wishes of his students within what is a capitalist economy of knowledge exchange. This leads me to think that when we get down to the nitty gritty, all this talk about political correctness, freedom, etc. is really a debate within liberal humanism, and that at the end of the day both sides would be prepaared to allow disagreement though they might take a different attitude to it when it came. Paul Hawkins in this instance is the classic liberal who will allow anything so long as it's cogently argued. I'd love to know how he would deal with a student essay which argued with passion and conviction the case that, say Hitler advances in the "Nation and Race" chapter of Mein Kampf. I presume, on the basis of what he has just said, that if it was argued with sufficient passion and conviction then Lawrence would change his own view? If he tells me that it would not, then I would have to ask him to divulge the criteria upon which his resistance might be based. Hawkins, I am afraid, seems to me to have no way out of this dilemma: he is hoist with his own liberalism...which is fine SO LONG AS everybody plays by liberal rules. It seems to me that the debate about ideology has become one of assertion, which is why this circular chase is continuing. Maybe if we think of ideology both as ALLUSION and ILLUSION then we can at least, on the one hand, prevent Egan et al from becoming that familiar animal...a liberal Stalinist, and persuade Paul Hawkins that at least part of what he does and says isn't entirely available to what he takes to be his controlling consciousness. Once we get into this territory then liberal appeals to "individual rights" and "individual freedoms" simply won't do. Nor will knee-jerking genuflections in the direction of political correctness do either. Best wishes John Drakakis [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Marder Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 12:32:41 PST Subject: Re: Ideology Colleagues: How about a movement to" Let Shakespeare Alone" All the late isms, feminist ideas, Afro-American criticism, post this and post that and post-post something else is hogwash. Shakespeare took and made the Moors, self-serving women, bed-tricking women, Jews, kings, villains, hectoring men, weak kings, aboriginal characters, fools, psychotics, plotting nobles, adventurous daughters, virginity-preserving virgins, buffoons, braggarts, senile men, conniving merry wives, pursuing bears, eunuchs, misers, and whatever else you may care to name because he wanted to write a good play and what he did worked in its context. What you would have done, or what you think he should have done, or how his environment affected him is immaterial to the play. He made his characters what they are because they served the purpose of his plot. [Hamlet hesitates, not because of the 36 reasons I used to tease my students with, but because to kill Claudius immediately would have left the last two and a half acts of the play superfluous] Read it, see it, understand it, enjoy it without bringing in the entire renaissance ideology to talk about it. WHY Shakespeare did what he did is immaterial - he DID it. [It reminds me of the notable trials recently or coming up. Everything points to guilt, but that's not the point. You have to have a trial and make a case of it. It's a media event (The equivalent of our article in a scholarly periodical.] Footnotes clear up the language, but your personal interpretations are just that albeit it shows you to be a scholar - which is the true reason that many write. Write what you please, but let Shakespeare's brains, plots, and characters alone. Shakespeare has inspired many critics, but, regardless of what you write, what you say will not change a jot of the plays If this be error and upon me proved...cast your slings and arrows at me. Shakespeare will defend me. .Louis Marder avon4@juno.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 08:44:13 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0325 RE: A Lover and his Lass; Shakespeare's Ghosts The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0325. Thursday, 7 March 1997. [1] From: David Mycoff Date: Thursday, 6 Mar 1997 10:10:10 -0500 (EST) Subj: "There was a lover, etc." [2] From: Paul Franssen Date: Friday, 07 Mar 1997 09:41:24 -0600 (CST) Subj: RE: A Lover and his Lass; Shakespeare's Ghosts [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Mycoff Date: Thursday, 6 Mar 1997 10:10:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: "There was a lover, etc." Finza set this text, sometime in the 1950s, I think. It's on a recent, easily obtained trade-release CD: Welsh baritone Bryn Terfel: THE VAGABOND, with some other Finza Shakespeare settings, and other materials. DM [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Franssen Date: Friday, 07 Mar 1997 09:41:24 -0600 (CST) Subject: RE: A Lover and his Lass; Shakespeare's Ghosts For "It [not "there"] was a lover and his lass", see *As You Like It* v.iii.16ff; My Riverside Shakespeare prints a facsimile of Morley's setting with lute accompaniment in tablature on p. 402. On Shakespearean ghosts; if memory serves, Michael Dobson's *Making of the National poet* contains a fair number of instances of the Bard himself appearing as a ghost in prefaces to productions of his plays, to applaud his successors. In some cases, his portrayal there seems to be based on his own ghosts, such as those of Hamlet Sr. or Julius Caesar. Paul Franssen Department of English Utrecht University The Netherlands ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 08:57:58 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0326 Re: Desdemona's Guilt; Memories The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0326. Thursday, 7 March 1997. [1] From: Jayel Wylie Date: Thursday, 06 Mar 1997 11:03:01 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0283 Desdemona's Guilt [2] From: Louis Marder Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 11:16:25 PST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0315 Memories [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jayel Wylie Date: Thursday, 06 Mar 1997 11:03:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0283 Desdemona's Guilt >I have a question that no one has seemed to be able to answer, or that I >haven't found the right sources. At the end of "Othello" Desdemona >accepts her death at Othello's hands and I want to know why. I have >been searching our feeble library for possibilities and they are few and >far between. > >Does anyone know where I should look/ How about some feedback? > >My argument is that Desdemona seems to be an independent woman who would >not take any sh@t from a man, regardless of how much she loves him. > >Thanks for any suggestions, Michelle Walker I had this same problem both as an actress trying to play the part and as a grad student trying to write about the character. While I'm not sure I'd describe Desdemona as "independent" in the contemporary sense, she does have to be, as Cassio describes her, "a maid/That paragons description and wild fame" for the central conceit of the play to work. If she isn't really "the divine Desdemona," her marriage to Othello loses its power to shock the citizens of Venice and challenge the audience. But if she is a woman of substance rather than an empty Barbie, why does she go out singing "Willow" rather than trying to save herself? Or rather, why does she look to her murderer's mercy for salvation? The only answer that ever seemed right to me is that she thinks that Othello has actually made her a person, given her an identity, and, therefore, has the right to take that identity, and her life, away. When pressed to say why she has chosen Othello as husband over all her other prospects, Desdemona says she has fallen in love with "the very quality of my lord" (1.3.254). David Bevington interprets this as meaning she loves Othello's virtues, but I think it's more than that-I think she recognizes in him both his nobility and his outsider status, and she *identifies* with him. This idea reinforces and is reinforced by Othello's earlier statement that Desdemona told him that "she wished/That heaven had made her such a man" (1.3.164-5). So Desdemona's tragedy begins when she can no longer interpret her husband's behavior, when she says "my lord is not my lord" and therefore, she is not herself (3.4.126). When Othello strikes her, her first response is "I have not deserved this" (4.1.244)--there's your evidence of that independent woman buried under the historical/societal creation of dutiful wife. But she soon determines that "'Tis meet I should be used so, very meet" (4.2.122). She has no context in which to rebel against being a wife altogether, and she has irrevocably determined to define herself not as Venetian society demands but solely in terms of her husband's impressions of and reactions to her. She is literally losing herself. [An interesting comparison between the characters of Othello's Desdemona and Hamlet's Ophelia could be made in these terms.] If what she knows she is turns out to be different from what Othello insists she is, then what she knows she is must be wrong. She even goes so far as to ask Iago if she is a whore-if her husband won't give her a straight answer, maybe his ancient will. So when she has Emilia put her bridal sheets on her bed and leave her to sing this willow song, she is practicing a kind of self-immolation, a suttee-she makes herself a sacrifice to her god, Othello. She has accepted Othello's interpretation of her character even though her logical mind knows it's wrong and is ready to accept her punishment. But I think we as audience can still like her or at least empathize with her because she continues to struggle against her own surrender-that spark of self-realization doesn't die until she does. When Othello moves to actually kill her, she pleads for her life, even for one more half hour of it, and when Emilia finds her dying, Desdemona says, "A guiltless death I die." But when Emilia asks her who has killed her, Desdemona answers, "Nobody; I myself," and dies asking to be commended to her lord. If she can't be what Venice wants and she can't be what Othello wants, she can only choose to be nothing at all. Jessica Wylie mlifsey@infoave.net [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Marder Date: Monday, 24 Feb 1997 11:16:25 PST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0315 Memories Greeting to all would "do it" along with the French, Swedes, and the others. If you need any help finding good quotations to do it with, Let me suggest that y'all get a copy of my recent book, Speak the Speech: The Shakespeare Book of Quotations, HarperCollins, 1994 a 472 page collection of quotations, arranged under a few hundred topics well classified by play, speaker, and key word, and also a glossary. There are of course many quotation books, but this is mine and I recommend it. It was done for a flat fee so I make nothing more by plugging it. Order it through me and I'll autograph it for you. $15.00 plus a couple of bucks for postage.. Louis Marder, 1217 Ashland Avenue, Evanston, IL 60202-1103. E-mail Avon4@juno.com Happy browsing. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 09:05:49 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0327 A Newly Discovered Folio of Hamlet... The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0327. Thursday, 7 March 1997. From: Karen Krebser Date: Thursday, 06 Mar 1997 09:03:34 -0800 Subject: A Newly Discovered Folio of Hamlet... Greetings, all... perhaps the following bit of fluff will make sense only to those of us in the States who (for better or worse) grew up on Saturday morning cartoons (namely, "Scooby Doo" ...). Still, I think it's delightfully clever, and thought others here might enjoy it, too. (And, having seen Branagh's "Hamlet" last Sunday, I can't help but picture here the great mirrored hall and Rufus Sewell's "brave" [and gorgeous] Fortinbras... but I'll let you read the rest to get to the bottom of this "mystery"...) Regards, Karen Krebser "Reepers, Raggy! Rits a Rhost!" This recently discovered folio edition of "Hamlet" follows other known versions closely until Act V, Scene II, where it begins to diverge at line 232, as will be seen: KING ...`Now the king drinks to Hamlet.' Come, begin, And you the judges, bear a wary eye Trumpets sound. HAMLET and LAERTES take their stations HAMLET: Come on, sir. LAERTES: Come, my lord. Enter FRED, DAPHNE, VELMA, SHAGGY, AND SCOOBY DAPHNE: Wait! SHAGGY: Stop the fight! HAMLET and LAERTES put up their foils KING: I like this not. Say wherefore you do speak? FRED: Good lord, I pray thee, let thy anger wait. For we, in seeking clues, have found the truth Behind the strange events of latter days. VELMA: The first clue came from Elsinore's high walls, Where, so said Hamlet, Hamlet's ghost did walk. Yet though the elder Hamlet met his death, And perforce hath been buried in the ground, 'Tis yet true one would not expect a ghost To carry mud upon his spectral boots. Yet mud didst Shaggy and his faithful hound Espy, with footprints leading to a drop. This might, at first, indeed bespeak a ghost... Until, when I did seek for other answers, I found a great, wide cloth of deepest black Discarded in the moat of Elsinore. 'Tis clear, the "ghost" used this to slow his fall While darkness rendered him invisible. FRED: The second clue we found, my lord, was this. KING: It seems to me a portrait of my brother In staine'd glass, that sunlight may shine through. FRED: But see, my lord, when placed before a lantern-- KING: My brother's ghost! HAMLET: My father! VELMA: Nay, his image. FRED: In sooth, that image caught the Prince's eye When he went to confront his lady mother. Nor did his sword pierce poor Polonius. For Hamlet's blade did mark the castle wall Behind the rent made in the tapestry. Polonius was murdered by another. The knife which killed him entered from behind. LAERTES: But who? FRED: Indeed my lords, that you shall see. HAMLET: And if this ghost was naught but light and air, Then what of that which I did touch and speak to? The GHOST enters. GHOST: Indeed, my son. SHAGGY: Zoinks! DAPHNE: Jenkies! GHOST: Mark them not. Thou hast neglected duty far too long. Shall this, my murderer, live on unharmed? Must I remain forever unavenged? SCOOBY and SHAGGY run away from the GHOST. SCOOBY, looking backward, runs into a tapestry, tearing it down. As a result, tapestries around the walls collapse, one surrounding the GHOST. GHOST: What? FRED: Good Osric, pray restrain that "ghost", That we may reach the bottom of the matter. Now let us see who truly walked tonight. FRED removes the helm and the disguise from the GHOST'S face. ALL: Tis Fortinbras! FRED: The valiant prince of Norway! FORTINBRAS: Indeed it is, and curses on you all! This Hamlet's father brought my own to death, And cost me all my rightful heritage. And so I killed this king, and hoped his son Would prove no obstacle to Norway's crown. Then Claudius bethought himself the killer (As if one might be poisoned through the ear!) The brother, not the son, took Denmark's throne, And held to Norway with a tighter grip. I swore an end to Denmark's royal house. I spoke to Hamlet of his uncle's crimes. Then killed Polonius to spark Laertes. This day, with poison's aid, all might have died, And Denmark might have come to me as well As my beloved Norway and revenge. My scheme blinded them all, as if by fog But for these medd'ling kids and this their dog. KING: The villain stands confessed. Now let us go. For much remains to us to be discussed. And suitable reward must needs be found For these, our young detectives and their hound. EXEUNT OMNES. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 09:23:14 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0328 Re: Page and Stage, including Marina [Was Rosalind and Celia] The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0328. Thursday, 7 March 1997. [1] From: David Skeele Date: Thursday, 6 Mar 1997 14:27:37 -0500 Subj: Re: Rosalind and Celia; The Tempest [2] From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 06 Mar 1997 15:30 ET Subj: SHK 8.032 Re: Homosexuality; Ro [3] From: Scott Croizer Date: Friday, 7 Mar 1997 14:38:07 +1100 Subj: Re: Mann's Remarks [4] From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Friday, 07 Mar 97 13:30:00 GMT Subj: Marina [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Thursday, 6 Mar 1997 14:27:37 -0500 Subject: Re: Rosalind and Celia; The Tempest Re: Mark Mann's Comments: Thank you for clarifying your position, but I still feel you are speaking in unsupportable generalities. You still arrogantly insist that you have a some sort of direct pipeline to "what is on the page"-that you have an innate understanding of "the story Shakespeare wrote." There are (at the very least) hundreds of ways of interpreting every scene, and every story contains hundreds of possible stories, all with different nuances (and in some cases sharp divergences) of meaning, all of which can be supported by a close reading of the text. You cannot claim primacy for your interpretation based on what "works on the stage," either. Whether or not something can be made to work on the stage has almost as much to do with your own particular strengths and shortcomings as a director, the cast with whom you are working, the audience you are directing for, the space you are using, etc., as it does with the particular words on the page. Thus you cannot use the fact that YOU found no use for homoeroticism between Celia and Rosalind as evidence that it should be kept out of a different director's production. Try seeing the production first, and then decide if it is appropriate or inappropriate-you may find that "Shakespeare wrote" things you had never previously suspected were there. I know that when I go to see Shakespeare performed, it is my devoutest wish that I will find such new insights. Incidentally, I also speak from the vantage point of a director, and I am also profoundly concerned with what "works on stage." Like you, I often end up dismissing mountains of literary criticism as unhelpful when preparing a production, but I find I can never dismiss all of it. Out of some of the most ethereal and rigorously theorized material may sometimes come brilliant insights that end up being eminently stageworthy. But when I do find that one of these insights is both revelatory and supported by the text, I do not turn around and attack most other interpretations as not being what Shakespeare wrote-I realize that, thankfully, there remains a multitude of equally well-supported possibilities from which future directors may choose. I think that in a sense we are not that far apart in opinion here. The problem, I think we both agree, is one of ill-conceived, unresonant, restrictive, simplistic directorial ideas diminishing the possible power of a Shakespeare production. Where you err is in your self-righteous claim to knowledge of Shakespeare's mind and intent, and your close-mindedness about the possibility that another director might change your opinion. I do not suggest that all readings are equally permissible, only that you cast your net a bit wider when considering alternatives to your favorite interpretation (also that you recognize that your interpretation is, in fact, an interpretation). Incidentally, I don't really see how one of the above-mentioned directors can truly be said to "inflict damage." They may waste your money and your time, but nothing has been done to the text. In fact, nothing has even been done to your PERCEPTION of the text that can't be wiped away by the next better production you see. Anyway, thanks again for your response. David Skeele [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 06 Mar 1997 15:30 ET Subject: SHK 8.032 Re: Homosexuality; Ro Will Mark Mann accept distinctions among It Won't Play and I/We Don't Know How to Make it Play and I/We Don't Want to Make it Play? A case in point is distaste for the "action Hamlet," given that in his view it is his inaction that drives everything, as though the text did not give us a Hamlet who is quite active-being mad north northwest, probing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, mocking Polonius, producing and rewriting the Mousetrap, reeducating Ophelia, chastising his mother, killing Polonius, arranging for the deaths of R. and G., challenging Laertes' for the Deep Grief Prize: arguably emphasizing the one point on which, to be sure, he is inactive, his failure to murder Claudius, by being distinctly active, even hyperactive, on every other front, when he could, after all, just lie around staring at the wall. I think it'll play. Actively, Dave Evett [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Croizer Date: Friday, 7 Mar 1997 14:38:07 +1100 Subject: Re: Mann's Remarks In reply to Mark Mann's consternation about the influence of theory on performance and the need for the primacy of the practitioner's interpretation, surely Granville Barker's Prefaces, which in their own time were detailed and perceptive works, are now out moded by both time and performance practice. Or might he be suggesting that performances should remain constructed by early 20th century principles ... or 19th century principles ... or Elizabethan principles of acting and production? Regards, Scott Crozier [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Friday, 07 Mar 97 13:30:00 GMT Subject: Marina Robert O'Connor finds it 'hard to imagine a performance of _Pericles_ in which she would come across as anything but puritanical'. Why is it puritanical not to want to be detained in a brothel against your will, and not to want to sleep with the men who assume that they can buy you there? Lisa Hopkins Sheffield Hallam University L.M.Hopkins@shu.ac.uk ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 09:36:15 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0329 An Original One Person Shakespeare Show The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0329. Thursday, 7 March 1997. From: Fredric Stone Date: Thursday, 6 Mar 1997 15:45:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: An Original One Person Shakespeare Show To Hardy Cook, Louis Marder suggested I contact you to help spread the word about this new show entitled Will and Testament (a life after death comedy) written by Fredric Stone and William Shakespeare and performed by acclaimed Chicago actor, Fredric Stone. Louis saw the show recently and recommends it highly.The theatre performance incorporates a dozen Shakespeare selections/monologues from a wide variety of plays. Set in Heaven, this contemporary fantasy follows a modern day actor attempting to get into a new company in Heaven, directed by the Bard and produced byGod. God and Shakespeare are characters on audiotape. I tour this play around the country. I was invited last Spring to perform it at the World Shakespeare Congress in Los Angeles. My next performances are: March 11 and 12 (10am) and March 12 (8pm) at Southeast Missouri State University in Cape Girardeau, MO. I continue to book the show year round. I have a website for the show that I thought you could pass on to your membership. http://members.tripod.com/fstoneact/w_t.html I also can provide written materials, brochures and packets for anyone interested in bringing the show to their performance facility. Please let me know if you can help in any way to let people know about the show. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Thanks for your time. Sincerely, Fred Stone (Will and Testament Productions) 773-334-4196 fstoneact@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 09:46:13 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0330 Qs: Road Warrior - Danish version; New Riverside The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0330. Thursday, 7 March 1997. [1] From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Thursday, 6 Mar 1997 00:50:42 -0900 Subj: Road Warrior - Danish version [2] From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Thursday, 6 Mar 1997 15:09:34 -0500 Subj: The New Riverside and New Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Thursday, 6 Mar 1997 00:50:42 -0900 Subject: Road Warrior - Danish version I realize this topic may have been chewed on in the past, but I am new to the forum. Upon finishing Hamlet with my HS seniors, they chose the "Mel Gibson" Hamlet over several others (Derek Jacobi, Olivier, Williamson) to watch in class (for all the obvious wrong reasons). What is the critical opinion of this version as an interpretation of Hamlet? The kids seem to love it. Mike Sirofchuck Kodiak HS [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Thursday, 6 Mar 1997 15:09:34 -0500 Subject: The New Riverside and New Shakespeare I hope this isn't old territory. I noticed the new Riverside in the = bookstore and saw that they had included the Elegy *and* that they had = included Edward III. Concerning the latter, I was curious by whom they = were persuaded. Was it Eric Sams (thinking of his latest book) or does = this decision go back to Muir and others. If it was Sams, I wonder now = at the status of Edmund Ironside. Also, I had only time for a brief = look, did they add anything else? And on a related subject: Are the older King Lear and King John = seriously being touted as Shakespeare's and if so, on what grounds or to = whom and where should I look for material? If this is an old subject, = send to me privately. I don't want to bore anyone. - Patrick ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 10:17:13 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0331 Re: Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0331. Saturday, 8 March 1997. [1] From: Joanne Woolway Date: Friday, 7 Mar 1997 15:13:00 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0324 Re: Ideology [2] From: Heather Stephenson Date: Friday, 7 Mar 1997 09:52:16 U Subj: Ideology [3] From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Friday, 7 Mar 1997 12:57:36 -0500 Subj: Ideology [4] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Friday, 07 Mar 1997 12:09:42 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0324 Re: Ideology [5] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Friday, 07 Mar 1997 12:13:49 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0324 Re: Ideology [6] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Friday, 7 Mar 1997 21:54:01 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0324 Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Woolway Date: Friday, 7 Mar 1997 15:13:00 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0324 Re: Ideology Louis Marder wrote, = > Colleagues: How about a movement to" Let Shakespeare Alone" All the > late isms, feminist ideas, Afro-American criticism, post this and post > that and post-post something else is hogwash. Shakespeare took and mad= e > the Moors, self-serving women, bed-tricking women, [ . . . .] and what= ever else you may care to name > because he wanted to write a good play and what he did worked in its > context. What you would have done, or what you think he should have > done, or how his environment affected him is immaterial to the play. = This is to miss the point. Okay, Shakespeare works dramatically, but criticism isn't just about appreciating Shakespeare's 'artistry' or 'greatness.' I don't deny that I think it's often there, but that's a personal opinion, not a "given" of criticism. = The point is that the plays don't exist in a cultural or historical vacuum - either when they were first performed or now. This opens up all kinds of possibilities for writing about Shakespeare that take us beyond the rather simplistic assertion that "what he did worked." = Richard II, for example, looks like a very different play in the context of sixteenth-century debates about divine right than it does taken simply (if that's possible) as a chronicle of a fourteenth-century king. Lear's division of the kingdoms isn't so isolated from early seventeenth-century events that we don't at least consider James' uniting of England and Scotland in this discussion of power and nationhood. There are many more examples . . . As for Shakespeare now - of course his writing intersects at some level with modern philosophical and ethical concerns. Think especially of the performance and institutionalized study of Shakespeare in countries like South Africa and what that says about culture and colonialism. I heard a story told by a Shakespearean actress about a production of Othello done recently in South Africa (with an entirely black cast). This caused all kinds of debate about why Shakespeare should be performed at all in these circumstances. = > Footnotes clear up the language, but your personal interpretations are > just that albeit it shows you to be a scholar - which is the true reaso= n > that many write. Write what you please, but let Shakespeare's brains, > plots, and characters alone. Shakespeare has inspired many critics, > but, regardless of what you write, what you say will not change a jot > of the plays = Who said that we wanted to change them? How do you know what is in Shakespeare's brains? None of us has a direct line to Shakespeare to ask him what he "meant." And even if we did, this wouldn't be the point. This isn't about finding the "one true meaning" and then discarding any modern critique which doesn't fit in with the accepted view that our direct line to Shakespeare has told us must prevail. Surely it's obvious that texts generate discussion which varies according to the time and place of that discussion and that this in itself is an interesting phenomenon. Meanings are generated each time a text is read, taught, or performed. Not necessarily authorial meanings, though it's hard to make distinctions given the pleasure we see authors such as Shakespeare and Spenser taking in ambiguity and ambivalence or language, but still meanings that have some kind of cultural value and which lead us on to further debate. >If this be error and upon me proved...cast your slings and arrows at me.= >Shakespeare will defend me. = Clearly, the need to have Shakespeare on the side of one's ideological position and personal taste prevails today. Isn't this a case of "I am right, you have an opinion, and they have an ideology?" Joanne Woolway emls@english.ox.ac.uk [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Heather Stephenson Date: Friday, 7 Mar 1997 09:52:16 U Subject: Ideology Louis Marder writes: >"What you would have done, or what you think he should have >done, or how his environment affected him is immaterial to the play." Since these are plays and are meant to be PLAYED (still), "what [I] would have done" and how environment "plays" into this seems to be perhaps the only truly material thing about the entire situation. By saying that Shakespeare did what he did for the purposes of his plots, you are placing more import on his intentions and environment than the most devout New Historian. Yes -- trials and plays are media events. They are entertainment. But they are entertaining in a context -- a context which now includes this arguing over ideology, this search for material influence, this interpreting and "post-post something else"-ing. = = I don't think that this ideology discussion is seeking to answer "why" Shakespeare did what he did. The value of this discussion is rather to ferret out why WE do what we do with Shakespeare. Thank god Hamlet = didn't kill Claudius earlier -- it leaves us many more acts in which to seek out and insert ideological interpretations. I, for one, would find this world of words and plays (especially this list) an incredibly dull place if we were all to let Shakespeare's "brains, plots and characters" alone. What do you propose we discuss instead? Cheers, Heather Stephenson PS -- Mr. Egan, et al: the "Ideology" digest is easily my favorite part of this list (and as a "former" scholar recently thrust into the business world, a welcome part of my otherwise non-theoretical day...) = As one who generally "skulks" silently on this list, I have truly enjoyed the debates. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Friday, 7 Mar 1997 12:57:36 -0500 Subject: Ideology Paul Hawkins refers darkly to a 'sinful interpretation of a work of literature'. Is it true that in Canada such efforts normally receive the grade 'S', inscribed in scarlet? = T. Hawkes = [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Friday, 07 Mar 1997 12:09:42 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0324 Re: Ideology > Several respondents defend the right of students to develop racist, > sexist, disablist, or homophobic arguments. > = > Sean Lawrence writes > = > > Even if I were to concede that _certain_ limits have > > to be placed on student interests in order to allow > > the class as dialogue to come into beingness, this is > > not to say that aesthetic responses are not to be > > respected, as a part of the project of engaging with > > and respecting other people. > = > Certainly at the level of 'dialogue coming into being' one has to > prevent racist, sexist, disablist and homophobic opinions being accorde= d > equal status with other ideas in the classroom. If not people who are > routinely discriminated against outside the classroom will find that th= e > same goes on inside and that they are still marginalized. Both my > employer and my trade union have clear guidelines about this sort of > thing, which cannot be circumvented by claiming that the ideas are part= > of an individual's "aesthetic response". This is quite a different matter you're raising. Hiding a racist response behind the mask of aesthetics is quite different and more complex from saying "Shakespeare is beautiful," which, I think, is closer to the case which Paul was hypostatizing. In the case that someone said that "Shakespeare hates Jews, therefore is beautiful," more than one principle applies: the respect for another's views that should allow for an aesthetic response, and the need to limit certain points of view in order to allow discourse to come into beingness. Since my goal in "respecting" students is to allow dialogue to come into being, then I would have to foreclose discussion, or give the student a chance to rephrase their question in a way which would more constructively engage the rest of the class. = This is a simple matter of classic social contract theory: all freedom is no freedom, but anarchy, so freedom can exist only within a framework of the rule of law (or control of class discussion, as the case may be). This is how we avoid either entertaining fascist ideas, or becoming what Professor Drakakis unfortunately terms a "liberal Stalinist." In fact, I would say that the way in which you've managed to direct this thread is all more or less tertiary. The rest of us are discussing whether aesthetic responses ought to be tolerated in a classroom. = You're making an unnecessary association from "aesthetic" to "racist" in order to displace the issue. Even were we to unanimously agree that racism should be wholly banned, by law of the state or by fiat of the instructor, we would still not necessarily agree that no-one should express an interest in beauty. I'm sure Paul can answer for himself, but I can't resist the following: > Wouldn't a Jewish student who found The Merchant of Venice offensive, > and found that other students in the room expressed the view that it wa= s > an accurate portrayal of Jewish greed, feel distinctly reluctant to hav= e > "a good class discussion" if the blatantly racist view was accorded > equal status by the teacher? Actually, no, I wouldn't say that. Getting offended is what motivates one to wish to enter into discourse. I spent a few months when I should have been working on my thesis challenging extremely right-wing views on the newsgroup alt.politics.org.un. I would not have bothered had the forum been less inflammatory. So where to draw the line in order to encourage discussion is not a matter that one can decide except contingently and in a particular situation. > Unless racist, homophobic, sexist, and disablist views are challenged i= n > the classroom, conversation does not continue since the victims of > discrimination and abuse are unlikely to feel empowered to challenge th= e > received ideas. But likewise, couldn't the racist feel shut out enough to simply label the entire forum "PC" (to borrow an unfortunate phrase) and not be challenged by it any longer? In other words, couldn't the experience of censorship merely deepen racist convictions? On the whole, I found Professor Drakakis's to be a welcome insertion into our discourse, but I disagreed on a few points: > I think Paul Hawkins' contribution raises a crucial point: when, and > under what conditions, does, and/or should, the "liberal" teacher stop > being liberal? The difficulty is that the issue can't simply be > sidestepped by invoking "aesthetics" as an escape hatch. I don't mean > to suggest that aesthetics is simply ideology in disguise, but it is th= e > case that the two are linked. I would have to say that the situation is the inverse of that which you have described: when, and if, should a "liberal" instructor deny his or her students the right to express interest in the beauty of a work? The difficulty of the issue can't simply be sidestepped as invoking "racism" as an escape hatch. Yes, we should at least partially control racist discourse. No, we should not delimit a students' interest in the aesthetic. Yes, these two principles may come into conflict in some situations. But so what? The study of ethics consists of negotiating between conflicting principles. > Also Gabriel Egan's and Sean Lawrence's suggestions that teachers take > heed of the paying customers (what used to be called "students"), and > that in Lawrence's case, their "wishes" should be "respected" (whatever= > that means), seems to me equally to be caught in ideology. What both > Hawkins and Lawrence and Egan seem to want to argue for is a third > position: in one case outside politics and ideology (Hawkins) where the= > formal questions of aesthetics override any other considerations; in th= e > other (Egan, and possibly Lawrence) the third position, that of critiqu= e > which implies that they can get out of ideology but no-one else can. > This is a residually Atlthusserian position which emanates from the > assertion that there is a value-free "science" of, say, the literary > text, which is accessible to critique. But unfortunately Lawrence give= s > the game away when he invokes "respect" for the wishes of his students > within what is a capitalist economy of knowledge exchange. I don't see the connection you are trying to make between "respect" and a "capitalist economy of knowledge exchange". I respect you and Gabriel, but I am paying neither of you. I think that the UNHCR should "respect" the wish of people not to return to their homes, although they're not paying customers. I don't get it, frankly. I presume, on the basis of > what he has just said, that if it was argued with sufficient passion an= d > conviction then Lawrence would change his own view? If he tells me tha= t > it would not, then I would have to ask him to divulge the criteria upon= > which his resistance might be based. = The criteria would be that the views expressed threaten the liberal construct within which, and only within which, ideology can be discussed at all. My wish to allow discussion and to limit those views which would threaten it are at one. Cheers, Sean. [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Friday, 07 Mar 1997 12:13:49 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0324 Re: Ideology > Please, by all means, do tell, what exactly is "naive feminism"? I had no particular point of view in mind when I made that statement, merely wishing to indicate that I would fault naivet=E9 even if it was associated with a point of view with which I personally agree. = My use of the phrase is not meant to assert that feminism is by definition naive, but merely that it is as liable as any other view to an expression which is also naive. Cheers, Sean. [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Friday, 7 Mar 1997 21:54:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0324 Re: Ideology Gabriel Egan writes, "the question was about `response' as something separate from the power structure of mediation of texts which we call English Studies. I hope my comments have indicated that I find the separation specious." The simple question that I asked cannot be glossed in this way. = Instead, it was as follows: can an individual student "love" Shakespeare (by which I mean appreciate what that individual might take to be the aesthetic power of the texts, allowing that the experience is individual, and the precise meaning of the experience as variable as there are individuals) and perform ideological criticism; or would their love of the literature have to be lost as they acquired skill in the other art? I assume that it is possible to do both (love literature and be an ideological critic). If so, then I have no argument with my learned opponents. John Drakakis writes, "I don't mean to suggest that aesthetics is simply ideology, but *it is the case that the two are linked*" (italics mine). What I am saying is that *it is the case that the two are not linked*, but this doesn't mean we necessarily disagree. The two are linked in some way, and the two are not linked in some way. Paul Hawkins ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 10:34:01 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0332 Re: Salic; Ghosts; Gibson; A Lover; Critics; Cordelia/Fool The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0332. Saturday, 8 March 1997. [1] From: David H. Maruyama Date: Friday, 7 Mar 1997 09:33:45 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0323 Re: Salic Law [2] From: Gwenette Gaddis Date: Friday, 07 Mar 97 12:02:00 EST Subj: Shakespeare's Ghosts [3] From: Billy Houck Date: Friday, 7 Mar 1997 13:13:29 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0330 Qs: Road Warrior - Danish version [4] From: David Lindley Date: Friday, 7 Mar 1997 17:35:43 GMT Subj: Re: RE: A Lover and his Lass [5] From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Friday, 7 Mar 1997 12:09:37 -0500 Subj: Rosalind and Celia [6] From: Brian Turner Date: Saturday, 8 Mar 1997 22:37:20 +1300 Subj: Re: Cordelia and the Fool [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David H. Maruyama Date: Friday, 7 Mar 1997 09:33:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0323 Re: Salic Law In regards to Salic Law, it is made expressly clear I think in the text that the French are using it as an excuse to deny an inheritance of land in France. They do not follow their own excuse. In the long argument to convince Henry, Canterbury states that: 'No woman shall succeed in Salic Land' Which Salic land the French unjustly gloze To be the realm of France and Paramond The founder of this law and female bar. Yet their own authors faithfully affirm That the land Salic is in Germany, Between the floods of sala and of Elbe. Salic law applies in Germany not in France, according to the argument being presented by Canterbury. Salic law applies to the lands in Germany "between the floods of Sala and of Elbe." France has nothing to do with it. Henry's claim is not based on Salic law but rather the absence of the applicability of Salic law. Canterbury also notes further that the French don't follow Salic law either. d maruyama [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gwenette Gaddis Date: Friday, 07 Mar 97 12:02:00 EST Subject: Shakespeare's Ghosts Sean K. Kelly asked: >Is anyone able to share instances where they have found the >ghosts of Shakespeare to have influenced a work of group of works >to any great extent. When I was in grad school, I was fascinated by numerous allusions to Macbeth in Richard Marius' _The Coming of Rain_. I had a chance to talk with the author when he visited my college campus, and, although we had a heated debate about some things I objected to in his book (don't ask), we had a quite agreeable discussion about Shakespeare's influence on his work. I've often wondered if his other books reflect that influence, but I have not read his other works. >I would also hope that others might choose to discuss their own thoughts >on the importance of the ghosts of Shakespeare. I feel that Shakespeare's ghosts usually serve the purpose of providing information that the audience needs in order to understand the action, but it's information that the main characters don't know or can't provide. The apparitions invoked by the weird sisters, for example, seem more credible than they would if the sisters merely made verbal predictions. And Hamlet's father's ghost provides information that Hamlet couldn't discover anywhere else - you don't expect Claudius to confess, do you? And, to some extent, I think the ghosts are sometimes just for dramatic effect. The information conveyed in Lady Macbeth's sleepwalking routine could just as easily have been conveyed to the audience using an apparition (Lady M seeing an apparition of bloody hands), but that had already been done several times in the play. At this point, I think it's just a different dramatic technique. (I realize that I'm using the terms "ghost" and "apparition" interchangeably here, and some of you may disagree with that. I'm approaching this question from the idea that both ghosts and apparitions are supernatural, unreal, intangible.) Gwenette Gaddis ggaddis@idgbooks.com [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Friday, 7 Mar 1997 13:13:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0330 Qs: Road Warrior - Danish version I'm concerned about the phrase "for all the wrong reasons..." How wrong could a reason be if the end result is that the kids dig Hamlet? It's only a movie. My personal problem with Mel is that he looks too old to have just come from college. This especially bothers my high school students, who are very age-sensitive. One recently told me thay thought Claire Danes looked too old to play Juliet. Billy Houck Arroyo Grande High School [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Friday, 7 Mar 1997 17:35:43 GMT Subject: Re: RE: A Lover and his Lass; The setting mentioned by David Mycoff is by Gerald Finzi (not Finza), and is one of the songs in his Shakespearean cycle 'Let Us Garlands Bring' - which contains a number of fine settings, especially, perhaps, that of the 'Dirge' from Cymbeline. David Lindley University of Leeds [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Friday, 7 Mar 1997 12:09:37 -0500 Subject: Rosalind and Celia Actually this is regarding Mark Mann's frustrations, not AYLI In 1963 in a guest lecture at Stratford Ont and Artistic Director Michael Langham walked to the edge of the Festival stage and almost spat out the word" critics". His challenge then was to the distinguished critics ( who were there with students and the general public) to do something useful to help him direct Shakespeare. The discipline has changed substantially since then but I do understand Mr Mann's frustrations - which is why I find the discussion on the staging of Shakespeare in this forum so useful. A PS - in our university, there are two courses on Shakespeare taught- one by the English department and one by the Theatre and Dramatic Literature programmes in what amounts to a fine arts department. Both are valuable - and very different. Mary Jane Miller, Brock University, [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Turner Date: Saturday, 8 Mar 1997 22:37:20 +1300 Subject: Re: Cordelia and the Fool Syd Kasten in SHK 8.0167. >In Act 4 scene iii in which a gentleman describes Cordelia reading a letter, >presumably from Kent and uttering comments that imply the events of the >expulsion of Lear are new to her: "What, i'the storm? i'the night? Let pity not >be believed!" >However, this raises another question. A.W. Verity, editor of my high school >edition credits Bradley with "the acute criticism that there is no other >character in Shakespeare who, appearing so little and speaking so little, makes >so profound an impression". Surely the author could have found a way giving >Cordelia a few more lines to show her state of mind without damaging her image >of strength. Instead he gave them to an anonymous third party just as he did >with the Fools introduction. If 4,iii is omitted as in the folio version >there is no problem. In the following scene when the messenger tells her of >the state of her sisters' forces, her answer "T'is known before" refers to the >information she has gathered herself. With the previous scene in place we can, >according to the standard reading, take her to be referring to the contents of >Kent's letter. But why not have her read the letter to us? The answer is, as I >suggested in the previous posting, she is just finishing her costume change and >isn't available. I'm sorry about taking so long to respond to the above posting however I had thought that those with a little more advantage of study than myself might have been able to resolve this. So I had to think about it. The questions are: Why is Cordelia's part so short? Why was that funny little scene included in the quarto and cut in the folio? (I indicated previously that a costume change would be an unlikely reason.) A careful analysis of Cordelia's lines is quite revealing. (I utilised electronic selection.) She has about thirty speeches, none more than thirteen lines, most much shorter. The most significant aspect is the simplicity of the writing. There is very little of the complexity of construction that is frequently found in Shakespeare. The thought struck me that he was writing for an inexperienced actor. As we know, Shakespeare was writer in residence for a stable company of players, and it is quite likely that he had actors in mind for most of the parts during script development. We also know that women were not permitted on the stage in Elizabethan times and the female parts were taken by boys. Hence, naturally, the actors taking female roles would have less experience than those taking male roles. (Shakespeare wrote marvellous parts for women yet one wonders what he might have achieved had actresses been available.) The other problem with boy actors is that they tend to grow up quite fast, so there would be a high turnover and, consequently times when the boy actors were untrained. I believe that Shakespeare may well have written the part of Cordelia for a new boy who was appointed to replace a boy actor who became too old to play female parts. The parts of Goneril and Regan are longer and written with greater complexity of phrase and are obviously meant for more experienced actors. Why then was the part of Cordelia allocated to the least experienced actor? I could guess perhaps because Cordelia was the youngest. Also Goneril and Regan are nasty pieces of work and it requires greater skill to be nasty on stage than it does to be nice. The purpose of act 4, scene iii would then be to develop the character of Cordelia without her having to appear on stage. Perhaps the young lad was not capable of 'emotional expressiveness'. The scene does not exist in the folio and, if this represents a revision of the quarto, as many critics assert, it is probable that Shakespeare removed it when he found from experience that the play worked quite well without it or it may have been that the new lad had developed acting skills in the meantime. Syd's thesis was that the Fool was Cordelia in disguise. Looking at the lines of the Fool I get the impression that they were written for an experienced actor, perhaps one who could sing and play the lute, and the tradition that they were for Robert Armin agrees with this. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 10:42:51 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0333 Qs: Polonius; LLW The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0333. Saturday, 8 March 1997. [1] From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Friday, 7 Mar 1997 16:43:01 -0800 (PST) Subj: Polonius as a source of worldly (un)wisdom [2] From: Gabriel Z. Wasserman Date: Thursday, 06 Mar 1997 19:12:57 -0500 Subj: Love's Labour's Won [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Friday, 7 Mar 1997 16:43:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Polonius as a source of worldly (un)wisdom I am puzzled about the line of Polonius' advice to Laertes: "to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man." This used to seem to me to be good advice. Now I am not so sure. Polonius seems to be an example of the servant without principle, whose only values concern how to get on in this world. "Neither a lender nor a borrower be," for instance, may be good, worldly advice, but it is also directly contradictory to the teaching of Christ, with which Shakespeare's audience can be presumed to have been familiar. Does anyone know any treatments of these lines, or Polonius' speech to Laertes, or of the character of Polonius, that I might profitably (not in a worldly sense) consult? Roger Schmeeckle [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Z. Wasserman Date: Thursday, 06 Mar 1997 19:12:57 -0500 Subject: Love's Labour's Won I am fascinated with LLW. Here is all the information I know about it: In Palladis Tamia, Wit's Treasury, Francis Meres writes the following: As Plautus and Seneca are accounted the best for Comedy and Tragedy among the Latines : so Shakespeare among ye English is the most excellent in both kinds for the stage; for Comedy, witnes his Ge'tleme' of Verona, his Errors, his Loue labors lost, his Loue labours wonne, his Midsummer night dreame, & his Merchant of Venice : for Tragedy his Richard the 2. Richard the 3. Henry the 4. King John, Titus Andronicus and his Romeo and Juliet. Hmm. Loues Labour's Lost is paired with Love's Labour's Won, so LLW is probably the sequel to LLL. Many candidates haue been proposed including *Much Ado* by H. H. Furness in his superb New Variorum Shakespeare, *As You Like It*, *The Tempest* (a ridiculous idea, considering the fact that it hadn't yet been written in 1598), *The Taming of the Shrew*... But wait a minute. In 1953 a booksellers list was found listing items that had been sold. The "Drama section" went something like this [no, I don't haue it in front of me] A kite for Hawk catching No kite For Hawke catching Euery man in His Humour The Taming of a Shrew Loues Labour's Lost Loues Labour's Wonne Dr Faustus I'm sorry if my reconstruction is miserable, which I know it is, but it's all I could do. The mention of it (STILL PAIRED WITH *LLL*) causes the editors of the Oxford edition of Shakespeare to believe that it was printed: a reasonable assumption. However, they think that this is proof that *LLW* is NOT *the taming of THE Shrew*: after all, they reason, *The taming of the Shrew* is already mentioned in the list. However, it actually isn't--*The Taming of *A* Shrew* is. No, I don't believe that *A Shrew* is a memorial reconstuction of *The Shrew*, nor do I believe it to be a source, or an analogue-I believe it to be an earlier Shakespeare play. But that is irrelevant to our discussion. Furness's argument is very persuasive, and is based mainly on comparisons between Berowne {bih-roon} (or Biron, or what you will) and Beadick, as well as between Rosaline and Benetrice. I know that you all know this, but I wanted to put it all in writing in order to start a conversation. Your honour's all in duty, Gabriel Z. Wasserman Post Scriptum: I believe *LLW* to be a lost play of Shakespeare's. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 13:40:56 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0334 Re: Desdemona's Guilt The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0334. Monday, 10 March 1997. [1] From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Saturday, 8 Mar 1997 10:40:10 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0326 Re: Desdemona's Guilt [2] From: Kathy Acheson Date: Sunday, 09 Mar 1997 18:05:58 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0326 Re: Desdemona's Guilt [3] From: John Boni Date: Saturday, 8 Mar 1997 14:38:29 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0326 Re: Desdemona's Guilt [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Saturday, 8 Mar 1997 10:40:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0326 Re: Desdemona's Guilt Desdemona is an "abused" wife who no doubt feels it is her fault that OJ killed her. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathy Acheson Date: Sunday, 09 Mar 1997 18:05:58 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0326 Re: Desdemona's Guilt It may be a mistake to see Des as a 'character'-maybe she's just there to sop up everything else that happens, like Ophelia. But should we try to do so, we might see her as acting out that transition between dynastic and affective marriage, finding (in negotiations for Cassio/power role + love with Othello/love role) that she has best of both worlds-then, finding no support (all the guys, including Daddy, but also Emilia), crumples: I'm not here anymore. We tend to assume that social transitions, such as that between dynastic and affective marriage in the aristocracy, occurred between generations, but it appears to have been agonizingly acted out by many women of that period in much this way. Kathy Acheson [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Saturday, 8 Mar 1997 14:38:29 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0326 Re: Desdemona's Guilt That Desdemona rejected the "wealthy curled darlings of our nation," a choice which baffles her father, testifies to her independence, as does her narration (and Othello's) of the development of their love. On the other hand, when she is confronted by Othello in his righteous (but not right) anger, she tells us, "I am a child to chiding." In a sense, the very strength and energy she admired in Othello the exotic warrior is overwhelming in Othello the husband verbally assaulting her. She turns back to her Christian upbringing. When Othello screams at her, "Are you not a whore?" She responds, "No, as I am a Christian"; and later, "No, as I shall be saved," (My quotations from memory may be a bit off, but they make the point.) Imagine, if you will, Emilia responding to such a falsehood. As in so many of the women in Shakespeare's tragedies, Desdemona is realized to evoke pathos but not heroism. Finally, she is in a situation which overwhelms her. John M. Boni ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 13:50:25 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0335 Re: Polonius' Precepts The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0335. Monday, 10 March 1997. = [1] From: Joseph Tate Date: Saturday, 8 Mar 1997 08:44:49 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0333 Qs: Polonius = [2] From: Robert F. O'Connor = Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 14:38:31 +1000 = Subj: Re: SHK 8.0333 Qs: Polonius = [3] From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Sunday, 09 Mar 1997 00:20:54 -0500 Subj: Polonius' Precepts = [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Tate Date: Saturday, 8 Mar 1997 08:44:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0333 Qs: Polonius Roger, See Alan Fisher's essay on Polonius entitled "Shakespeare's Last Humanist." It's an interesting read and gets at some of the same topics you're wondering about. I don't have the publication info handy, but a quick search in the MLA biblio will find it. You're right though, Polonius may not be the sweet old fellow we've assumed he is, although I doubt he's the devil that Branagh makes him out to be. I'd argue he's somewhere in between, like most worried parents. But, Fisher's essay should definitely help. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert F. O'Connor = Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 14:38:31 +1000 = Subject: Re: SHK 8.0333 Qs: Polonius = Howdy again! Roger Schmeeckle wrote: >I am puzzled about the line of Polonius' advice to Laertes: "to thine >own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst >not then be false to any man." I am sure that Laertes was puzzled too, and most of the productions I have seen have had him play it so. >This used to seem to me to be good advice. Now I am not so sure. >Polonius seems to be an example of the servant without principle, whose >only values concern how to get on in this world. "Neither a lender nor >a borrower be," for instance, may be good, worldly advice, but it is >also directly contradictory to the teaching of Christ, with which >Shakespeare's audience can be presumed to have been familiar. I have to say I think you have hit it on the head by saying that Polonius is 'without principle' - he is - as far as I am concerned - not alone in this deficiency among the residents of Elsinore. But I would contend further that you are throwing yourself off course by looking for some consistency with Christian teachings in anything Polonius - or any other character in the play - says. Yes, there are numerous references to Saint Patrick, Purgatory and other aspects of Christian theology (to say nothing of the dissatisfaction with Ophelia's funeral), but I don't think that the action of the play can be firmly set within a Christian milieu. I think it was Robert Reed who suggested that the plays took place over a kind of theological cusp between paganism and Christianity, or at the very least Catholicism and Protestantism. My own inclination has always been towards seeing the ethical atmosphere of Elsinore as rather more Old Testament, eye-for-an-eye, than New Testament turn-the-other-cheek. Rob O'Connor [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Sunday, 09 Mar 1997 00:20:54 -0500 Subject: Polonius' Precepts The short answer to Roger Schmeeckle might be a suggestion to look up the survey of commentary in the 1877 Furness *New Variorum HAMLET*. It contains a variety of responses that are similar to those we are collecting for the current NV project. Below are some comments from the new variorum in progress-- 523 these fewe precepts] Critics have considered whether Polonius's maxims be moral or venial, whether they fit or do not fit Polonius' character. [STUBBS] (1736, p. 20) argues that the moment before the precepts cannot be comedic considering "the whole Tenour of this Scene, with the grave and excellent Instructions which it contains, from Polonius to Laertes, and from both to Ophelia. It is impossible that any Buffoonery could be here intended, to make void and insignificant so much good Sense expressed in the true Beauties of Poetry." On the other hand, CAPELL (1779-83 [1774] 1:1:124) values the scene's mixed style: " It has been observ'd, (but where, is not remember'd at present) that the 'precepts' are much too good for the speaker. . . ." CAPELL agrees with others that Polonius may have "con'd" them and that once the lesson is over "we are regal'd with a style very different, and flowers of speech is his way. . . ." While offering no opinion on their suitability to the dramatic occasion, GENTLEMAN (ed. 1773), regretting the omission in performance, thinks the lines "deserve attention in public, and perusal in private." HUDSON (1848) finds Polonius incapable of learning anything true about human nature from the maxims he has conned (2:117): "coming from Polonius, they seem but the extraction and quintescence of Chesterfieldism, of which the first and great commandment is, act and speak to conceal, not to express thy thoughts, and avoid to do any thing that may injure thyself. . . and if in this brief abstract of policy he sprinkles a few elements of manly honour and generosity, it is only to make the compound more palatable to a young mind. . . (2:119). = 543 be true] HUDSON (1848, 2:120): "This precept, indeed, has sometimes been urged as redeeming the author from the utter baseness and selfishness which the rest of his conduct so plainly indicates: but to me it seems rather to confirm the view I have taken of him [see Polonius doc. in characters=83]; for it must obviously mean one of two things: either, be true to thine own heart, which is perhaps the best morality; or, be true to thine own interest, which is the worst morality: and all the rest of the character seems to warrant, if not require, the latter construction." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 13:56:23 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0336 Re: Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0336. Monday, 10 March 1997. [1] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Saturday, 8 Mar 1997 11:02:56 -0500 (EST) Subj: Ideology [2] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Saturday, 8 Mar 1997 16:50:44 -0500 (EST) Subj: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Saturday, 8 Mar 1997 11:02:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Ideology John Drakakis hopes that "we can . . . persuade Paul Hawkins that at least part of what he does and says isn't entirely available to what he takes to be his controlling consciousness." I have no such absolute confidence in my controlling consciousness. One can't possibly love Shakespeare, given the representation of consciousness in his plays, and have any naive faith in one's capacity for complete conscious control. Paul Hawkins [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Saturday, 8 Mar 1997 16:50:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Ideology Like Sean Lawrence, I have been struck by the redirection of this thread away from the discussion of aesthetic response. In answer to a question about whether an individual student's love of the literature need be destroyed in order that the student learn ideological criticism, Professor Hawkes wrote, "I confess I do occasionally aim to change the way my students think about literature. That's what I call education . . . ." I responded, with a smugness I now regret, "I aim to encourage my students to decide for themselves what they think about literature." Gabriel Egan responds, "But you set the questions"; then I say, actually in my class "anything goes as long as it can be developed and argued." And so began this part of the thread. Strictly speaking, whether or not I set questions, and what I ask my students to write for me, and what restrictions on the students I impose or the form of any course imposes, and how I deal with racist discourse in the classroom, are all irrelevant to the basic propositions with which we began. If I encourage my students to make up their own minds what they think about literature, and then allow them no opportunity to begin to try to do this within my course, I am certainly inconsistent. But Professor Hawkes's statement and my reply both referred to what the in-class experience was intended to produce in the student beyond the class. They were statements of pedagogical aim, and both were very different, and both need have nothing to do with what happens in the class in order merely that their worth as "aims" be examined. Professor Hawkes can set out to change his students' thinking, and fail, and actually succeed in something he never set out to do, encouraging them to think for themselves. I might set out to encourage my students to think for themselves, and fail, and make them all love Shakespeare as much as I do. Any course imposes certain limits on its students, limits of time and place and choice of texts and pace of study and limits on expression-some teachers may have to shut up the white supremacist in the back row because he never stops talking and is preventing other students from participating and the class from discussing the material in the widest possible way representative of the diverse interests of the individuals making up this group now; and some teachers may try to involve the white supremacist in discussion (perhaps not even knowing that she is one, because she has been all semester a sullen non-participant). One can spend an entire semester with a class and only learn on the last day that the shy guy in the back has brilliant psychoanalytic- feminist insights into the material, and you lament the missed opportunity to engage with these ideas more fully. That guy may go through life cursing that silly aesthetic teacher who wouldn't tolerate political approaches to the material, when in reality there might have been perfect tolerance, but for a complex of personal and institutional reasons a possible thrilling dialogue just never happened. I never suggested that teachers and courses impose no limits. Some teachers and courses will limit students more, some less. Some teachers set out to change their students' thinking, to convert them to a new belief about literature. Some teachers are indifferent to the idea of their students thinking like them, and are content or ecstatic when their students think *anything* originally and for themselves, even if it's a passionate and lucid "This play-all of Shakespeare, in fact-sucks for the following reasons . . . ." I don't really know how I am "hoist with . . . [my] own liberalism," as John Drakakis says. A racist argument, as any ideological argument, as any aesthetic argument, or any *any* kind of argument, can be opposed in any of the ways that any argument can be opposed: by questioning the definition of terms, by re-evaluating the evidence produced in support of the proposition, by introducing and examining other evidence, by interrogating and offering alternatives to the writer's assumptions, by questioning the argumentation. If these are simply "liberal rules," I'll welcome any suggested alternative (a mud fight?), but it seems to me that we're all now playing more- or-less by those same rules; where we disagree is at the level of first assumptions, and that's both healthy and invigorating. Maybe it's those assumptions that deserve more direct interrogation, and so I ask the following question. Is there any hard evidence that any enduring aesthetic category, stricture, or judgment of any really first-rate English language literary critic is specifically, irreducibly ideological? (I would define "ideological" as "bound up with the tissue of ideas that constitutes those superstructural phenomena necessary to the maintenance of the base economic relations at a particular historical moment"-this is my rephrasing of a definition Gabriel Egan offered some months ago, if memory serves) Dryden's judgment that Shakespeare possesses the largest and most comprehensive soul; Johnson's that Shakespeare pleases because of his just representations of general nature; Virginia Woolf's that Shakespeare's mind was incandescent; T.S. Eliot's that *Hamlet* is an artistic failure; Harold Bloom's that Shakespeare is the most central writer in our culture because his is the influence that no writer has overcome-these would be just a few of the kinds of judgments whose irreducibly ideological content I would be interested in seeing demonstrated. Paul Hawkins ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 15:32:10 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0337 Re: Branagh's "To be"; A Lover and his Lass; LLW; WT The Shakespeare Conference: . Monday, 10 March 1997. [1] From: Tom Sullivan Date: Saturday, 08 Mar 1997 13:12:21 -0600 Subj: Branagh's "To be" [2] From: David Crosby Date: Sunday, 9 Mar 1997 15:07:58 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0325 RE: A Lover and his Lass [3] From: Mike Field Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 10:00:19 -0500 Subj: Love's Labour's Won [4] From: Jay T. Louden Date: Saturday, 8 Mar 1997 08:42:39 -0800 (PST) Subj: The Winter's Tale [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Sullivan Date: Saturday, 08 Mar 1997 13:12:21 -0600 Subject: Branagh's "To be" I thought Branagh's set up for the "To be..." soliloquy was wonderful - it should be (IMHO) a reflective moment. I did not much care for the inclusion of Claudius and Polonius which seemed to me a distraction. I much prefer the grave treatment given the speech in the Zefirelli/Gibson film. Tom [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Crosby Date: Sunday, 9 Mar 1997 15:07:58 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0325 RE: A Lover and his Lass Words and music for "It was a lover and his lass" are included in _Songs from Shakespeare's Plays and Popular Songs of Shakespeare's Time_, compiled and edited by Tom Kines, published by Oak Publications, 1964. The 60+ songs included are printed in modern spelling with modern musical notation, including melody line and guitar chords. Simple but effective if you want to teach yourself the songs. Kines provides a very brief introduction to each song that could make finding more information easy. My copy says the book was assigned Library of Congress catalogue No. 64-66316. David Crosby Alcorn State University [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Field Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 10:00:19 -0500 Subject: Love's Labour's Won I share Gabriel Wasserman's fascination with this "lost play" of Shakespeare and tend to agree with his opinion that the other candidates put forth--*Shrew* *Much Ado* and so forth-do not quite fit the bill. After all, LLL ends with the most deliberate, effective "stay tuned for the next episode" cliffhanger of a conclusion that I can think of. Will the men perform their various services? Will they meet together again as promised? Will marriage (the natural conclusion of comedy) ensue? I don't think any of the suggested plays address these questions as they have been asked. Assuming there was a play, now lost, and assuming it was printed in quarto and our bookseller friend had a copy in the early seventeenth century, I ask fellow list members who are expert in Elizabethan printing history, how many quartos were typically printed in a run? Are there multiple copies of all the other known quartos, or only a handful of each? In short, is it within the realm of the possible that something mass-produced (and copied, I would assume, at least hundreds of times) could now have utterly vanished-or more to the point, could have vanished by the time the folio was being assembled? Are there parallels of other known texts that have vanished? [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jay T. Louden Date: Saturday, 8 Mar 1997 08:42:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Winter's Tale Thanks to all who responded to my request for information regarding productions of TWT. Our production will run March 13, 14 and 15 at UC Irvine. If any of you are in the area and want to see what we've doen with the show, the box office number is: 714/824-2787 or e-mail is arts@uci.edu. I believe we have a very exciting production and I would welcome feedback from any of you after viewing the play. And if you really want to get a full dose of TWT, A Noise Within is presenting the play the same weekend in Irvine at the Irvine Barclay Theater. Regarding anachronisms, TWT is full of them: references to 'grace', a Christian concept, in what is supposed to be ancient Sicilia, Julio Romano, The Sheep Shearing scene, which is straight out of Elizabethan England, Bohemia's coastline, references to priests and Catholic burial rites by the old Shepherd, the blessing of Perdita by Hermione in the last scene, etc. I, for one, believe that Will is intentionally combining these ideas in order to create a 'tale' which transcends a particular time or place. In directing the show, I have been continually struck by all of the references to the act of playing. He repeatedly calls attention to the actors and the stage. In addition, virtually every character speaks at one time or another to-or about- the gods/goddesses. The prescience of higher powers and the healing power of the feminine make this play particularly relevant to modern audiences in a time when women are still struggling to achieve equal status and so many people are striving to find spirituality in their lives. I do not claim to be a scholar and my primary concern is to find what is effective and affective on the stage. Any responses? Jay Louden jtlouden@uci.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 15:36:55 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0338 Book Announcement: Cordelia, King Lear and his Fool The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0338. Monday, 10 March 1997. From: Robert Marks Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 17:54:20 -0800 Subject: CORDELIA, King Lear and his Fool. Cordelia, King Lear and his Fool. By Robert Marks Published by House of Cordelia P.O. Box 36 Harbord NSW 2096 Australia Copyright 1995 Back Cover * Why does Cordelia have to die at the end of King Lear? = * What became of King Lear's wonderful Fool? = * What really happens in the last moments of Lear's life? = * Why were there two texts of Shakespeare's King Lear? = These are some of the questions critics of King Lear continue to ask which this work answers. Cordelia, King Lear and His Fool = * looks into the writings of King James I before whom = Shakespeare's play was originally performed, = * compares Shakespeare's versions with his sources, = * considers issues that were topical in Shakespeare's day, = * looks at practices relating to speech prefixes and = Dramatis Person=E6 in Shakespearean and Jacobean plays, = * makes comparisons of the texts of King Lear with those = of numerous contemporary plays, and, = * concludes that Cordelia never went to France but stayed = in England and served her father disguised as his Fool in much the same way the disguised Edgar leads his blind father = Gloucester towards the safety of Dover, and * shows that Cordelia is aided by the disguised King of = France who sent back to France for his troops. This volume includes full texts of: * the 1605 anonymous play The True Chronicle History of King Leir and His Three Daughters; = * John Higgin's 1578 "The Tragoedy of Cordila" extracted from The Mirror For Magistrates; * other pieces of the Lear legend, * King James I's 1603 Basilikon Doron; and * the author's 1995 Cordelia: Shakespeare's King Lear. PREFACE For more than twelve years I have felt much like the little boy in Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes" must have felt. For him it was obvious that the Emperor was naked, while everyone else was ready to say what a fine suit of clothes the Emperor wore. For these past twelve years I have enjoyed a reading of Shakespeare's King Lear in which Cordelia does not go to France, but remains behind in England and serves her father disguised as his Fool. Too often when I have presented my idea to people who have a measure of interest in the play I have met an embarrassing silence or a downright prejudiced rejection. Of course I'm not unaware of the amount of intellectual ink that my reading of the play contradicts. However, I've discovered that I'm not the first to put forward the idea. Several have proposed it before me, but I have found, in chasing up their work, that it is all but buried in the mountain of criticism that has been written on Lear. "The question of Cordelia and her father Requires a fitter place." (5.3.58) Over the years it has been a purpose of mine to investigate the matter as thoroughly as I could with a view to eventually presenting what evidence I could bring together to establish the interpretation once and for all. To my delight, almost everywhere I have turned in literature contemporary to Lear I have found evidence which supports my reading. This book then, is the sending forth, although somewhat reluctantly, of my findings. I say somewhat reluctantly for two reasons: firstly, I have wanted to present as much evidence as I could, but I'm now at the point of realizing that much more evidence will come to light if others will take up the interpretation and run with it; and secondly, I'm reluctant because I expect that some of the arguments I make will be refuted by this one or that. In my enthusiasm I'm sure that I have sometimes seen too far and for some it will "mar what's well." (1.4.344). At the outset I would only ask you to consider that even though I might be wrong on some points, yet I have presented a great deal of evidence which ought not simply be dismissed. The sheer volume of evidence ought to say something. This book presents a radically different approach to King Lear when considered in terms of the way we have traditionally come to view the play. But it is not, I suggest, radically different from the way we have come to view most of Shakespeare's plays, nor those of his contemporaries. In fact, I believe it is much more in harmony with these than the traditional approach is. My arguments are based on what we know about King James I before whom Shakespeare's King Lear was originally performed, on earlier versions of the tale, on issues that were topical in Shakespeare's day, and on speech prefixes in Jacobean plays, including King Lear, and I have to ask you the reader to be "the pattern of all patience" and hear me out. = I have tried to present my material in an order that I believe would appeal to most, but your questions may not be answered up front, and I only get one shot. For your sake I don't want to miss! I am also very much aware that the average reader does not have easy access to copies of earlier versions of the tale of this legendary king, so I have included several that I consider to be important so that the reader can get a feel for the background that Shakespeare's patrons brought to his performance. This, I maintain, we cannot overlook. = Ideally, the reader will become familiar with the extract from The Mirror For Magistrates, and the texts of The True Chronicle History of King Leir, and King James I's Basilikon Doron in the appendices. = I have also included in this volume a text of Lear, which I am calling Cordelia: Shakespeare's King Lear. This is a conflation of the original texts, as are all modern texts of Lear. This text differs in just three ways from most modern texts of the play. Firstly, it follows all texts for the first one hundred years of the play's history in not including a listing of characters at the beginning of the play; secondly, it incorporates the speech prefixes of Bastard for Edmund, and the Gentleman/Oswald/Steward prefixes for Oswald followed by the modern prefix in brackets; and thirdly, it incorporates additional italicised speech prefixes in brackets after some normal speech prefixes indicating my conviction that Cordelia and the King of France are in fact disguised as the Fool and the Servant/Knight/Gentleman in the middle of the play when they have traditionally been thought to have been in France. In no other way is the text changed than in these three. = I would have liked to have been able to include the whole text of Arthur Golding's 1578 translation of Seneca's On Benefyting. There are probably many more points that could be made if we had before us the whole of this work which shares with Lear a major theme of filial ingratitude. = Unfortunately Golding's work has not been published since Shakespeare's day and I was only able to examine it on microfilm. Of course, we don't know whether Shakespeare read Seneca in English or Latin. We do know however that he read Seneca. I can only point the reader to a modern translation of the work in the Loeb Classical Library. At the end of the day some might not feel that I have proved my thesis to them. Some might wonder that such a different reading should be admitted after so much time has passed by, and so many performances of the play have occurred. If I'm wrong about all this, and the average of the diverse and fragmented interpretations of Lear today is in fact Shakespeare's Lear, then I respectfully suggest that Shakespeare didn't do a very good job and that he would have done much better if he had presented it my way. Of course there is no doubt in my mind that the way I would present King Lear is the way Shakespeare did. I believe he had a hand to write it and "a heart and a brain to breed it in" (1.2.55) and it's wonderful. Interested in seeing the whole work? Contact me. Bob Marks rgm@ar.com.au ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 15:42:18 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0339 Qs: Herbs; Richard 3 The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0339. Monday, 10 March 1997. [1] From: Rhonda Keith Date: Sunday, 9 Mar 1997 23:51:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: Query on herbs [2] From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 12:30:09 -0800 Subj: Re: Richard III [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rhonda Keith Date: Sunday, 9 Mar 1997 23:51:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Query on herbs Does anyone know the significance of these character names/herb references: Dogberry, wild cornel, dogwood? I did not find dogberry or wild cornel in my herbal books. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 12:30:09 -0800 Subject: Re: Richard III Hi everyone, I'm looking for some input on Richard III for the Intro to Shakespeare class I'm TAing. Here's the situation: A fellow TA feels that Richard's villainy was a result of his deformity, but I contend that he was deformed because he was evil. With all the propaganda laced throughout the play, I can't help but feel that Shakespeare's choice to make him physically repulsive (relative term) was in order to compound his moral repulsiveness. This, in my opinion, coincides all the propaganda of his being in the womb for two years, being born with teeth and shoulder-length hair. My reading of Richard III sees him as evil because he is supposed to be, and should not be construed as the actions of a man's inner child lashing out at the world. Shakespeare places other villains in this category, and I feel that ultimately we are forced to accept their villainy (i.e. Iago), for what it is, namely, an embodiment of evil. The idea of giving Richard (the character in the play) a soul defeats the whole purpose of the play, which is to bring to an end to the long line of sin and imbalance beginning four plays before his appearance. My colleague insists that Richard's ability to joke and pun makes him human; I contend that it only makes him more attractive to the audience. The devil is usually portrayed as someone who enjoys his work, so why shouldn't Richard? This discussion ended on the issue of whether Richard actually had the two princes executed in order to gain the throne. Historically speaking, there are a whole lot of inconsistencies that suggest this was necessary; that Richard had succeeded in "bastardizing" the two boys, and that politically speaking, his gaining the throne would not require such drastic measures. But in the play, the death of the children serves only to further the plot, and should be received in that spirit. Villains appear in Shakespeare as being the only consistent character throughout the play, and for Shakespeare not to address the presence of the two princes as a potential obstacle to Richard would seem even more inconsistent than killing them. Otherwise, Richard becomes Hannibal Lechter, and the audience is left thinking that He does have a heart, which is not what I think Shakespeare wants to do (To those unfamiliar with Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal takes a bite out of everyone except Clarisse). Anyway, we will be discussing this in class on Wed., each presenting our point of view on the subject. My colleague and I differ in background, which is why I think we see this so differently. He has performed Shakespeare on stage; I tend to focus on the literary construct of the play, going back and forth from the history as well as Shakespeare's feel of the audience. Well, what do you think? Your impressions would be most welcome, and I am always open to new ways of approaching the historical plays. JoAnna ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 14:26:00 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0340 Re: Cordelia and the Fool The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0340. Tuesday, 11 March 1997. [1] From: Syd Kasten Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 23:35:09 +0200 (IST) Subj: Cordelia and the Fool [2] From: John Velz Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 23:20:10 +0200 Subj: Cordelia and the Fool [3] From: Robert Marks Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 15:23:56 -0800 Subj: Cordelia and the Fool [4] From: Robert Marks Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 16:54:03 -0800 Subj: Cordelia and the Fool [5] From: Robert Marks Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 22:00:02 -0800 Subj: Cordelia and the Fool [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Syd Kasten Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 23:35:09 +0200 (IST) Subject: Cordelia and the Fool Brian Turner wrote on Saturday, 8 March (SHK 8.0332): > I believe that Shakespeare may well have written >the part of Cordelia for a new boy who was appointed to replace a boy >actor who became too old to play female parts. The Americans Jacky Coogan, Shirley Temple, Mickey Rooney, Judy Garland, Claude Jarman Jr. have many parallels in European cinematic history as examples of preadolescent actors mature enough to handle a serious dramatic movie role. I suspect that the history of the dramatic stage as well as the musical would offer as many. Prodigies may be rare but competent talent expressed from an early age was probably no less prevalent in the xvith century as in the xxieth. I would expect that religious pageants and other folk entertainment were around long enough to have provided young people an apprenticeship adequate to what I would assume to be the Major League of Shakespeare's company. And in view of the integrity that I like to ascribe to Shakespeare I find it hard to accept that he would write down to an inexperienced actor. I find elsewhere the explanation for the brevity and simplicity that Turner described. Cordelia's brevity and simplicity of speech can be described as laconic: typical of the people of Sparta whose mothers sent their sons to war with the simple exhortation to return with their shields or on them. She says of herself, "I'll do't before I speak". Her manner of speech confirms her character, as does her later assumption of command. The complexity of her sisters' speech in keeping with their hypocrisy can be seen as an expression of (Athenian?) decadence from the primal virtues of directness and truth, reflecting a turbulent, changing order. (The Edgar character perhaps representing a promise of redemption in a new one.) Relating to the matter of the form of the lines I recall that Thomas Larque wrote some time ago (SHK 8.0172) that my >response, suggesting that Cordelia's pre-Roman heritage might explain such >earthiness, is a little far fetched. Whenever Shakespeare set his plays, they >were all written for Renaissance audiences who interpreted them on the basis of >their own time's morality and social expectations. In the same way that many >of Shakespeare's foreign characters seem suspiciously English in their >behaviour, Cordelia is (I feel) very much a Renaissance woman. Brian's remarks show that as "renaissance women" Cordelia is quite different from her sisters, and Harry Hill (SHK 8.0203) has suggested that analysis of word structure can differentiate between "vowelly" Goneril and "consonantal" Regan! I think of Rembrandt, whose life overlapped Shakespeare's by ten years. The painter used brush strokes, hues, tones and materials to convey on a two dimensional surface such things as time, place, emotion and character. He had the advantages of working in a concrete medium, and is techniques can be examined at leisure. Shakespeare did the same using the structure of words as spoken by his characters, their arrangement, their flow, and their number, as well as the ideas and emotions actually expressed. That he could do so and still maintain the brevity and seeming simplicity which I tend to see as his overarching characteristic continually amazes me. His medium, the performance, is evanescent; the printed page is dead. This may be why his interweaving of these techniques seem to be overlooked by many or taken for granted. I am not a scholar, so the material is not readily available to me, but I would find it unbelievable that the ideas expressed in the previous paragraph haven't been the subject of much study. It probably even has a name. Finally with regard to my "thesis": I don't know if the foregoing has any relevance to whether or not the Fool is really Cordelia in disguise, except insofar as the combined role would give an actor a more reasonable amount of stage time as well as a strong, though probably not insurmountable, challenge to his virtuosity. But forgetting that question, would an actor agree that it takes less skill to deliver a simple line? Is it standard practice today to give the Cordelia role to the less experienced actress? Respectfully, Syd Kasten [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 23:20:10 +0200 Subject: Cordelia and the Fool I have come a little late to the debate on Cordelia and the Fool. If no one has noted it, some may like reading an essay in *Texas Studies in Literature and Language* 27 (1985): 354-68. "The Double Casting of Cordelia and Lear's Fool" by Richard Abrams argues that it supports both the characterization of Lear and the moral design of the play. Cheers, John Velz [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Marks Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 15:23:56 -0800 Subject: Cordelia and the Fool Regarding Syd Kasten's remarks in SHK 8.0119, Friday, 24 January 1997. No Syd, you haven't been watching too much "Lois and Clark". This is just the principle that is functioning in _Lear_. Act 4 Scene 3 is not superfluous. I believe the Gentleman (France in disguise) is taking the mickey out of Kent who has failed to penetrate his disguise and that of Cordelia as the Fool. Kent is so taken up with his own disguise! I believe Kent is a figure of anti-Puritan satire. Shakespeare could get away with this anti-Puritanism in the presence of King James I, but not, I suggest, before the audiences at the Globe. Your comment about "And my poor fool is hang'd!" is exactly right. If the audience has not seen the disguise before this, they hear it now, after Cordelia has served all unknown to any and gone to heaven for her Heavenly Father's reward. In response to Bill Godshalk's remarks in the same digest: You might also want to look at: Stringer, A.J. "Was Cordelia The King's Fool?" The American Shakespeare Magazine Vol. III (New York, January 1897), and, Anshutz, H.L. "Cordelia and the Fool" Research Studies Volume 32 (Washington, 1964) Thomas Larque wrote: >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. Thomas, I've looked and I haven't found any evidence to support Armin's role here as Fool. What is it and where is it? Larque continues, >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. Not if the audience was aware of the principle of doing something in secret for someone without talking about it. The original audience was King James I who espoused this principle in his writings. >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". Not if the Knight were in fact France disguised and providing the plot device of a false report. Knights were sometimes disguises for people - case in point Edgar later in Lear. >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. It seems that the marriage was not consummated before the French army arrived. Until then she was "a maid". "She that's a maid now and laughs at my departure, Will not be a maid long except things be cut shorter." Fool (Cordelia) is speaking in the presence of Gentleman (France in disguise) concerned at the state of affairs. Derek Wood wrote, >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." Derek, Oswald was the Original Fool who (like Skalliger in _Leir_) ran away from Lear's service and joined up with Goneril. He chided Cordelia (though he didn't know her) dressed in his old Fool's motley which he didn't want anymore! >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? Those lines have a better explanation if we understand that Cordelia is speaking them. >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 was aided by the disguised France. Pat Dunlay wrote, >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. I believe Oswald had worn the motley. He is closely associate with the word "fool" in the play and is the bungling messenger, sometimes played by Clowns in other plays, in this play. Edgar's "I know you..." is meant to suggest that he was the knave who turns out to be the Fool that ran away. >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 Perhaps I should stop here and respond to further points in another submission. Hope this makes sense. Sincerely, Bob Marks [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Marks Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 16:54:03 -0800 Subject: Cordelia and the Fool Further to my earlier response to this debate I submit the following interspersed comments. >SHK 8.0165. Monday, 3 February 1997, Syd Kasten >In Act 4 scene iii in which a gentleman describes Cordelia reading a letter, >presumably from Kent and uttering comments that imply the events of the >expulsion of Lear are new to her: "What, i'the storm? i'the night? Let pity not >be believed!" Syd, I believe that this is France (disguised as Gent) fabricating a response for Kent's egotistic ears . "....Kent" This is France playing with Kent who thinks himself so great. It is anti-puritanical satire at its height which is the reason, I believe, it was not allowed in the Folio edition for performance before the general public. >However, this raises another question. A.W. Verity, editor of my high school >edition credits Bradley with "the acute criticism that there is no other >character in Shakespeare who, appearing so little and speaking so little, makes >so profound an impression". Surely the author could have found a way giving >Cordelia a few more lines to show her state of mind without damaging her image >of strength. Instead he gave them to an anonymous third party just as he did >with the Fools introduction. And the anonymous third party is the same - France in disguise. >If 4,iii is omitted as in the folio version >there is no problem. In the following scene when the messenger tells her of >the state of her sisters' forces, her answer "T'is known before" refers to the >information she has gathered herself. The Gentleman (France) has been there too and has been the "secret feet" spying out the enemies movements. >First of all, in commenting that Cordelia was not a stranger to the jester's >craft I didn't mean to imply that she was previously the court jester in >disguise, only that she was a very good student and was equipped to accomplish >the substitution. She was not the first to don the disguise of the motley. There are also other examples of girls disguising themselves as pages. She did have limitations though. She has difficulty lying, because she has been used to speaking truth, and so she wants Lear to provide her with a tutor that can help her learn to play what is for her the deceptive role of Fool. She is, since Lear gave his land to his daughters, now "so full of songs" suggesting perhaps that she has adopted singing as a means of disguising her voice. But she does carry the disguise in Lear's world very well. >The success of the playwright depends on suspension of disbelief on the part of >the audience. We haven't seen the Fool or even thought of him before he is >announced, so the comment on his pining away isn't necessary for our acceptance >of him. It does not matter to us that he has become slight of body and narrow >of shoulder, but once it has dawned on us who is the owner of that body, we >might be tempted to ask how come nobody on stage noticed, not the disguise - no >one saw through Kent either, - but the fact that the Fool himself ought to look >changed to the members of the court. The author has primed us to look for >something special about the Fool, to make the discovery ourselves, and has >given us the means to accept the acceptance of an altered fool by the other >characters. And Shakespeare has presented us with Oswald, the part I believe which Armin played, the original Fool, who out of his disguise is still a squirming, bungling fool like Frankie Spenser in _Some Mothers Do "Ave "Em._ >This attractive objection sent me back to the text, and I found once again to >my amazement that the author has indeed provided the answer. Look at line 219 >of the opening scene: >Cordelia: ... > If for I want that glib and oily art, > To speak and purpose not; *Since what I well intend, > I'll do't before I speak*,- EXACTLY her principle. She was going to remain silent about what she was doing. She would leave it to Lear to "make known it is no vicious blot..." >Several have wondered how the King of France could allow his wife to return to >England unchaperoned and disguised. Ask in any case how he could take off to >France, leaving his to wife fight the crucial battle herself. I don't believe he left at all. He (disguised as Servant/Knight/Gentleman) stayed by Cordelia and helped her back into Lear's company disguised as the Fool. France sent back to France for the troops to come in the same way Caius Lucius sent back to Rome for troops to come and land at Milford-Haven in _Cymbeline._ >Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0172. Tuesday, 4 February 1997. For a non-Shakespearean, but nevertheless contemporary example, see _Look About You_ where if my memory serves me correctly, and husband and a wife appear before each other disguised as each other! Kent says "It's time to look about." Do we normally enquire into the identity of a Clown? or do we just accept that a clown is a clown. The Fool's make up, face patch , coxcomb, etc would be adequate disguise to carry this off on an Elizabethan or Jacobean stage. >It is just possible that Lear's court would fail to recognise Kent or Edgar >when smothered in mud or "Razed" (shaven?). It seems rather more likely that >they would notice if the Fool they had all known for some time had suddenly >shrunk, and turned into an entirely different person. I take pine away to mean become morose, withdraw, thus Lear has not seen the Fool for two days. >Besides, if Cordelia and the Fool were being played by one actor, it would be a >boy actor - so there is no reason to believe that the Fool (always referred to >as boy) would have shrunk in any case. In the cross-dressing plays the woman >in boy's disguise is often told how young and feminine she looks - the deceived >viewer confusing feminine beauty with boyish youthfulness. The Fool must have >been a boy if Cordelia is able to impersonate him successfully, so a change of >stature would be unecessary. And she tosses back the "boy" at Lear and then says in contrast, "She that's a maid..." >Even if we can interpret Cordelia's "I'll do't before I speak" as her >announcement that she will return disguised, I fail to see how any audience Shakespeare's original audience was not "any audience" but King James I who espoused the idea of doing good in secret without thought of reward from men. >In addition, Edgar and Kent (as Poor Tom and Caius) do not stop after their >initial "I am disguising myself" speeches. Afterwards, they frequently step >out of their assumed roles to speak soliloquies and asides in their own >characters. These remind the audience that Poor Tom and Caius are Edgar and >Kent in disguise, and - more importantly - allow us to eavesdrop on the >genuine characters' thoughts and feelings. Which is surely the entire point of >a play. Fool comments on the foolishness of Lear giving away his crown and then says, "If I speak like myself in this let him be whipped who first finds it so". Cordelia has given away two crowns - her English and French crown! >If Shakespeare HAD intended Cordelia to disguise herself, she would be the >single most important disguised character within the play. She is!!! And if she isn't disguised, she is vastly inferior to Edgar, to Portia, and you name them .... >At the >end of the scene, Edgar turns to us again and gives us another (fairly long) >soliloquy about his disguised state. "Winter's not over yet if the wild-geese fly that way." "She that's a maid now ...." >If Cordelia were disguised and present, I would personally be much more >interested to hear what SHE had to say about her father's suffering. The fact >that we hear from Edgar instead seems to prove fairly conclusively that she >isn't there. Was this the face....."that night" >We also lack any sort of explanation for Cordelia's strange behaviour (dressing >up as the jester). Edgar explains (when disguised and fooling his father) "Why >I do trifle thus with his despair / Is done to cure it" (4.6.32-33), similarly >Kent at his first appearance explains the reasons for his disguise - "my good >intent / May carry through itself ... / thy master, whom thou lov'st, / Shall >find thee full of labours" (1.4.2-7). Even if the audience knew that Cordelia >had disguised herself as the Fool, they would want an explanation as to why she >had done it. King James I would not have needed an explanation. He would have wanted an explanation from Shakespeare if Cordelia were not disguised as the Fool! >If Cordelia's love and duty to her father was such that she was willing to >undergo such a degradation (changing from female princess to a hireling boy) >Shakespeare would have been missing a chance for some wonderful lines about it. > Besides, this would have become one of the most important aspects of the >entire play - and it is extremely unlikely that Shakespeare would simply ignore >it within his text. It was done in silence! That was the point! >There are still many problems with the marriage to France, also. Theoretically >there is no reason (from a modern point of view) that France should not allow >his bride to wander unaccompanied disguised as a boy around a violent and >increasingly dangerous country. However, I suspect that a Renaissance audience >would have expected him to make sure that his wife was accompanied by at least >one servant / bodyguard. In the earlier (anonymous) play version of the Lear >story KING LEIR, the King of France (the Gallian King) is himself disguised as >a pilgrim when he meets Cordelia (Cordella), but is of course accompanied by >one of his courtiers (Mumford - also in disguise) as befits his Royal rank. >>From a Renaissance perspective, it would be a poor husband (let alone a King) >who let his wife wander into danger without company or protection. In the later part of _Leir_ the Gallian King proposed that they (France, Cordella and Mumford) go into the country in disguise all unknown to any! It is while all three are disguised from all that they meet Leir and Perillus (Kent's counterpart). In Lear France and Cordelia are disguised throughout the whole journey as Servant/Knight/Gentleman and Fool. >Also a Renaissance marriage was no marriage unless it was consummated. Cordelia's marriage to France was not consummated until after the arrival of the French troops. Thus "She that's a maid now...." >It is >possible that France (who apparently left "in choler" the next day) could >consummate his marriage in that one night, but would he then leave his wife >(perhaps pregnant) to play the part of a young boy? She would risk not only >the dangers of unsupervised childbirth, but - after a few months - fairly rapid >discovery. >If Syd Kasten is right, of course, France's "choler" suggests These are Gloucester's words estimating France's feelings. France was no doubt annoyed. But Cordelia importuned him with tears. >Like Syd Kasten, I disagree with Derek Wood's suggestion that Cordelia would >not be allowed to make dirty jokes. I don't believe that there are any dirty jokes. They only appear that way to us. Well, I will leave it yet again for the moment. One more response will follow. Bob Marks [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Marks Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 22:00:02 -0800 Subject: Cordelia and the Fool This is my third response to messages on this subject which were sent prior to my joining the list. Thanks for being patient with me and allowing me to fish back over the past couple of months. I hope that what I have had to say has been helpful to those who are looking at the possibility of seeing Cordelia in the Fool. >Thomas Larque writes: >>It is just possible that Lear's court would fail to recognise Kent or Edgar >>when smothered in mud or "Razed" (shaven?). It seems rather more likely that >>they would notice if the Fool they had all known for some time had suddenly >>shrunk, and turned into an entirely different person. As I have already stated, we don't pay much attention to the identity of a clown at a circus - we just accept that the clown is the clown. There would be little difference with the Elizabethan Fool. Let's face it, Lear's Fool does not have a name ... unless it is "Cordelia." >But disguise in Shakespeare's plays seems to be absolute. When a woman puts on >man's clothes, not even her father can recognize her, let alone the man who >says he loves her--witness As You Like It. In Two >Gentlemen, Proteus does not recognize the woman he used to >love--because she has on male apparel. Portia and Nerissa are similarly >unrecognizable in Merchant. And the records show that King James commanded a second performance of the Merchant of Venice a year or so before Shakespeare performed King Lear for him. Based on James' writings it is not hard to see him really liking what Portia and Nerissa did in disguise. In fact, I'm sure for most it is the highlight of the play. It is therefore not stretching it to imagine Shakespeare having Cordelia attempting the rescue of her father while disguised as his Fool. >Shakespeare's convention is that people who are disguised are unrecognisible - >not that they can make themselves look exactly like a third party. In any case >these conventions are always underlined for the audience by lines to tell them >what is happening. My point is that the underlining is done at the end with "And my poor Fool is hanged! Thou wilt come no more ...." If people didn't see it earlier in the play. But I believe that King James I, before whom _King Lear_ was originally acted by Shakespeare, would not only have been able to see it early in the play, but would have been looking for it. Read his _Basilikon Doron_ of 1603. It's in my book. >The questions are: Why is Cordelia's part so short? The reason she says little is because we haven't recognized all that she says - as Cordelia and Fool. It is also because as Kent puts it, there is something worthy about one that "is wise and says little". >Why was that funny >little scene included in the quarto and cut in the folio? (I indicated >previously that a costume change would be an unlikely reason.) As for the excising of Act 4 Scene 3 - I believe that it is cut because it is extremely anti-puritan, and while this would have been appreciated by James I, who had an extreme dislike for the Puritans, it would not have been tolerated in the Globe Theatre over which the Puritans apparently exercised some sway. In this scene the Gentleman (France in disguise) is taking the mickey out of Kent, who thinks himself so wonderful (a bit like Malvolio in Twelfth Night). Despite his protest that to be acknowledged is overpaid, Kent wants acknowledgement, yet he doesn't see that he not the only one in disguise. "Monsieur La Far" like all Shakespeare's Monsieurs, is clearly a contrived name. It is meant to suggest someone who is afar off, as opposed to France himself who is very near! As Cordelia's "happy smilets" did not know "what guests were in her eyes", so Kent does not know what guest is in his eyes - France! There is no indication in the play of any ability on the part of the Fool to play the lute. Lear's Fool sings - Cordelia would have been capable of that. In fact the Fool sings in the voice of a Nightingale! She has a beautiful voice that comes from her minikin (little, delicate) mouth. There is nothing more than tradition, and that a modern one, behind the suggestion that Armin played the Fool. I believe that we don't know who played Cordelia and Fool but that we can be sure it was the same person since Cordelia became Lear's Fool. I believe that if Shakespeare himself performed in this play it would have been as France/Servant/Knight/Gentleman. I have no more evidence for this statement than anyone does for the statement concerning Armin's role in the play. Incidentally, since France never went back to France, he must have paid the ultimate price of his life in the battle against the British forces, which I believe is the reason for Cordelia's tears in her father's presence, and I believe she is thinking of him when she says, "We are not the first who with best meaning have incurred the worst." There is a whole lot more in my book, _Cordelia, King Lear and his Fool_ which, let me say again, you ought to get and read. I promise you that you will not be disappointed. Let me hear from you. Sincerely, Bob Marks rgm@ar.com.au ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 14:33:24 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0341 Re: Polonius' Precepts The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0341. Tuesday, 11 March 1997. [1] From: Laura Fargas Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 20:13:16 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0335 Re: Polonius' Precepts [2] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 20:54:11 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0335 Re: Polonius' Precepts [3] From: Louis Marder Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 01:47:36 PST Subj: Re: Polonius' Precepts [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laura Fargas Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 20:13:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0335 Re: Polonius' Precepts To add a rather simplistic historical note to this discussion, I can't help but read Polonius' precept "to thine own self be true, then it follows, etc." in light of two things: Essex' recent behavior at the approximate time of Hamlet's composition, which was notably, not to say notoriously, self-seeking; and the overall debate in the Elizabethan mind about the role of a courtier in light of Machiavellian precepts. That issue could have seemed particularly fresh at that time, when Burghley's death was still relatively recent, and Elizabeth's could be foreseen. Chapter xxii of 'The Prince' warns princes against servants who follow their own interests ("self-minded men"), and Bacon wrote an essay (whose name slips my mind at the moment, sorry) echoing and elaborating upon that topic. Polonius' advice is distinctly contrary to this view. Perhaps this would have inclined a contemporary (Elizabethan into early Jacobean) audience to view him as less a doddery old dear, and more the calculating "devil that Branagh makes him out to be," as Joseph Tate put it. Laura Fargas [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 20:54:11 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0335 Re: Polonius' Precepts It used to be put about that Polonius' advice to Laertes was "old hat" to every Elizabethan school boy, who had to memorize and recite the advice he so "sagely" delivers. Olivier suggested that possibility when he directed his Laertes and Ophelia (the lovely Jean Simmons) to treat their father's remarks lightly. And does anyone remember a production of the play in which, during this scene, Laertes and Ophelia mouth the words with him, implying that they had "heard that tune before"? This and other scenes with Polonius remain problems for me. This man is the first minister of state, the right hand of the astute Claudius (who tragically shows his competence to fill an office to which he now has absolutely no right). When Polonius says to his emissary to Paris, "What was I saying?" it is not the remark of a senile old man - as Olivier had Fexix Aylmer play him - it is the command of a high official who need not bother remembering, for he has servants who had damned well better remember for him. In one filmed production of Hamlet, Polonius's speech to Laertes is delivered while the father is signing documents, nervously breaking away from his duties as minister to answer his too-often-neglected duties as father. Some productions have suggested that Polonius has been in cahoots with Claudius in the murder - either having assisted or having guessed after the fact, and is conducting a sly blackmail scheme. Such a reading would provide opportunities for such scenes as Polonius' report of Hamlet's madness to the king and queen (the "brevity is the soul of wit" scene, where the old man is having a great time playing his hand.) But the stickler for me is the two scenes where Polonius convinces Claudius to hide behind the arras to overhear Hamlet and Ophelia, then is again behind the arras to overhear Hamlet with Gertrude! If Polonius is a senile old man, these might make sense for his character (but, Claudius!!?); if he *is* senile, why is he kept in office and respected by the shrewd Claudius? L. Swilley Houston [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Marder Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 01:47:36 PST Subject: Re: Polonius' Precepts Rob O'Connor on Polonius: I have always objected to Polonius being played as a doddering idiot giving stupid information to his son. Long before I had a son of Laertes' age I thought it good advice. Lord Burleigh gave same advice. OK, Polonius is a little talkative, but he is a king's minister, that is his job. With a son going off to a foreign country, why not give such advice? Polonius was minister to Hamlet Senior too. Would Clauidius have kept him on if he was a nut-brained old man? And what's wrong with his advice to Ophelia? He is a parent, that is the advice they give. He wasn't royal so why would he think his daughter might marry a Prince. She could, but.... Hamlet could, but.... I have seen the play with a wise Polonius; it played very well. The audience which was ignorant of the dramatic tradition of the foolish old man accepted it very well. Try it some time; or read it that way and see if it doesn't work. More matter with less art doesn't mean P is a fool. He is making a point. Louis Marder avon4@juno.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 14:40:33 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0342 Re: Richard 3 The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0342. Tuesday, 11 March 1997. [1] From: Nancy N. Doherty Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 18:53:20 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0339 Qs: Richard 3 [2] From: John Velz Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 23:36:53 +0200 Subj: Richard 3 [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nancy N. Doherty Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 18:53:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0339 Qs: Richard 3 Just some thoughts as a director and teacher - acting and the text... RIII's tragedy, historically, has it's seeds in RII. RII is responsible for the death of his Uncle, thereby gaining his crown; Henry IV is responsible for the murder of RII, thereby securing his crown; thus begins the 100 years war, resulting in RIII's death at the hand of Henry VII. Yet, we do not view RII or Bolingbroke as inherently evil or "deformed". It seems your issue gets blurred between evil represented as deformity and evil for evil's sake. Is Buckingham evil? He certainly makes R's rise to power possible yet he has a line he won't cross regarding the princes. Text is subject to interpretation - I suggest the following - in my case to give my students a possible glimpse into R's soul - in his second scene with Lady Anne he states "I'll have her, but I'll not keep her long" It is possible since he is aware of his own limitations, knows she may regret her acquiescence, and is realistic about it, that R is making a statement about his intentions, but about his knowledge that she will not be with him long once she realises what she has done. My possible alternative looks at R as one with a soul - why else feel sympathy - why else have the ghost scene and his lack of finesse with Elizabeth - we can't just gloat over his demise...can we? His deformity was historic - Shakespeare may have exaggerated for effect - it's much more interesting that way. But, can you ignore the history to plead your case? A note on your "Silence of the Lambs" comment. Anne supposedly was a ward in R's household as they were growing up - What does one covet? One covets the thing which one sees everyday and can not have.... [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 23:36:53 +0200 Subject: Richard 3 I consider you right on target; your friend incorrect. See Intro. to David Bevington's edn. of the play in his complete Sh. 1980, 1992. Platonic doctrine says that body apes the soul. Hence evil comes first and Richard's warped body reflects and symbolizes it. You might remind your colleague that the Romantic movement was the first time the disabled were pitied rather than dishonored. Before then "funny as a crutch" was the rule of thumb. Few if any laughed at Franklin D. Roosevelt; many laughed at hunchbacks like our Richard. The Romantics and Victorians introduced the sentimental interest in the unfortunate- by-birth. Before that they were often objects of scorn or laughter, probably for "Platonic" reasons: id est "if he is crooked he must have a crooked soul, so I scorn him." (Note that this cultural assumption about body and soul also lies behind the belief that beautiful people are good. "There once was a beautiful girl . . .") In R's first solil. "determined to prove a villain" can mean either "predetermined . . ." or "bound and determined . . ." Prob. Shak. means something of both. "Since I am predetermined to be a villain, I will be the most villainous villain I can manage to be." Cheers, John Velz ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 14:53:35 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0343 Re: LLW The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0343. Tuesday, 11 March 1997. [1] From: John Robinson Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 17:37:33 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0337 Re: LLW [2] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 17:49:05 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0337 Re: LLW [3] From: David J. Kathman Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 23:25:50 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0337 Re: LLW [4] From: Louis Marder Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 01:20:09 PST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0333 Qs: LLW [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Robinson Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 17:37:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0337 Re: LLW << I share Gabriel Wasserman's fascination with this "lost play" of Shakespeare and tend to agree with his opinion that the other candidates put forth--*Shrew* *Much Ado* and so forth-do not quite fit the bill. After all, LLL ends with the most deliberate, effective "stay tuned for the next episode" cliffhanger of a conclusion that I can think of. Will the men perform their various services? Will they meet together again as promised? Will marriage (the natural conclusion of comedy) ensue? I don't think any of the suggested plays address these questions as they have been asked. Assuming there was a play, now lost, and assuming it was printed in quarto and our bookseller friend had a copy in the early seventeenth century, I ask fellow list members who are expert in Elizabethan printing history, how many quartos were typically printed in a run? Are there multiple copies of all the other known quartos, or only a handful of each? In short, is it within the realm of the possible that something mass-produced (and copied, I would assume, at least hundreds of times) could now have utterly vanished-or more to the point, could have vanished by the time the folio was being assembled? Are there parallels of other known texts that have vanished?>> There are several possible answers to your question. One is several plays in quarto were falsely attributed to Shakespeare ( sometimes as W.S....ring a bell?) in his lifetime. Locrine (1595) by W.S., Thomas Lord Cromwell by W.S (1602), The Puritan or the Widdow..." W.S. (1607) (The title page in the STC of Puritan someone has taken the bait and written S[hakespeare] after the "S." and A Yorkshire Tragedy by William Shakespeare (1608?). At any rate, my point is this, Hemmings and Condell, two friends of Shakespeare, players in his company and the force behind the Folio, probably knew which plays were legit, and which were spurious. Booksellers, on the other hand probably, didn't know, or care, if a play attributed to Shakespeare was real or not, all they wanted were sales. As for the 1603? booksellers list, it looks like this: "marchant of vennis" "taming of a shrew" "knak to know a knave" "knack to know an honest man" "loves labor lost" "loves labor won" Shakespeare's Love's Labor's Won, with plates, ed. T.W. Baldwin, (Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1957.) The fact that "love labor won" is paired with "love labor lost" proves nothing about its authorship. The two "knak to know.." play are also tucked in with the Shakespeare plays and no one has suggested they are by the Stratford-man. If there was a play called "loves labors won" it was probably not Shakespeare's or it would have made its way into the Folio. If it was real, and lost by 1623, then .... oh well. At any rate book sellers may not be a reliable source for authorship info. Regards John Robinson [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 17:49:05 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0337 Re: LLW; Other known texts that have vanished? How about *The History of Cardenio*, by Messrs. Shakespeare and Fletcher. It was entered in the stationer's register (whatever that is) sometime in the 1640s. (Does anyone know whether entry in the SR means publishment?) Or for that matter, Q1 *Antony and Cleopatra*, or the other play that got entered in the SR but, apparently, not published (I can neuer remember which one). By the way, does anyone have any news about Edmund II (ironside)? [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David J. Kathman Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 23:25:50 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0337 Re: LLW Regarding the possibly lost play "Loves Labours Won", Mike Field writes: >Assuming there was a play, now lost, and assuming it was printed in >quarto and our bookseller friend had a copy in the early seventeenth >century, I ask fellow list members who are expert in Elizabethan >printing history, how many quartos were typically printed in a run? Stationers were limited to printing no more than 1000 copies of a book from one setting of type. (I'm pretty sure that's the figure, but I can't seem to find a reference for it at the moment.) This does not mean that they always printed this maximum number, of course. >Are >there multiple copies of all the other known quartos, or only a handful >of each? Quite a few Elizabethan printed texts, including a number of Shakespearean ones, survive only in unique copies. Only a single copy survives of the first quarto of *Venus and Adonis*; the same is true of Q1 *Titus Andronicus*, the only surviving copy of which surfaced in Sweden (of all places) in 1904. The first quarto of *Greenes Groatsworth of Wit* (1592), with its famous reference to "Shake-scene", was also not discovered until this century. There is a published census of all the Shakespeare quartos and folios. >In short, is it within the realm of the possible that >something mass-produced (and copied, I would assume, at least hundreds >of times) could now have utterly vanished-or more to the point, could >have vanished by the time the folio was being assembled? Are there >parallels of other known texts that have vanished? I think it's possible. In addition to the unique copies of some quarto editions noted above, there are also editions which exist only in fragments of copies. The first edition of *The Passionate Pilgrim* exists only in a fragment which is missing the title page, but which is thought to be from the same year as the second edition, namely 1599. The first edition of *1 Henry 4* likewise exists only in a fragment, which is actually known as Q0, since it was not discovered until after Q1 had been christened in the literature. If some entire editions survive only in single copies, and other survive only in fragments, then it makes sense that some may not have survived at all; and if there was no second edition, that book is lost to us forever. A lot of people have speculated that there was a lost first edition of *Loves Labours Lost*, because what we know as the First Quarto advertises itself as "Newly corrected and augmented", and the text shows signs of revision. Quite a number of works were entered in the Stationer's Register, but are not known to have been printed; some of these may have been printed but have not survived. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Marder Date: Friday, 28 Feb 1997 01:20:09 PST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0333 Qs: LLW LLL and LLW - Gabriel Wasserman: March 11, 1997. You don't mention it so maybe you might like to know that Thomas W. Baldwin did a book on LLW and LLL about fifty years ago or thereabouts. As I recall, he does a good job with it. Louis Marder avon4@juno. com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 15:02:53 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0344 Re: Desdemona's Guilt; Lover/Lass; Facsimiles; WT The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0344. Tuesday, 11 March 1997. [1] From: Richard A Burt Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 15:45:30 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0334 Re: Desdemona's Guilt [2] From: David Jackson Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 18:19:37 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0325 RE: A Lover and his Lass [3] From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Monday, 10 Mar 97 18:54:59 Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 4 Mar 1997 to 5 Mar 1997 [4] From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 16:54:53 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0337 TWT in Houston, TX [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A Burt Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 15:45:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0334 Re: Desdemona's Guilt On Desdemona, check out Stephen Greenblatt's chapter on _Othello_ in _Renasisance Self-Fashioning_. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 18:19:37 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0325 RE: A Lover and his Lass I accidentally erased some of my recent e-mails before reading them; Is someone looking for a setting of "It Was a Lover and His Lass"? The Finzi version is available on the Chandos label's "If There Were Dreams to Sell", which in addition to having the five Finzi settings of Shakespeare songs, also has three Shakespeare songs set by Roger Quilter. Stephen Varcoe is the singer, with Richard Hickox conducting the City of London Sinfonia. The catalogue number is CHAN 8748, and I don't know if it's still in print, but it's a great CD. Incidentally, I also wrote a setting for "IWALAHL" and the other AYLI songs (plus a complete underscore for the Wedding scene/Hymenfest) for a production I directed several years ago; I would be glad to make a tape for interested parties (I think I also have it in MIDI format). David Jackson [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Monday, 10 Mar 97 18:54:59 EST Subject: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 4 Mar 1997 to 5 Mar 1997 Facsimiles . . . Whoa! . . . Slow down a little about idealizations and texts and the veil of print and all the implications of the differences between the Hinman Facisimile and a "real" mixed one assembled and bound in some grotty bookshop in Early Modern London. We're really talking about books, I think, as tools, as objects with writing that we then use for other things. Like reading. Or like governing or at least suggesting stage presentations, or (as they were originally intended, don't ya' know) as filmscripts. The value of having facsimiles is so that we can see what the editors have been working on. We can see their brilliant successes, and we can see their egregiously ignoramic blunders. It takes immense linguistic and imaginative inventiveness for readers and actors and directors to make a script come alive. That is true whether they're inspiring a modern edition or a photofacsimile. The modern editors' regularizations, stage directions, or notes sometimes help wonderfully. Sometimes they ring flat and dull. Same with the earliest versions. But having the alternatives encour ages us to think "differentially." If one text gives a speech as "My Lord." and another version reads "My Lord?" then we theatre loonies can jump alert, thinking, "That's something I want my actor to try out." Students LIKE stuff like that. It helps them to translate written code into speech act. The grim-jawed economy of scarcity that refuses so steadfastly to grant the pleasures of textual diversity seems to carry the day. That's sad, given the dancing possibilities. Look at the Werstine-Mowat introductions to the New Folgers, for example. Happy multiplicities get sneered at and stigmatized if they happen to occur in the arenas of multiple texts. We can't reproduce 1623 experience. But we can watch the dancing possibilities as we compare 1603, 1605, 1623, and 1997 reprintings of the moments before Ophelia enters mad. Each different, each play-ful. Why the heck not? Line 'em up on a page in the appendix. The why not, I fear, touches on imaginative parsimony within the contexts of immense scholarly generosity. Ho hum, I will go sing. ever, Steve never-quite-the-original-but-not-a-bad-quarto Urkowitz [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 16:54:53 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0337 TWT in Houston, TX Best wishes to Jay T. Louden on his production of THE WINTER'S TALE at UC Irvine (and to the other by A Noise Within). California is a bit far off for me, but I'd like to invite any Southern Shakespeareans to Rice University's Houston, TX production of THE WINTER'S TALE, the twenty-seventh year of Baker Shakespeare Theatre. We run Thu-Sun Mar 13-16 and Wed-Sat Mar 19-22. Box office is 527-4040. For further information, our web site (and budding historical archive) is: http://www.rice.edu/BakerShakespeare I, too, would welcome any ensuing feedback. I'm quite pleased with the comic turn we've given the first half of V.ii, among others. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 15:05:17 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0345 Romeo and Juliet / Shakespeare's toughest line The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0345. Tuesday, 11 March 1997. From: Jung Jimmy Date: Monday, 10 Mar 1997 18:32 -0500 Subject: Romeo and Juliet / Shakespeare's toughest line Just saw Romeo and Juliet up in Baltimore (and they're doing fine). and I got to thinking about those Shakespearean lines that have become so familiar that it borders on impossible for an actor to make them sound new or natural. You know, "to be or not to be ..., " "all the world's a stage ...." But the one that always sounds to lamest to me is "what light through yonder window breaks ?..." I was wondering how the actors and directors coped with these "BIG" speeches in an attempt to make them sound like something a person might say, instead of like text that we've studied at length? The Baltimore show, at Center Stage, is most notable for its casting of one man, Robert Dorfman, as the Chorus, Friar John, the Apothecary, a handful of servants, and toughest of all, as the nurse. While the rest of the cast is costumed in period attire, he performs all the parts in a white man's suit; and it really is his show. The other interesting thing is the screeching, mostly by Juliet. But I mean screeching in a good way. I'm so used to petite Juliets who exude awe at the new experience of love. This one gives it a loud in-your-face quality. A very different kind of Juliet, that caught me by surprise. jimmy PS Would it really be so bad if they said, "ban-ished" instead of "ban-ish-ed"? PPS Anyone heard of Tromeo and Juliet? what is it? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 08:18:51 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0346 Re: Romeo and Juliet / Shakespeare's toughest line The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0346. Wednesday, 12 March 1997. [1] From: Julie Blumenthal Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 17:04:06 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0345 Romeo and Juliet / Shakespeare's toughest line [2] From: Brad Morris Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 16:42:28 -0500 (EST) Subj: Tromeo... [3] From: Richard A Burt Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 18:08:39 -0500 (EST) Subj: Tromeo and Julet [4] From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 19:44:38 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0345 Romeo and Juliet / Shakespeare's toughest line [5] From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 03:39:38 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0345 Romeo and Juliet / Shakespeare's toughest line [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julie Blumenthal Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 17:04:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0345 Romeo and Juliet / Shakespeare's toughest line > PS Would it really be so bad if they said, "ban-ished" instead of > "ban-ish-ed"? Well Jim, it depends on how much of a purist you are, I guess. It's "ban-ish-ed" because of the scansion, which people usually make arguments for keeping up with because Shakespeare did write it to scan a particular way, and if ignored it can cause jarring accents-in-weird-places sorts of issues. But there are certainly those out there who don't seem to stick with it. Iambically, Julie Blumenthal [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Morris Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 16:42:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Tromeo... << PPS Anyone heard of Tromeo and Juliet? what is it? >> I think it's a porno flick. Just from what I've heard in passing conversations. I understand it's rather disgusting, whatever it is. Anyone else? Brad [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A Burt Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 18:08:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: Tromeo and Julet Tromeo and Julet was recently and favorably revewed n the NY Tmes. There's a webste at troma.com. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 19:44:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0345 Romeo and Juliet / Shakespeare's toughest line Re: Tromeo and Juliet...check the second issue of SHAKESPEARE (the new magazine) inside the front cover addresses this weird version of R&J.As a director of Shakespeare...these big speeches just become another piece to be said by the character...if your actors are into the characters they see it that way also...they flow from the character. [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 03:39:38 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0345 Romeo and Juliet / Shakespeare's toughest line A former professor of mine recalled his Shakespearean acting debut, as a freshman newly arrived at college from Big Spring, TX (pronounce that "Big Sprang"!), playing Romeo in an outdoor production. (This probably would have been in 1953 or so). I hope he'll forgive my passing it along. After the Capulet's party, escaping from Mercutio's conjurations, our hero leapt over the hedge... but his sword caught in the branches, he tangled in his pumpkin-pants, and fell flat upon his face. And then, of course, had to arise and deliver "He jests at scars that never felt a wound...." Having negotiated the audience's titters at that, our Romeo beheld the arrival of Juliet, and what should emerge from our young Texan's mouth but: "What light from yondo winder breaks...." Not a terribly serious response to the original question, but the one that comes to mind. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 08:25:44 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0347 Re: Polonius' Precepts The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0347. Wednesday, 12 March 1997. [1] From: Harry Hill Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 17:16:14 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0341 Re: Polonius' Precepts [2] From: Ed Pixley Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 16:59:19 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0341 Re: Polonius' Precepts [3] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 22:51:55 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0341 Re: Polonius' Precepts [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 17:16:14 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0341 Re: Polonius' Precepts Louis Marder is right on the mark this time. One of the most disgraceful performances I saw of Polonius was the generally banal Hume Cronyn in the Burton *Hamlet* with a punchy Alfred Drake pufifng away as Claudius. Cronyn did the doddering bit. Oh dear. Michael Redgrave played a wise Polonius in someone's TV version---just superb, playing it straight and therefore dangerous. Doddering Polonii are for the bozos. Harry Hill [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pixley Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 16:59:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0341 Re: Polonius' Precepts Another simplistic response: We might do well to remind ourselves that Laertes fails to take the advice, "to thine own self be true," and instead allows himself to become an instrument of Claudius, as his aside, "yet it is almost against my conscience," confirms. And later, "I am justly killed with mine own treachery." Hamlet misjudges Laertes and, thus, errs in entering into the fencing match, because the Laertes he knows would not have acted with such treachery. He earlier tells Horatio, "I am very sorry. . ./That to Laertes I forgot myself; /For by the image of my cause, I see / The portraiture of his." On the other hand, Hamlet doesn't know how NOT to be true to himself, insofar as he knows who that self is, which seems to me the principal reason he cannot act (except in mindless passion-a quality he despises in himself-and whose control of passion he so admires in Horatio). Only when he gradually comes to understand that he cannot control the event but only himself in the event-- "the readiness is all" --existential rather than consequential action-can he release himself from his need to control-"Let be." It's been a long journey from the "seeming/being" dichotomy of Act I and even from the "to be/not to be" dilemma of Act III, where he first recognizes his own inability to act without knowing all the possible consequences of that action-which he soon demonstrates in his decision not to kill the king at prayer. By the way, regarding Polonius character, I remember being most struck by Michael Bogdanov's approach in his Action Man Trilogy back at the Young Vic years ago. His Polonius (I forget the actor's name) was not a doddering fool, but he had absolutely no sense of humor and no patience with anyone who had. I remember him as a very dangerous statesman. I also find this true in Ragnar Lyth's film. In fact, Lyth has his entire court (Scandinavian to the core) in constant judgment on the movements and actions of the very isolated young people of the play. It seemed to me very much a "don't trust anyone over thirty" generation gap, with the youth being played against each other. Well, I got a bit carried away there. Sorry! Ed Pixley [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 22:51:55 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0341 Re: Polonius' Precepts Louis C Swilley writes: >When Polonius says to his emissary to Paris, >"What was I saying?" it is not the remark of a senile old man - as >Olivier had Fexix Aylmer play him - it is the command of a high official >who need not bother remembering, for he has servants who had damned >well better remember for him. Or, it may be Polonius testing Reynaldo. Has Reynoldo been paying attention? Does he remember exactly what Polonius has been saying? Perhaps Reynoldo has not been as attentive as he should have been? Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 08:32:18 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0348 Re: Richard 3 The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0348. Wednesday, 12 March 1997. [1] From: Mark Mann Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 15:22:07 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0339 Qs: Richard 3 [2] From: Patricia E. Gallagher Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 20:54:08 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0342 Re: Richard 3 [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Mann Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 15:22:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0339 Qs: Richard 3 Austin Pendleton said it best about Richard III...he said the actor playing him must view the world from the "perspective of the rattlesnake"- meaning, of course, his views are not the same as the rest of the world, his point A is not our point A, and so he is justified in his own mind...as is Iago. Having played both these sweet guys, I can tell you that in each, the villainy springs from a skewed personal view, a lack of proportion. Orson Welles said once that he was always amused at the whole library of scholarly works on the motives of Iago, as if the authors couldn't understand why a person would do what Iago does, when anyone who has lived ( and esp. in the theatrical world) has known an Iago or two. My approach to him was simply that lack of proportion-he was passed over for promotion, and it seems quite natural to Iago that "tit for tat" would dictate the ruining of Othello's marriage and life. To Iago these balance quite well. Olivier once said that while in the RAF, he was constantly harrassed and abused by a superior officer, and was determined to get even with him, and while musing as to how, suddenly thought," why, of course, he has a wife..." then it came to him " God, that's Iago!" Richard springs from jealousy, too, but he is contemptuous of the well-proportioned folks around him, and rightly proud of the feats he has accomplished given his deformities. He, like Iago, is aware of his crimes and mindset, and makes the choice to set himself apart even more " I am determined to prove a villain". But there are actually more moments of doubt in Richard than Iago...there are several references to Richard's sleepless nights, and nightmares, and we see one of them. Richard's ambition pushes him on, in spite of knowing the evil he is committing, while Iago is absolutely convinced of his own righteous position. We see Richard begin to crack as the play runs toward its conclusion, his decision-making becoming a little more disjointed after he's king (his whole being had been focused on getting it, not on maintaining his hold), whereas Iago stays the course all the way, and succeeds in his plots to ruin Othello's marriage and life, and only the problem of a little light aimed at his deceptions catches him in his own nets. Yet I believe he is less concerned with his own destiny than is Richard...Iago seems wholly bent for Othello's ruin, not his own gain-indeed, what could he gain without Othello's coattails to hold on to? I approached the news that " Cassio rules in Cyprus" with more distress than " Tortures will ope his lips", because that meant the plot to which he was committed didn't completely succeed. Richard's lines after the nightmare " There is no creature loves me...And if I die, no soul shall pity me" opens up a huge crack in the carapace of confident cruelty. He is human, but not one we recognize easily. He is the rattlesnake, with a world-view all his own. Cheers................Mark Mann [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patricia E. Gallagher Date: Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997 20:54:08 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0342 Re: Richard 3 Just a couple of addedums here: there is no evidence that Richard III was "historically" a hunchback. That was a myth begun in the Tudor period. Scholarship after that period has determined he probably was somewhat short, but otherwise physically fine. And, Anne was not a "ward" in Richard's household when they were growing up. Richard was a part of the household of Anne's father, the Duke of Warwick. The alienation between the Duke and the house of Plantangenet occurred when Edward IV married Elizabeth Woodville, at which point he had to promise his unmarried daughter, Anne (his elder was already wed to the Duke of Clarence - Richard's brother - who also lived in the Duke's household growing up) to solidify the deal. Patricia Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 08:40:07 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0349 Qs: Variorum Hamlet; SAA Conference: Roommate Needed The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0349. Wednesday, 12 March 1997. [1] From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 12:46:45 +1000 Subj: Variorum Hamlet [2] From: Chris Stroffolino CHRIS1929W@aol.com Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 00:12:39 -0500 (EST) Subj: SAA Conference: Roommate Needed [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 12:46:45 +1000 Subject: Variorum Hamlet Well, I have run into a bit of a sticky problem and after trying several other avenues of addressing it (including various libraries), I turn to the 'net. I'm writing a paper on *Hamlet* at the moment, and I have come across a reference in the Furness Variorum to a pamphlet on oaths by a Dr Farmer. Unfortunately the library here has two copies of volume one of the two volume edition - and none of volume two, which I am forced to assume is the one with the bibliography in it ... So, I want to find out more about this pamphlet. A title and perhaps some info on the mysterious Dr Fisher would help. If anyone out there knows anything about it, or has a complete Variorum nearby and can find out anymore than that, I would appreciate the assistance. It might be better if the info was sent to me direct, rather than to the list. Ta in advance, Rob O'Connor [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino CHRIS1929W@aol.com Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 00:12:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: SAA Conference: Roommate Needed Hello, I am in a rather desperate crisis. My roommate cancelled out on me for the SAA conference and I am now stuck with a bill I simply can not at present afford and am wondering if anyone on this list is, or knows of anybody off the list who is, thinking of going to the conference and wants to share a room in the Mayflower Hotel for at least one or two of the nights. Please let me know backchannel. Thank you, Chris Stroffolino... ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 10:09:46 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0350 Re: Polonius' Precepts The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0350. Thursday, 13 March 1997. [1] From: Laurence Shatkin Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 97 9:01:18 EST Subj: Re: Polonius' precepts [2] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 12:19:26 -0500 (EST) Subj: Polonius/Reynaldo [3] From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 11:38:15 CST6CDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0347 Re: Polonius' Precepts [4] From: John Mills Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 12:41:51 -0700 (MST) Subj: Precepts [5] From: Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 16:53:32 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0347 Re: Polonius' Precepts [6] From: John Boni Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 16:41:23 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0347 Re: Polonius' Precepts [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laurence Shatkin Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 97 9:01:18 EST Subject: Re: Polonius' precepts To me, Polonius' precepts seem to be a spoof of Lyly's "Euphues." I'm thinking of the scene at the beginning where an old gentleman lectures the young Euphues with such advice as, "Be merry but with modesty, be sober but not too sullen, be valiant but not too venterous. Let thy attire be comely but not costly, the diet wholesome but not excessive...." It seems that part of the intent is to make Polonius look a little silly, pompous, and over the hill by using this affected style that is now badly outdated. Laurence Shatkin Educational Testing Service [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 12:19:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Polonius/Reynaldo I've seen Polonius use his 'absent-mindedness' as a test of Reynaldo's attentiveness, and it works quite well. Like others on this list, I' much more interested in a truly political interpretation, conniving, etc., to Polonius. There is a mention of a film by Lyth-is this the Danish version that was made a few years ago, with Helen Mirren? Why haven't I seen it here in the United States? I've managed to find Kosintsev's marvelous film, but have yet to see this one. Andy White [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 11:38:15 CST6CDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0347 Re: Polonius' Precepts I've enjoyed all the comments on various interpretations of the role of Polonius. I thought that Richard Briers's performance in Branagh's version was one of the best I've seen. He captured both the savvy politician _and_ the concerned parent, and was able to recognize his own follies as well-most notably in the scene with Ophelia after Hamlet appears in her closet, when he says near the scene's end: "I feared he did but trifle / And meant to wreck thee. But beshrew my jealousy! / By heaven, it as as poper to our age / To cast beyond ourselves in our opinions / As it is common for the younger sort / To lack discretion." I don't remember ever having heard those lines before, and given their placement in the scene that began with the conversation with Reynaldo, they are quite revealing. I also thought that Laertes and Ophelia felt a genuine affection for their father in this film; Laertes might have smiled a bit at the "second leave," but he seemed genuinely moved by his father's precepts and blessing. Briers's performance overall was a very rich one. Chris Gordon [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Mills Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 12:41:51 -0700 (MST) Subject: Precepts Are wise and foolish, sinister statesman and doddering pantaloon the only alternatives. I have always thought of the precepts as wise in their way, but amounting to no more than worldly wisdom, and as such not far removed from getting along, making it, how to succeed in business, etc., grounded in expediency, not in principle and, as such, precisely what we would expect from the experienced survivor of decades of court intrigue. And as for "To thine own self be true"-does it not flatly contradict all the advice that precedes it? My students are always able to catch this, with little or no prompting from me. Furthermore, it is excellent advice if only one new what to do with it. Is finding a "true self" not the central agony of adolescence, an agony which Laertes and Hamlet may be thought of as still experiencing. Again, my students, still at that stage of life, find no difficulty in seeing it that way. Seen in that way, it is central to Hamlet's dilemma. What is my true self? Am I an avenger? If I were to do that would be being myself or simply playing out an imposed social role, doing the expected thing? John Mills [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 16:53:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0347 Re: Polonius' Precepts To thine own self be false! [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 16:41:23 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0347 Re: Polonius' Precepts When I was in eighth grade (yes, prior to junior highs or middle schools), those of us who were honors graduates had to recite a poem at our graduation exercise. My friend, Donny, was assigned "Polonius' advice to Laertes" (*I* had Kipling's *IF*). With a title like that, I assumed, it must be a very important piece. Imagine my chagrin years later when it was taught me as a throwaway spoken by a windbag. Then, years later, one of my students suggested that at least one line was very pertinent. "'Above all, to thine own self be true' is very pertinent because part of Hamlet's effort is to define what his 'own self' is." Thanks, student. It is certainly also true, as several have pointed out, that Polonius' apothegms are pretty standard stuff. That is no reason to dismiss them. Similarly, I ahve ehard the assertion that Polonius deserves his end because he is (a.) a snooper, (b.) a windbag (c.) etc., etc. Interesting morality. John M. Boni ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 10:17:57 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0351 Re: Romeo and Juliet Assorted The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0351. Thursday, 13 March 1997. [1] From: Richard A Burt Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 09:32:22 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0346 Re: Tromeo and Juliet [2] From: Lyn Wood Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 06:30:09 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0345 Romeo and Juliet [3] From: Mark Mann Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 11:37:13 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0346 Re: Romeo and Juliet / Shakespeare's toughest line [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A Burt Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 09:32:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0346 Re: Tromeo and Juliet There is porn in Tromeo and Juliet. Tromeo masturbates to an interactive CD-Rom entitled As You Lick It (he passes up Et Tus Blow Job, Merchant of Penis, and Much Ado About Humping. Juliet dials 1 900 ful-staf and has phone sex. Tromeo's father, Monty Q, owned a porn flick business before Cappy (Capulet) stole it from him. And there is some nudity. Rosaline has sex with a lover she dumps Tromeo for and Romeo and Juliet of course have a nude sex scene. But he film situates porn in relation to the grotesque body. I tries to gross out its audience. So Juliet dreams of a Fabio looking guy whose erection turns into a "penis monster." Her father abuses her. Going John Ford one better, Tromeo and Juliet turn out to be brother and sister. They don't care and live happily ever after, bearing three mutant children. The potion she drinks so as o avoid having to marry London (Paris) turns her into a human transsexual pig (until Tromeo kisses her). Troma Video, the producer, also brought the Toxic Avenger and Class of Nuke 'Em High. My students like it. I thought it tries too hard to be offensive and ends up being pretty sweet. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lyn Wood Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 06:30:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0345 Romeo and Juliet Jimmy asked about "Tromeo and Juliet". This is a low-budget horror film from Troma, a company specializing in low-budget horror films. I haven't seen it, but I've read about it. A sample of the dialogue is: Juliet: Parting is such sweet sorrow. Romeo: Yeah, it really sucks. There are lots of gory murders and explosions, and Juliet turns into a mutant cow and wreaks havoc on the Montagues. The filmmakers were quoted as saying this is "Romeo and Juliet" as Shakespeare would've written it if he were alive today. Uh-huh. Lyn Wood [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Mann Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 11:37:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0346 Re: Romeo and Juliet / Shakespeare's toughest line In a message dated 97-03-12 08:25:09 EST, you write: << After the Capulet's party, escaping from Mercutio's conjurations, our hero leapt over the hedge... but his sword caught in the branches, he tangled in his pumpkin-pants, and fell flat upon his face. And then, of course, had to arise and deliver "He jests at scars that never felt a wound...." >> Ha! reminds me of a production of Othello I was in, when, at the emotional conclusion, our Othello, who was a large, rather overweight gentleman, had somehow neglected to fasten his suspenders to his pumpkin pants, and as he bent over Desdemona and said, " I kissed thee ere I killed thee..." down came the pants to half-mast - then he died over her, aiming large, white boxer shorts in the direction of the rest of us on stage. There was a long, stunned silence, till the actor playing Lodovico came up with his line " Cover them, the object poisons sight". Not, as they say, a dry seat in the house. By the by, if anyone has such stories, please pass 'em along-I can't get enough of anecdotes of these kind......cheers....Mark Mann ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 10:24:44 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0352 Re: Richard 3 The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0352. Thursday, 13 March 1997. [1] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 11:40:25 -0500 (EST) Subj: Richard III [2] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 11:16:52 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0348 Re: Richard 3 [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 11:40:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: Richard III Sorry for the late reply; it is my observation that with every villain Shakespeare creates, he refuses to use a purely naturalistic or idealistic palette. Like the Mannerists who were popular in his day, he experiments with realism and idealism to varying degrees. Richard is't drawn as a cardboard villain-his point, in his monologues, is that his birth was just part of his character development; the catalogue of euphemisms, "deformed, unfinish'd', etc., indicates that he has had to put up with the biases of his time, and for long enough that he doesn't feel he owes anyone any favors. Having devoted his life to the promotion of the York family claim to the throne, and having been treated more like a faithful dog than much else, he is portrayed here as being villainous, but with some good reasons for being so. The same is true of Iago, who is clearly just as vulnerable to jealousy as Othello (it alone moves his actions in the play), or Shylock, an even better example; while Shylock is a typical 'senex', or old man/romantic obstacle from the comedies of Greece and Rome, Shakespeare gives him that glorious rebuttal, 'hath not a Jew eyes?', which has led to the popular interpretation of Shylock as tragic figure, rather than comic foil as he was originally intended. Which is as much as to say, perhaps you're both right, but perhaps you're also both wrong, each in your own way. A fruitful discussion, perhaps, would be to assume complexity of character and explore the contradictions Shakespeare has created for you. Andy White Arlington, VA [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 11:16:52 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0348 Re: Richard 3 > Just a couple of addedums here: there is no evidence that Richard III > was "historically" a hunchback. An historian friend of mine pointed out to me once that Richard was known as a skilled fencer. In order to be a skilled fencer with a broadsword, he probably had an overdeveloped right shoulder. Cheers, Sean. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 10:35:43 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0353 Re: Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0353. Thursday, 13 March 1997. From: Terence Hawkes <101746.3342@compuserve.com> Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997 12:45:40 -0500 Subject: Ideology Paul Hawkins asks for a demonstration of the 'irreducibly ideological content' of, for instance, T.S. Eliot's judgement that Hamlet is an 'artistic failure'. Try this. The assessment of Hamlet was part of a larger realignment of the Shakespearean canon, indeed a re-mapping of the whole of English literature, strenuously proposed by Eliot when he arrived in Britain. The British have always had difficulty in living up to American ideological expectations of them and Eliot wasn't the first - or the last-to feel compelled to append 'See Me' to what he perceived as an appalling cultural scenario. Certainly, it wouldn't be difficult to argue -as F.R. Leavis did, for instance - that Eliot's Harvard-honed inability to come to terms with the awkward crudities of an inherited British way of life contributes to his down-grading of Hamlet. A Coriolanus-like unease with the sort of popular culture from which Hamlet springs certainly runs throughout his work. How dare it draw on 'intractable' material! How dare its 'workmanship and thought' occupy an 'unstable position'! How dare it include 'superfluous and inconsistent scenes'! It's hardly surprising that, for him, the culmination of Shakespeare's 'tragic successes' turns out in fact to be the play he associated with the career of Woodrow Wilson as well as his own situation - Coriolanus: an indisputable masterpiece, he claimed, 'intelligible, self-complete, in the sunlight'. The award of 'F' to Hamlet and 'A' to the latter play form part of the same alarming project. Its thrust is clearly ideological. You could say Eliot had come a long way from St. Louis. That didn't stop him from trying to reconstruct it on the banks of the Thames. T. Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 10:39:03 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0354 Re: New Folger Editions The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0354. Thursday, 13 March 1997. From: Paul Werstine Date: Wednesday, 12 Mar 97 20:17:32 EST Subject: [Re: New Folger Editions] Thanks to my colleague Alan Somerset for sending me Steve Urkowitz's latest slam at editing. I'm not sure why Steve is particularly URKed by the New Folger edition's treatment of textual multiplicity when, alone among editions currently available for purchase, the New Folger employs different kinds of brackets within its edited text to allow interested readers to identify the particular early printed texts from which passages and readings derive. Using these brackets, readers of the New Folger HAMLET, for example, can read Q2 or F or Q2/F (to the extent that the linearity of print allows). The same is true of Q1 and F LEAR and Q1 and F OTHELLO, as well. In view of the limitations imposed by the linearity of print, the New Folger also tries to include in its textual notes all the variants between such multiple texts as Q2 and F HAMLET; in this respect it's unique among current editions aimed at school audiences, so far as I know. It's due to the impact of scholars like Steve that we have paid this kind of attention to textual multiplicity. A little while ago, someone on SHAKSPER (I apologize for not having noted this correspondent by name) pointed out that the New Folger paperbacks will not stand up to library use; I think he's probably right. That's why the Folger is now selling the edition in leather bindings. So far only HAMLET is available, and it can be purchased only directly from the Folger Library. Lest this message seem completely self-serving, I want to note that royalties from the sale of the New Folger go the Library, not to the editors. The Library's value, for me, is that it houses the early printed texts themselves in all their textual multiplicity - the source for both editions (for those who want 'em) and facsimiles (for their fans). Cheers.========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 09:23:15 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0355 Re: Polonius The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0355. Friday, 14 March 1997. [1] From: John Cox Date: Thursday, 13 Mar 1997 10:56:32 -0500 (EST) Subj: Polonius and the Countess Rossillion [2] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Thursday, 13 Mar 1997 20:37:58 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0350 Re: Polonius' Precepts [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cox Date: Thursday, 13 Mar 1997 10:56:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Polonius and the Countess Rossillion When the Countess Rossillion bids farewell to her son Bertram, she uses rhetoric and sentiments that are very similar to Polonius' (AWW 1.1.61-68 in the Bevington edition). I can't think of other stage parallels offhand, but this one suggests that the parent's farewell to a child may be something of a setpiece, not necessarily revealing anything about the character of the speaker. The countess is no doddering fool, nor is she a manipulative politician. I'd be interested to know of other possible examples from Shakespeare or anyone else. John Cox, Hope College [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Thursday, 13 Mar 1997 20:37:58 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0350 Re: Polonius' Precepts I once interviewed Douglas Campbell who suggested, citing Tyrone Guthrie, that Polonius's name might have been changed from the Corambis of Q1 in order to reflect service in the Polack wars. This is similar to how Coriolanus gets to be Coriolanus. Anyway, that would leave Polonius as neither a senile fool or a conniving politician, but a slightly washed up, though still vastly respected old general. Campbell drew a comparison to Bernard Montgomery after the second world war. The production which he directed at Bard on the Beach made this point, I thought quite effectively. Cheers, Sean ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 09:31:51 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0356 Re: Richard 3 The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0356. Friday, 14 March 1997. [1] From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Thursday, 13 Mar 1997 10:02:33 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0342 Re: Richard 3 [2] From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Thursday, 13 Mar 1997 10:12:45 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0348 Re: Richard 3 [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Thursday, 13 Mar 1997 10:02:33 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0342 Re: Richard 3 >Yet, we do not view RII or Bolingbroke as inherently evil or >"deformed". It seems your issue gets blurred between evil represented >as deformity and evil for evil's sake. Is Buckingham evil? He certainly >makes R's rise to power possible yet he has a line he won't cross >regarding the princes. I do believe that the deformity of Richard was a conscious choice based on the propaganda of the real Richard and - more importantly - his recognition of the society's response to superstition. "Ugly is as ugly does" is a less delicate way of putting it, but given the period I can see the reasoning behind this. >Text is subject to interpretation - I suggest the following - in my case >to give my students a possible glimpse into R's soul - in his second >scene with Lady Anne he states "I'll have her, but I'll not keep her >long" It is possible since he is aware of his own limitations, knows >she may regret her acquiescence, and is realistic about it, that R is >making a statement about his intentions, but about his knowledge that >she will not be with him long once she realises what she has done. Why must Richard have a soul? Shakespeare's plays seem to suggest a difference between soul and conscience. Desdemona had a soul; it was Othello's conscience (played out by Iago) that killed her. >My possible alternative looks at R as one with a soul - why else feel >sympathy - why else have the ghost scene and his lack of finesse with >Elizabeth - we can't just gloat over his demise...can we? His lack of finesse with Elizabeth represents nothing more than the Wheel Of Fortune( Don't you just love Vanna?), turning Richard out of favor. His betrayal to Buckingham marks the downfall. I look at that as a theme on "Honor amongst Thieves (and what happens when one guy drops the ball)." >His deformity was historic - Shakespeare may have exaggerated for effect >- it's much more interesting that way. But, can you ignore the history >to plead your case? Yes, I can. I think it's important to recognize the many different points of view when reading Shakespeare. Once you acknowledge that fact to the class, you then explain why you are only addressing one, two or three of those points. Remember, we're talking an Intro to Shakespeare class here, so it's important that they leave appreciating the work and not the avalanche of Modern Critical Theories that can overshadow it. There'll be plenty of time for that later, I think. >A note on your "Silence of the Lambs" comment. Anne supposedly was a >ward in R's household as they were growing up - What does one covet? >One covets the thing which one sees everyday and can not have.... Exactly my point. Thanks John! I happen to subscribe to David Bevington's approach to Shakespeare. I interviewed him at the Shakespeare conference in LA, and found him very amiable and funny. His edition of TCWO Shakespeare-in my opinion-gives the student permission to enjoy the plays for what they are. In no way does he ignore the many interpretations based on new found criticisms, but he seems to keep in mind that the plays should be-above all else - enjoyed (Personally, I tend to read them like a trashy novel). JoAnna [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Thursday, 13 Mar 1997 10:12:45 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0348 Re: Richard 3 Mark said: >Austin Pendleton said it best about Richard III...he said the actor >playing him must view the world from the "perspective of the >rattlesnake"- meaning, of course, his views are not the same as the rest >of the world, his point A is not our point A, and so he is justified in >his own mind...as is Iago. Absolutely! >Having played both these sweet guys, I can tell you that in each, the >villainy springs from a skewed personal view, a lack of proportion. >Orson Welles said once that he was always amused at the whole library of >scholarly works on the motives of Iago, as if the authors couldn't >understand why a person would do what Iago does, when anyone who has >lived ( and esp. in the theatrical world) has known an Iago or two. My >approach to him was simply that lack of proportion-he was passed over >for promotion, and it seems quite natural to Iago that "tit for tat" >would dictate the ruining of Othello's marriage and life. To Iago these >balance quite well. Olivier once said that while in the RAF, he was >constantly harassed and abused by a superior officer, and was >determined to get even with him, and while musing as to how, suddenly >thought," why, of course, he has a wife..." then it came to him " God, >that's Iago!" >Richard springs from jealousy, too, but he is contemptuous of the >well-proportioned folks around him, and rightly proud of the feats he >has accomplished given his deformities. He, like Iago, is aware of his >crimes and mindset, and makes the choice to set himself apart even more >" I am determined to prove a villain". But there are actually more >moments of doubt in Richard than Iago...there are several references to >Richard's sleepless nights, and nightmares, and we see one of them. >Richard's ambition pushes him on, in spite of knowing the evil he is >committing, while Iago is absolutely convinced of his own righteous >position. We see Richard begin to crack as the play runs toward its >conclusion, his decision-making becoming a little more disjointed after >he's king (his whole being had been focused on getting it, not on >maintaining his hold), Yes! Not to mention that the moment he breaks his promise to Buckingham, he then creates an imbalance within his own world of tit for tat! >whereas Iago stays the course all the way, and >succeeds in his plots to ruin Othello's marriage and life, and only the >problem of a little light aimed at his deceptions catches him in his own >nets. Yet I believe he is less concerned with his own destiny than is >Richard...Iago seems wholly bent for Othello's ruin, not his own >gain-indeed, what could he gain without Othello's coattails to hold on >to? I approached the news that " Cassio rules in Cyprus" with more >distress than " Tortures will ope his lips", because that meant the plot >to which he was committed didn't completely succeed. I agree totally. >Richard's lines after the nightmare " There is no creature loves >me...And if I die, no soul shall pity me" opens up a huge crack in the >carapace of confident cruelty. He is human, but not one we recognize >easily. He is the rattlesnake, with a world-view all his own. I'm still working on the "soul" thing; have been for a while. I believe that Shakespeare interpreted soul conscience differently; one makes cowards of us all, and the other, well, I'm still working on it. Thanks, JoAnna ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 09:36:14 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0357 Re: Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0357. Friday, 14 March 1997. [1] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Thursday, 13 Mar 1997 21:00:00 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0353 Re: Ideology [2] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Friday, 14 Mar 1997 06:49:23 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0353 Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Thursday, 13 Mar 1997 21:00:00 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0353 Re: Ideology Terry: The sentence you yourself quoted shows Paul asking for "a demonstration of the 'irreducibly ideological content' of, for instance, T.S. Eliot's judgement that Hamlet is an 'artistic failure'." You didn't produce one. You made a reasonably interesting hypothesis in that regard, though marred by your implicit claiming of god-like powers to tell what Eliot's criticism was *really* about. You did not, however, show that Eliot's views are "irreducibly ideological". One might, just for fun, hypothesize other motivations for the actions of Eliot's character. To prove his reading "irreducibly ideological" is, of course, impossible, but the case against aesthetics seems to be built on just this impossible claim. Cheers, Sean [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Friday, 14 Mar 1997 06:49:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0353 Re: Ideology Professor Hawkes's demonstration of the ideological in Eliot's devaluation of Hamlet suggests that Coriolanus was substituted for Hamlet as "the culmination of Shakespeare's `tragic successes'" because Coriolanus better reflects Eliot's view of himself and Woodrow Wilson, and that an American and Harvard-educated sensibility led him to recoil from the crudities of the popular cultural material of Hamlet. I wouldn't see either view as irreducibly ideological as opposed to individually aesthetic, but at the same time, neither is wholly accurate. Eliot makes clear that it's not the crudity of Shakespeare's materials that constitutes the flaw, but that their "alteration [to accommodate the new motive of a mother's guilt] is not complete enough to be convincing." And it is not the intractability of the sources that concerns Eliot, but instead Shakespeare's inability "to impose this motive successfully upon the intractable materials of the old play." Hawkes's mock indignation ("How dare it draw on `intractable' material!") thus misrepresents the thrust and tone of Eliot's essay. Further, it is not Coriolanus alone that stands, when compared with Hamlet, `intelligible, self-complete, in the sunlight,' as Professor Hawkes suggests, but Coriolanus, Antony and Cleopatra, and Othello. Since in the next paragraph of the essay, Eliot also praises Macbeth, it is clear that what he is working out is not an ideological preference for Coriolanus, but an aesthetic preference for every other major tragedy over Hamlet. Finally, to say Eliot gives Hamlet an F and Coriolanus an A is of course to overstate the case: Hamlet is more "interesting" than Coriolanus, testimony to Shakespeare's inability to find "an objective correlative" for his protagonist's emotion. Eliot is clearly fascinated by the problem of the play: "under compulsion of what experience he attempted to express the inexpressibly horrible, we cannot ever know." And so it remains "`the Mona Lisa' of literature." If this is how an ideological label is assigned to a critic's position, then it is obviously a process of distortion and reduction. Paul Hawkins ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 09:46:02 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0358 Re: Herbs; Gaffes; Burton Hamlet; WH The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0358. Friday, 14 March 1997. [1] From: Louis Marder Date: Sunday, 2 Mar 1997 00:50:07 PST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0339 Qs: Herbs [2] From: John Velz Date: Thursday, 13 Mar 1997 16:52:14 +0200 Subj: Gaffes on Stage [3] From: Jerry Bangham Date: Thursday, 13 Mar 1997 18:49:02 -0400 Subj: "Lost" Burton _Hamlet_ [4] From: Neil Hunt Date: Friday, 14 Mar 1997 07:14:30 +0000 Subj: WH - could he be William Hole (engraver)? [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Marder Date: Sunday, 2 Mar 1997 00:50:07 PST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0339 Qs: Herbs Rhonda: Dogberry is the fruit of either the Cornus sanguinea or of the Euonymus Europaeus. Cornus is preferred. They call it " Dogge berry tree because the berries are not fit to be eaten, or to be given to a dogge." Another source calls Dogberry (dogwood) the Thelycrania sanguinea. It is a decoction of Dogwood formerly used to wash mangy dogs, hence the name. From Louis Marder, Shakespeare Data Bank, avon4@juno.com [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Thursday, 13 Mar 1997 16:52:14 +0200 Subject: Gaffes on Stage My wife played Mariana in a campus production of *Measure for Measure* in 1970. At the point in Act IV where Isabella is describing to Mariana how to take her place in Angelo's gardenhouse she begins "There is a garden circummur'd with brick". One night during performance Isabella's clear voice carried to every ear in the audience: "There is a garden circumcised with brick". The two women got through the rest of the scene somehow but as they hit the wings holding hands, Isabella was muttering through clenched teeth: "Circumcised; circumcised - Oh GOD!". I told the story to many a class over the years as I had in my course description a firm promise to tell one good theater anecdote about every play we read. One year a student interrupted the laughter (women always laughed much more than men at this one) that followed the anecdote with an impulsive shout. "What kills is the two words 'with brick'". More laughter from the class, not much of it from men. Cheers, John Velz P.S. as you can see from my course description, I have a rich trove of anecdotes but not too many are gaffes of this kind. I intended most of them to be instructive. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Bangham Date: Thursday, 13 Mar 1997 18:49:02 -0400 Subject: "Lost" Burton _Hamlet_ This has been discussed recently, so I don't think it was all that "lost," but I thought this might be of interest. I remember seeing the original at a little movie house in Morehead, Ky. Burton's 'Hamlet' To 'Premiere' On Internet LOS ANGELES (Reuter) - A long-lost film of Richard Burton's 1964 Tony-winning Broadway performance of "Hamlet" has been found by the actor's widow, and a restored version will be premiered on the Internet next month. The ground-breaking 'first' for the world-wide computer network will be available on the Alternative Entertainment Network site from April 6-10, using video streaming technology. "I am thrilled that students and lovers of Shakespeare will have the opportunity to see this memorable performance on the Internet," Burton's widow Sally said from her home in England. She told AEN she found the film in some rusting cans at the couple's home in Switzerland. It was the only remaining print of the three-hour film made in 1964 before an audience at a Broadway theater. The film was shown in movie houses for only two days before Burton ordered all prints destroyed, because he believed Hamlet should best be experienced on stage. The Welsh actor had kept the original print for himself at his Swiss chalet in Celigny. Now the digitally-restored film will be available on-line, but viewers have to log on in advance to make a reservation. The site (http://www.aentv.com/home/chspecial.htm) has preview clips of the film and an interview with Burton, who died in August 1984. Since last May, when it was launched with the webcast of the movie "Casino," AEN has grown to offer 11 channels of interactive video programming. Reuters/Variety [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Neil Hunt Date: Friday, 14 Mar 1997 07:14:30 +0000 Subject: WH - could he be William Hole (engraver)? Identity of WH Over a number of years I have been conducting research into the possibility that the Sonnets is the engraver William Hole. A connection being that he engraved works for, and a portrait of, the favoured George Chapman; whose first translation of Homer appeared in 1598. A date I set for the composition of Sonnet 86. At this time it is interesting to note that the Earl of Southampton was pretty much occupied. He was at sea with Essex 1596-7; he married Elizabeth Vernon in 1598, incurring the wrath of Elizabeth who had him imprisoned for a short while. On his release he served with Essex in Ireland. I am interested to learn whether anyone else has any evidence that may identify William Hole as WH, or refute this theory. Neil Hunt (on behalf of Ronald Arthur Hunt) 11 Letchworth Avenue, Chatham, Kent ME4 6NP, UK tel: (0)1634 846848 neil@dadden.demon.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 09:58:17 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0359 Columbia University Conference The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0359. Friday, 14 March 1997. From: Julie Bleha Date: Thursday, 13 Mar 1997 11:57:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Columbia University Conference Oscar Hammerstein II Center for Theatre Studies and the Columbia University School of the Arts present THINKING AND DOING: Performance and Text May 2-4,1997 In three days of workshops, panel discussions, and performances, this conference will bring together theatre theorists and practitioners to explore the position of text in theatrical production. The conference will take place within the theatres on Columbia's campus: Miller Theatre, a 500-seat proscenium; Schapiro Theatre, a black box; Teatro, Casa Italiana 200-seat 18th century proscenium theatre; and Schapiro Studio, a rehearsal space. The conference date is set to coincide with the M.F.A. actors' thesis production, AMERICAN SILENTS, created and directed by Anne Bogart. ______________________________________________________________ Schedule: FRIDAY, MAY 2 4:00-9:00pm Registration, Dodge Hall 5:30-7:00pm Panel: Document and Vision Rare Book Archive, Butler Library Arnold Aronson (moderator), Gwynedd Cannan, Mary Edsall, Shelley Eshkar, Paul Kaiser 7:30pm Welcome, Miller Theatre 8:00-10:00pm Panel: Revisiting the Greeks Miller Theatre Jim Leverett (moderator), Robert Auletta, Anne Hamburger, Helene Foley, Charles L. Mee, Andrei Serban, Froma Zeitlin 8:00-10:00pm Performance: American Silents directed by Anne Bogart RAW Space, 529 W. 42nd St. SATURDAY, MAY 3 9:00-12:00am Acting Workshop: Andrei Serban Schapiro Theatre Voice Workshop: Kristin Linklater Teatro, Casa Italiana 10:00-11:30am Papers: Mobs, Crowds, and Masses Miller Theatre Martin Harries (moderator), Oliver Arnold, Jonathan Freedman, Stephen Tifft 1:00-3:00pm Papers: Observation and the Theatre of Modernity Schapiro Theatre Martin Meisel (moderator), Matt Buckley, Jonathan Crary, Rhonda Garelick, David Levin 1:00-3:00pm Panel: Actors and the Demands of Language Teatro, Casa Italiana Elin Diamond (moderator), David Greenspan, Richard Knowles, Kristin Linklater, Priscilla Smith 2:00-5:00pm Performance: American Silents RAW Space, 529 W. 42nd St. 3:15-4:45pm Performance: TBA Schapiro Theatre 3:15-4:45pm Papers: Contemporary Text & Performance I Teatro, Casa Italiana Michael Cadden, Rebecca Schneider, Beth Schachter 5:00-7:00pm Choreographing Fiction Workshop: StreetSigns--Derek Goldman & Peter Carpenter Schapiro Theatre 5:00-7:00pm Panel: Justice, Race, Performance, Teatro, Casa Italiana Shelby Jiggetts, Margo Jefferson, Oliver Mayer, Joseph Roach, Kendall Thomas 8:00-10:00pm Performance: Excerpts from Elevator Repair Service, "Cab Legs" Schapiro Theatre 8:00-10:00pm Performance: American Silents RAW Soundstage, 529 W. 42nd St. SUNDAY, MAY 4 9:00-12:00am Acting Workshop: Anne Bogart & Tina Landau Schapiro Theatre 10:00-11:30am Papers: Contemporary Text & Performance II Studio Theatre Marc Maier (moderator), David Kilpatrick, Iris Smith, Ginger Strand 10:00-11:30am Papers: Race, Performance and the Popular Miller Theatre Jay Plum, James Wilson, Sharon Green 12:30-2:30pm Panel: Amnesia, Nostalgia, Authenticity: Rewriting History for the Stage Miller Theatre Susan Bennett, Anne Bogart, David Henry Hwang, Emily Mann 2:00-5pm Performance: American Silents RAW Space, 529 W. 42nd St. 2:30-4:00 Closing Party, Dodge Lawn Conference Organizers: Julie Bleha, Heidi Coleman, Ehren Fordyce, Ellen MacKay, Carrie Ryan, Tamsen Wolff This conference is the result of joint efforts of Columbia's Ph.D. and M.F.A. theatre departments. The Ph.D. program, revived in 1992 by Dean Austin Quigley, emphasizes the exchange between theatre practice and academic scholarship. The professional theatre program at the Oscar Hammerstein II Center, under the direction of Andrei Serban, offers M.F.A. programs in dramaturgy, directing, acting, playwriting, and theatre management, and produces dozens of theatre events each year, from new play readings to third-year acting and directing thesis productions. AMERICAN SILENTS is an exploration of the American silent film era using Bogart's widely-praised technique of training actors and creating ensemble. The text is a compilation of first-hand source material on twenty players (actors, directors, cameramen, and producers) from the silent film period. ____________________________________________________________ Registration: Rates if postmarked by April 15th: 2 Workshops+Conf 1 Workshop+Conf Conference General Public $55 $40 $20 Students/Senior $50 $35 $15 After April 15th, a fee of $10 will be added to conference registration fee (students/senior--$25, general public--$30). Workshops are limited to 20 participants each. All events are included within the general conference fees with the exception of workshops given by Andrei Serban, Anne Bogart/Tina Landau, and Kristin Linklater. Tickets for AMERICAN SILENTS are available after through Ticket Central at (212) 279-4200 April 1st. Prices are $10 for students, $15 for general public. Please send check with registration form to: CONFERENCE Attention: Carrie Ryan Columbia University Oscar Hammerstein II Center for Theatre Studies 2960 Broadway, Mailcode 1807 601 Dodge Hall New York, NY 10027 Checks payable to Columbia University. Information with check: name, address, phone/fax#, email, school, student status or general public. If you wish to participate in a specific workshop, please let us know at the time of registering. For more information, contact Heidi Coleman at hbc3@columbia.edu or, beginning April 1st, visit our website at: www.columbia.edu/cu/arts/conference ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 10:00:14 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0360 A Request for Comedy The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0360. Friday, 14 March 1997. From: Edward Gero Date: Friday, 14 Mar 1997 07:51:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: A Request for Comedy Colleagues: I have been invited to join in the birthday celebration of a Senior Staff person of a world class Research Library next month. (Name withheld to protect the aging.) As part of that celebration, the guests have been asked for anecdotal pieces related to Shakespeare, Renaissance and related research; songs, jokes, etc. Can you help me in my quest for a few minutes material? Anyone with material in the neighborhood of "An actor, a scholar and a cultural materialist get into a plane crash. Who was spared? Shakespeare," please send it to me. Any personal anecdotes about research libraries in Washington, DC would be gratefully accepted. Thanks in advance. Material can be emailed directly to me: Edward Gero Actor Shakespeare Theatre Washington, DC ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 10:41:07 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0361 Re: Ideology; Polonius; R3; Gaffes The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0361. Sunday, 17 March 1997. [1] From: David Evett Date: Friday, 14 Mar 1997 13:21 ET Subj: SHK 8.0353 Re: Ideology [2] From: David Evett Date: Friday, 14 Mar 1997 14:14 ET Subj: SHK 8.0355 Re: Polonius [3] From: Hilary D. Thimmesh Date: Friday, 14 Mar 1997 10:20:17 -0600 Subj: Richard III's Soul [4] From: Kirby C Farrell Date: Saturday, 15 Mar 1997 11:21:50 Subj: Re: Trouble onstage [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 14 Mar 1997 13:21 ET Subject: SHK 8.0353 Re: Ideology Terence Hawkes' suggestion that T. S. Eliot wanted to "reconstruct" St. Louis "on the banks of the Thames" must fall oddly on the ears of most Americans, whose image of that city owes far more to the demotic, not to say anarchic energies of Mark Twain, Thomas Hart Benton, and Dizzy Dean than to a man who never once, as far as I can recall, honored the Middle Western elements in his upbringing. Which doesn't weaken H's argument about the ideogical basis of Eliot's judgment on _Hamlet_; it does indeed seem to be just that fascination with the demotic and the anarchic, given such large scope in the play, that curdled Eliot's appreciation - and which this Middle Westerner particular loves in it. David Evett [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 14 Mar 1997 14:14 ET Subject: SHK 8.0355 Re: Polonius The Stratford (Ont) _Hamlet_ of 1975 was all about repression. Costumes were based on C17 northern European portraits - Rembrandt, et al. - black coats, small high ruffs, smallish hats; Ophelia, mad, came on in a strait-jacket (according to something I remember reading at the time, based on historical information) that in effect crucified its wearer, fastened by the wrists and arms to a wooden cross piece through the sleeves. Beneath and around these Calvinistic or Counter-Reformation-Catholic rigidities, furtive passions. The Polonius (I've forgotten his name and the program is at home) set the tone for all this. He presided over the opening courtroom scene as Foreign Secretary, from a stand-up desk at center right, treated with evident respect by Claudius and Gertrude, grave, a little testy, but with an unruly, lubricious imagination. The loquacity and rhetorical extravagance seemed to bespeak an unwillingness to relinquish control, to give up the floor, and both Laertes and Ophelia came across as submissive, persuaded that Father really did know best, but galled, also, by the restraint. It made sense to me. Has anybody on the list looked at the promptbook and noted the cuts? -- I'm thinking that the production eliminated some of the lines that can make him seem a fool. David Evett [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hilary D. Thimmesh Date: Friday, 14 Mar 1997 10:20:17 -0600 Subject: Richard III's Soul Shakespeare apparently thought Richard III had a soul. See V,3,119-220. Repetition of the word sinks home until Richard acknowledges "shadows tonight / Have struck more terror to the soul of Richard . . ." This scene is as close as we get to tragic recognition in the play, and the author's choice of words is not likely to be casual. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kirby C Farrell Date: Saturday, 15 Mar 1997 11:21:50 EST Subject: Re: Trouble onstage From the PSYART (Psy'l Study of the Arts) list. --Best, Norm Holland Dear Norm, Here's an anecdote from Frank Brownlow describing difficulties performing in the Shakespearean act (I'd forwarded him the description of Othello in trouble w/ his breeches): There was a prod. years ago at the Birmingham Rep of Julius Caesar, done on one of those sets that's all promontories. In those days every well-dressed Shakespearean Roman wore a toga and carried a rolled-up scroll. The actor playing Caesar came out on his promontory in the night scene, stood there and said, "Thrice this night hath Calpurnia cried help ho!," and the audience went off into fits of laughter. He broke into a sweat and repeated the line, and the audience went crazy. After a while things more or less settled down, he finished the scene, got off, and asked what all that was about. Turned out he'd been silhouetted, casting a large shadow as he spoke the line, holding his scroll at 45 degrees at hip height. The actor was Cyril Luckham, & he told me the story himself. FB ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 10:47:13 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0362 Qs: Shakespeare and London; Disguise The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0362. Sunday, 17 March 1997. [1] From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Friday, 14 Mar 1997 10:30:01 -0800 Subj: Re: Shakespeare and London [2] From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Saturday, 15 Mar 1997 09:51:46 -0500 (EST) Subj: Disguise [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Friday, 14 Mar 1997 10:30:01 -0800 Subject: Re: Shakespeare and London Hi, I hope you don't mind me asking for a little help on an issue of great importance. I love reading and learning about Shakespeare. I love Milton and Blake and Byron, and more than anything, I want to go to London! My problem is simply this: I'm afraid of planes!! What sense could it possibly make to become a teacher of Shakespeare, yet never get to stand at the Globe and marvel at the history?? I am truly ashamed of myself, but my fear is most real. I have an opportunity to go to London every year for the past four years, and here I am again with another offer. I need support from you people. I need you to tell me what a wimp I am; that I need to get off my butt and on the plane! Threaten to ban me from the board; tell me that you'll seek me out and have me tarred and feathered if you have to! Help me get to London! Joke: A man sits in the psychiatrist's office trying to get over his fear of flying. The Dr. explains to him the statistics, that more people die from car accidents than plane flights, but it is of no use. The man is still afraid. Finally, out of frustration, the Dr. says, "Ultimately, you have to accept the fact that when it's your time to go, it's your time to go." The man thought about this for a moment, looked up, and said, "Yeah, but what if it's the pilot's time to go?" JoAnna [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Saturday, 15 Mar 1997 09:51:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Disguise A student of mine is writing about disguise in Renaissance drama. He's trying to recall if (and where) disguise is "seen through" in plays, because it seems to him that disguise invariably works until it is revealed by the disguised character. For example, Pertinax Surly's disguise in *The Alchemist* is only recognized as such by Subtle, Face, etc. when Surly chooses to reveal himself. Can anyone out there recall Renaissance plays in which disguise doesn't work? Thanks in advance. Simon. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:59:40 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0363 Re: Disguise and Queries The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0363. Monday, 17 March 1997. [1] From: Helen Ostovich Date: Sunday, 16 Mar 1997 11:37:39 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0362 Qs: Disguise [2] From: Peter L Groves Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 11:27:53 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0362 Qs: Disguise [3] From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 11:35:56 +1100 (EST) Subj: Re: Disguise [4] From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Monday, 17 Mar 97 10:34:00 GMT Subj: Two queries and an answer [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Sunday, 16 Mar 1997 11:37:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0362 Qs: Disguise Simon,, Disguise doesn't seem to work in Much Ado when Beatrice speaks caustically to the apparently disguised Benedick. The other women also seem to see through the disguises worn by the masquers. Helen Ostovich McMaster University [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter L Groves Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 11:27:53 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0362 Qs: Disguise Romeo at the Capulets' ball is recognised by Tybalt, but I suppose he's not strictly in disguise, only masked. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 11:35:56 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: Disguise Gallathea and Phyllida in John Lyly's _Gallathea_ are both disguised (unknown to each other) as boys, and in the course of their conversations begin to suspect that all may not be what it seems. But they don't actually see through the disguises until their fathers reveal their real identities. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Monday, 17 Mar 97 10:34:00 GMT Subject: Two queries and an answer a) For Simon Morgan-Russell: in John Ford's last play _The Lady's Trial_ Benatzi visits his wife Levidolche in disguise. She recognises him but does not let on until the end of the play. b) I was reading _King Lear_ last night and was struck for the first time by the phrase 'milk of Burgundy'. The Arden editor glosses this as something like 'pasture - the effect for the cause', but does anyone know of any other comments? c) Wildly improbable as this may sound, I have a vague memory of reading somewhere that inmates in Bedlam actually were made to jump off things as a way of getting them to snap out of it. Has anyone else ever come across this, or has my subconscious gone off the rails here? Lisa Hopkins Sheffield Hallam University L.M.Hopkins@shu.ac.uk . Monday, 17 March 1997. [1] From: Helen Ostovich Date: Sunday, 16 Mar 1997 11:37:39 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0362 Qs: Disguise [2] From: Peter L Groves Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 11:27:53 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0362 Qs: Disguise [3] From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 11:35:56 +1100 (EST) Subj: Re: Disguise [4] From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Monday, 17 Mar 97 10:34:00 GMT Subj: Two queries and an answer [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Sunday, 16 Mar 1997 11:37:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0362 Qs: Disguise Simon,, Disguise doesn't seem to work in Much Ado when Beatrice speaks caustically to the apparently disguised Benedick. The other women also seem to see through the disguises worn by the masquers. Helen Ostovich McMaster University [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter L Groves Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 11:27:53 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0362 Qs: Disguise Romeo at the Capulets' ball is recognised by Tybalt, but I suppose he's not strictly in disguise, only masked. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 11:35:56 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: Disguise Gallathea and Phyllida in John Lyly's _Gallathea_ are both disguised (unknown to each other) as boys, and in the course of their conversations begin to suspect that all may not be what it seems. But they don't actually see through the disguises until their fathers reveal their real identities. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Monday, 17 Mar 97 10:34:00 GMT Subject: Two queries and an answer a) For Simon Morgan-Russell: in John Ford's last play _The Lady's Trial_ Benatzi visits his wife Levidolche in disguise. She recognises him but does not let on until the end of the play. b) I was reading _King Lear_ last night and was struck for the first time by the phrase 'milk of Burgundy'. The Arden editor glosses this as something like 'pasture - the effect for the cause', but does anyone know of any other comments? c) Wildly improbable as this may sound, I have a vague memory of reading somewhere that inmates in Bedlam actually were made to jump off things as a way of getting them to snap out of it. Has anyone else ever come across this, or has my subconscious gone off the rails here? Lisa Hopkins Sheffield Hallam University L.M.Hopkins@shu.ac.uk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:07:43 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0364 Re: London & Death; Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0364. Monday, 17 March 1997. [1] From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Sunday, 16 Mar 1997 14:31:14 -0500 Subj: London & Death [2] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Sunday, 16 Mar 1997 20:03:04 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0357 Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Sunday, 16 Mar 1997 14:31:14 -0500 Subject: London & Death >>I need support from you people. I need you to tell me what a wimp I am; that I need to get off my butt and on the plane! Threaten to ban me from the board; tell me that you'll seek me out and have me tarred and feathered if you have to!>> There's always Shakespeare's contention: Cowards die many times before their deaths; The valiant never taste of death but once. Of all the wonders that I yet have heard, It seems to me most strange that men should fear, Seeing that death, a necessary end, Will come when it will come. Then there are a couple of little fables I'm sure you've heard: A man was told that he would be killed on a certain date by an object falling on his head. He at once determined that he would spend that date with nothing whatsoever over his head, so off he went to the sea shore. He lay down in the sand, in the warmth of the sun, and fell asleep, content in the knowledge that he would successfully avoid death. A seagull passing overhead with an oyster in its mouth, mistook the sleeping man's head for a rock and let the oyster go. And that was the end of the poor man. Another fellow was shopping at a market place when he abruptly spotted death, also shopping at the market place. The look of surprise on the poor fellow's face was one thing, but death seemed even more perplexed. The man turned at once and ran without looking back. He quickly managed to trade all his goods for the fastest horse alive and, wasting no good-byes, he fled from the city. He rode all that day and all that night until, having covered a nearly impossible distance and having almost brought the horse itself to death, he arrived at a city well over a hundred miles distant. Exhausted and hungry, he at once went to the nearest Inn and sat to dinner. It wasn't ten minutes until death also walked into the same Inn. The poor man was white with shock but death was even more so. "How did you find me?" asked the man. "Why," said death, "this is where I thought to meet you all along! [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Sunday, 16 Mar 1997 20:03:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0357 Re: Ideology Eliot's judgment of Hamlet is just one of the handful I had mentioned, and that handful merely a few examples from the vast history of criticism. Is any critic or reader reading any work of art and responding to it and recording their response simply grinding an ideological axe? And does the grinding of that axe control the reading and everything about it from the very large to the very small? Or do we attain a measure (a small one? a large one?) of freedom from our ideologies when we experience a work of literature in a solitary conversation with our deepest selves? I think the second position the more reasonable, but let's explore some of the implications of the alternative. What do we think, as ideologically enlightened souls, of the great tradition of criticism and of great traditions of world art? Were critics before, say, 1970, who may have been oblivious to the determining power of ideology, labouring under a grand and centuries-old delusion that the things they were reading and that moved them actually had value? And now that we have come into the light, and recognize aesthetic value as merely a bourgeois illusion, what do we do not only with the works of literature, but with the wonderful and stirring criticism that the literature inspired? Do we even find it stirring? Do we pity poor Keats - or scorn him - or spending so much of his short life on his misbegotten letters - such a waste that such effort was invested in the elaboration of an illusion. And do we scorn the effort that was invested in creating the poetry? Do we scorn all who have been poets, playwrights, critics, or artists in any medium for their ill-spent hours? What does this kind of thinking bring us but scorn and contempt? Is the arrogance implicit in a dogmatically ideological view of the world not appalling? And does it really have any intellectual foundation, or is it not just idle talk? Paul Hawkins ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:12:35 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0365 Re: Disguise; Queries; Anecdotes The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0365. Tuesday, 18 March 1997. [1] From: Randall Martin Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 11:45:03 GMT-400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0362 Q: Disguise [2] From: David Evett Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 14:57 ET Subj: SHK 8.0363 Re: Disguise and Que [3] From: Scott D. McVay Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 20:46:43 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0363 Re: Disguise and Queries [4] From: John Velz Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 03:20:11 +0200 Subj: Disguise [5] From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 15:52:28 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0351 Re: Romeo and Juliet Assorted [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Randall Martin Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 11:45:03 GMT-400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0362 Q: Disguise Re: Simon Morgan-Russell's query about plays in which disguises fail. A possible instance occurs in *Cambyses* scene three, when Ambidexter comes on 'like a gentleman' to meet Sisamnes the judge. Ambidexter manages to keep up his apparent disguise for only a couple of lines before Sisamnes recognises him: 'What, Master Ambidexter, is it you?' Randall Martin [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 14:57 ET Subject: SHK 8.0363 Re: Disguise and Que The ladies in Love's Labours Lost are not taken in by the Muscovites, though of course they've been tipped off by Lafew. The situations in _Rom_ and _Ado_ are interesting, because the maskings for those parties are social conventions, predictable in ways that the disguises of Edgar or Volpone or Viola are not. Disguise does work at the end of _Ado_, when Claudio cannot discern Hero behind her mask, though it's not very strenuously tested. Undisguisedly, Dave Evett [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott D. McVay Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 20:46:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0363 Re: Disguise and Queries In a message dated 97-03-17 10:08:31 EST, Lisa Hopkins writes: << b) I was reading _King Lear_ last night and was struck for the first time by the phrase 'milk of Burgundy'. The Arden editor glosses this as something like 'pasture - the effect for the cause', but does anyone know of any other comments? >> I have The Complete Signet Classic Shakespeare (1972), with a trans. of King Lear by Russell Fraser (U of Michigan). His note on I.i.84 -- "The vines of France and milk of Burgundy" is: "milk i.e., pastures." Wouldn't Lear just be categorizing France and Burgundy by their stereotypical agricultural products? Scott D. McVay (Tudorvii@aol.com) [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 03:20:11 +0200 Subject: Disguise To Simon Russell-Morgan When it doesn't work, the roof comes off the theatre. Just watch em howl when Malvolio tries on his crossed garters and yellow stockings for Olivia. Note also in that play that Viola's disguise nearly falls apart when she is required to fight a duel with Sir Andrew. Audiences howl at that one too. The ladies in LLL penetrate the disguises of the visiting Russians and then when they themselves switch identities, the men are befuddled. In Much Ado disguises at the ball are easily penetrated, but serve complex purposes even when penetrated. There is surely more. Cheers, J.V. [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 15:52:28 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0351 Re: Romeo and Juliet Assorted Someone at Stratford Ont. swore to me that was true. One fine evening the second priest at Ophelia's graveside walked up the hem of his robe, fell into the trap and knocked himself out cold. He did not emerge. Hamlet leapt in and out of the now very crowded grave with Laertes. The monk still did not emerge. Finally the scene ended, they closed the trap and 'buried' the monk with Ophelia. Mary Jane Miller, Brock University, Return-Path: Received: from hcook by ws (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA18357; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:22:27 -0500 Message-ID: <332EA2D3.7B77@ws.bowiestate.edu> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:12:35 -0500 From: "Hardy M. Cook" Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Organization: Bowie State University X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SHAKSPER@WS.BowieState.edu Subject: SHK 8.0365 Re: Disguise; Queries; Anecdotes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit content-length: 4319 The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0365. Tuesday, 18 March 1997. [1] From: Randall Martin Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 11:45:03 GMT-400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0362 Q: Disguise [2] From: David Evett Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 14:57 ET Subj: SHK 8.0363 Re: Disguise and Que [3] From: Scott D. McVay Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 20:46:43 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0363 Re: Disguise and Queries [4] From: John Velz Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 03:20:11 +0200 Subj: Disguise [5] From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 15:52:28 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0351 Re: Romeo and Juliet Assorted [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Randall Martin Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 11:45:03 GMT-400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0362 Q: Disguise Re: Simon Morgan-Russell's query about plays in which disguises fail. A possible instance occurs in *Cambyses* scene three, when Ambidexter comes on 'like a gentleman' to meet Sisamnes the judge. Ambidexter manages to keep up his apparent disguise for only a couple of lines before Sisamnes recognises him: 'What, Master Ambidexter, is it you?' Randall Martin [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 14:57 ET Subject: SHK 8.0363 Re: Disguise and Que The ladies in Love's Labours Lost are not taken in by the Muscovites, though of course they've been tipped off by Lafew. The situations in _Rom_ and _Ado_ are interesting, because the maskings for those parties are social conventions, predictable in ways that the disguises of Edgar or Volpone or Viola are not. Disguise does work at the end of _Ado_, when Claudio cannot discern Hero behind her mask, though it's not very strenuously tested. Undisguisedly, Dave Evett [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott D. McVay Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 20:46:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0363 Re: Disguise and Queries In a message dated 97-03-17 10:08:31 EST, Lisa Hopkins writes: << b) I was reading _King Lear_ last night and was struck for the first time by the phrase 'milk of Burgundy'. The Arden editor glosses this as something like 'pasture - the effect for the cause', but does anyone know of any other comments? >> I have The Complete Signet Classic Shakespeare (1972), with a trans. of King Lear by Russell Fraser (U of Michigan). His note on I.i.84 -- "The vines of France and milk of Burgundy" is: "milk i.e., pastures." Wouldn't Lear just be categorizing France and Burgundy by their stereotypical agricultural products? Scott D. McVay (Tudorvii@aol.com) [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 03:20:11 +0200 Subject: Disguise To Simon Russell-Morgan When it doesn't work, the roof comes off the theatre. Just watch em howl when Malvolio tries on his crossed garters and yellow stockings for Olivia. Note also in that play that Viola's disguise nearly falls apart when she is required to fight a duel with Sir Andrew. Audiences howl at that one too. The ladies in LLL penetrate the disguises of the visiting Russians and then when they themselves switch identities, the men are befuddled. In Much Ado disguises at the ball are easily penetrated, but serve complex purposes even when penetrated. There is surely more. Cheers, J.V. [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 15:52:28 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0351 Re: Romeo and Juliet Assorted Someone at Stratford Ont. swore to me that was true. One fine evening the second priest at Ophelia's graveside walked up the hem of his robe, fell into the trap and knocked himself out cold. He did not emerge. Hamlet leapt in and out of the now very crowded grave with Laertes. The monk still did not emerge. Finally the scene ended, they closed the trap and 'buried' the monk with Ophelia. Mary Jane Miller, Brock University, ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:12:35 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0365 Re: Disguise; Queries; Anecdotes The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0365. Tuesday, 18 March 1997. [1] From: Randall Martin Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 11:45:03 GMT-400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0362 Q: Disguise [2] From: David Evett Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 14:57 ET Subj: SHK 8.0363 Re: Disguise and Que [3] From: Scott D. McVay Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 20:46:43 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0363 Re: Disguise and Queries [4] From: John Velz Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 03:20:11 +0200 Subj: Disguise [5] From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 15:52:28 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0351 Re: Romeo and Juliet Assorted [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Randall Martin Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 11:45:03 GMT-400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0362 Q: Disguise Re: Simon Morgan-Russell's query about plays in which disguises fail. A possible instance occurs in *Cambyses* scene three, when Ambidexter comes on 'like a gentleman' to meet Sisamnes the judge. Ambidexter manages to keep up his apparent disguise for only a couple of lines before Sisamnes recognises him: 'What, Master Ambidexter, is it you?' Randall Martin [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 14:57 ET Subject: SHK 8.0363 Re: Disguise and Que The ladies in Love's Labours Lost are not taken in by the Muscovites, though of course they've been tipped off by Lafew. The situations in _Rom_ and _Ado_ are interesting, because the maskings for those parties are social conventions, predictable in ways that the disguises of Edgar or Volpone or Viola are not. Disguise does work at the end of _Ado_, when Claudio cannot discern Hero behind her mask, though it's not very strenuously tested. Undisguisedly, Dave Evett [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott D. McVay Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 20:46:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0363 Re: Disguise and Queries In a message dated 97-03-17 10:08:31 EST, Lisa Hopkins writes: << b) I was reading _King Lear_ last night and was struck for the first time by the phrase 'milk of Burgundy'. The Arden editor glosses this as something like 'pasture - the effect for the cause', but does anyone know of any other comments? >> I have The Complete Signet Classic Shakespeare (1972), with a trans. of King Lear by Russell Fraser (U of Michigan). His note on I.i.84 -- "The vines of France and milk of Burgundy" is: "milk i.e., pastures." Wouldn't Lear just be categorizing France and Burgundy by their stereotypical agricultural products? Scott D. McVay (Tudorvii@aol.com) [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 03:20:11 +0200 Subject: Disguise To Simon Russell-Morgan When it doesn't work, the roof comes off the theatre. Just watch em howl when Malvolio tries on his crossed garters and yellow stockings for Olivia. Note also in that play that Viola's disguise nearly falls apart when she is required to fight a duel with Sir Andrew. Audiences howl at that one too. The ladies in LLL penetrate the disguises of the visiting Russians and then when they themselves switch identities, the men are befuddled. In Much Ado disguises at the ball are easily penetrated, but serve complex purposes even when penetrated. There is surely more. Cheers, J.V. [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 15:52:28 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0351 Re: Romeo and Juliet Assorted Someone at Stratford Ont. swore to me that was true. One fine evening the second priest at Ophelia's graveside walked up the hem of his robe, fell into the trap and knocked himself out cold. He did not emerge. Hamlet leapt in and out of the now very crowded grave with Laertes. The monk still did not emerge. Finally the scene ended, they closed the trap and 'buried' the monk with Ophelia. Mary Jane Miller, Brock University, Return-Path: Received: from hcook by ws (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA18357; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:22:27 -0500 Message-ID: <332EA2D3.7B77@ws.bowiestate.edu> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:12:35 -0500 From: "Hardy M. Cook" Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Organization: Bowie State University X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SHAKSPER@WS.BowieState.edu Subject: SHK 8.0365 Re: Disguise; Queries; Anecdotes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit content-length: 4319 The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0365. Tuesday, 18 March 1997. [1] From: Randall Martin Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 11:45:03 GMT-400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0362 Q: Disguise [2] From: David Evett Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 14:57 ET Subj: SHK 8.0363 Re: Disguise and Que [3] From: Scott D. McVay Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 20:46:43 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0363 Re: Disguise and Queries [4] From: John Velz Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 03:20:11 +0200 Subj: Disguise [5] From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 15:52:28 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0351 Re: Romeo and Juliet Assorted [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Randall Martin Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 11:45:03 GMT-400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0362 Q: Disguise Re: Simon Morgan-Russell's query about plays in which disguises fail. A possible instance occurs in *Cambyses* scene three, when Ambidexter comes on 'like a gentleman' to meet Sisamnes the judge. Ambidexter manages to keep up his apparent disguise for only a couple of lines before Sisamnes recognises him: 'What, Master Ambidexter, is it you?' Randall Martin [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 14:57 ET Subject: SHK 8.0363 Re: Disguise and Que The ladies in Love's Labours Lost are not taken in by the Muscovites, though of course they've been tipped off by Lafew. The situations in _Rom_ and _Ado_ are interesting, because the maskings for those parties are social conventions, predictable in ways that the disguises of Edgar or Volpone or Viola are not. Disguise does work at the end of _Ado_, when Claudio cannot discern Hero behind her mask, though it's not very strenuously tested. Undisguisedly, Dave Evett [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott D. McVay Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 20:46:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0363 Re: Disguise and Queries In a message dated 97-03-17 10:08:31 EST, Lisa Hopkins writes: << b) I was reading _King Lear_ last night and was struck for the first time by the phrase 'milk of Burgundy'. The Arden editor glosses this as something like 'pasture - the effect for the cause', but does anyone know of any other comments? >> I have The Complete Signet Classic Shakespeare (1972), with a trans. of King Lear by Russell Fraser (U of Michigan). His note on I.i.84 -- "The vines of France and milk of Burgundy" is: "milk i.e., pastures." Wouldn't Lear just be categorizing France and Burgundy by their stereotypical agricultural products? Scott D. McVay (Tudorvii@aol.com) [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 03:20:11 +0200 Subject: Disguise To Simon Russell-Morgan When it doesn't work, the roof comes off the theatre. Just watch em howl when Malvolio tries on his crossed garters and yellow stockings for Olivia. Note also in that play that Viola's disguise nearly falls apart when she is required to fight a duel with Sir Andrew. Audiences howl at that one too. The ladies in LLL penetrate the disguises of the visiting Russians and then when they themselves switch identities, the men are befuddled. In Much Ado disguises at the ball are easily penetrated, but serve complex purposes even when penetrated. There is surely more. Cheers, J.V. [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 15:52:28 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0351 Re: Romeo and Juliet Assorted Someone at Stratford Ont. swore to me that was true. One fine evening the second priest at Ophelia's graveside walked up the hem of his robe, fell into the trap and knocked himself out cold. He did not emerge. Hamlet leapt in and out of the now very crowded grave with Laertes. The monk still did not emerge. Finally the scene ended, they closed the trap and 'buried' the monk with Ophelia. Mary Jane Miller, Brock University, ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:22:38 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0366 Re: Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0366. Tuesday, 18 March 1997. [1] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 23:39:36 GMT Subj: Re: Ideology [2] From: Peter C. Herman Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 08:52:11 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0364 Ideology [3] From: John Drakakis Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 00:17:53 -0000 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0364 Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 23:39:36 GMT Subject: Re: Ideology Paul Hawkins asks > Is any critic or reader reading any work of > art and responding to it and recording their response > simply grinding an ideological axe? And does the > grinding of that axe control the reading and > everything about it from the very large to > the very small? Or do we attain a measure (a small > one? a large one?) of freedom from our ideologies > when we experience a work of literature in a solitary > conversation with our deepest selves? There is an odd use of terms here. By 'axe-grinding' people usually mean something like 'turning to one's own account'. But Paul uses it to mean 'unconsciously doing as one is bidden by ideology', which seems more or less the opposite idea. The phrase "freedom from our ideologies" suggests that once again this useful word 'ideology' is being taken in the un-Marxist sense of 'conscious dogma'. Those who've disagreed with Paul might reject this usage. I've no idea what solitary conversation is, and I don't have a deep self to talk to, so I'm unable to comment on the last sentence other than to note that it implies certain debatable theoretical notions concerning subjectivity. > What do we think, as ideologically enlightened souls, > of the great tradition of criticism and of great > traditions of world art? I wouldn't try to summarize such a large body of work. Could you offer something smaller? > Were critics before, say, 1970, who may have been > oblivious to the determining power of ideology, > labouring under a grand and centuries-old delusion > that the things they were reading and that moved them > actually had value? English studies is not centuries old and I wouldn't like to comment on other subjects. It should be remembered that 'determination' is the setting of boundaries and not the reduction to singularities. Certainly those who believe that social organization, and especially class relations, are reproduced by the transmission of ideas in ways that are not immediately obvious - indeed which must not seem to be doing the work of reproduction but only the articulation of commonsense - are likely to be more open-minded than those who don't perceive the process. I think that amounts to a qualified 'yes' to your question. > And now that we have come into the light, and > recognize aesthetic value as merely a bourgeois > illusion, what do we do not only with the works of > literature, but with the wonderful and stirring > criticism that the literature inspired? One doesn't have to be a Christian to take an interest in the Bible, and one doesn't have to accept a critical position when consuming it. As often as not a critical work is interesting precisely because we can now perceive the received ideas which it unconsciously articulates. No? > Do we pity...do we scorn...Do we scorn...[all those > artists who made beautiful things]? Seldom. We might want to scorn the idea that 'beauty' inspired the poetic blazon if we think some kinds of flattery to be merely 'the underside of male violence' (as Simon Shepherd puts it). I scorn Hemingway's 'beautiful' descriptions of hunting big game in _Green Hills of Africa_ because I reject the value-system which underlies it. One might wish to pour scorn someone's faith that 'beauty' is an absolute. We generally reject the idea articulated in early modern texts that female beauty could be objectively quantified, and yet many would claim this objective beauty for certain texts. Gabriel Egan [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter C. Herman Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 08:52:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0364 Ideology >From: Paul Hawkins >>Eliot's judgment of Hamlet is just one of the handful I had mentioned, and that handful merely a few examples from the vast history of criticism. Is any critic or reader reading any work of art and responding to it and recording their response simply grinding an ideological axe? And does the grinding of that axe control the reading and everything about it from the very large to the very small? Or do we attain a measure (a small one? a large one?) of freedom from our ideologies when we experience a work of literature in a solitary conversation with our deepest selves? I think the second position the more reasonable, but let's explore some of the implications of the alternative.<< Although I hesitate to enter a conversation as extended and as detailed as this one, Paul Hawkins' impassioned response allows me an entry point. It seems to me that Prof. Hawkins is proposing a false dichotomy between "reading any work of art" and "simply grinding an ideological axe." The problem is in the denigration of the second term. Why are "ideologies" something that we necessarily need to be freed from? Ideology, in its broadest sense, is how we understand the world, the unspoken warrants of our being. And what clearly bothers Prof. Hawkins is our inability to create an objective platform from which to interrogate, or to use a less harsh term, put into question or even *converse* with our ideologies. He is not alone, if my reading of the end of Greenblatt's Renaissance Self-Fashioning is accurate. >>What do we think, as ideologically enlightened souls, of the great tradition of criticism and of great traditions of world art? Were critics before, say, 1970, who may have been oblivious to the determining power of ideology, labouring under a grand and centuries-old delusion that the things they were reading and that moved them actually had value? And now that we have come into the light, and recognize aesthetic value as merely a bourgeois illusion, what do we do not only with the works of literature, but with the wonderful and stirring criticism that the literature inspired? Do we even find it stirring? Do we pity poor Keats - or scorn him - or spending so much of his short life on his misbegotten letters - such a waste that such effort was invested in the elaboration of an illusion. And do we scorn the effort that was invested in creating the poetry? Do we scorn all who have been poets, playwrights, critics, or artists in any medium for their ill-spent hours?<< In my view, clearly not, I don't think we should scorn anybody. And yet, the difference between, say, Eliot and C.S. Lewis, and Prof. Hawkes is the *awareness* of how criticism arises from specific historical circumstances. Lewis and Tillyard really thought that they were recovering the past in itself as it really was. To my knowledge, they never dreamed that their views of early modern literature were reactions to England's debilitated post-war condition. Today, a good chunk of us realizes that we are formed by history as much as we form history,and we use that awareness to energize our criticism (or at least I do). Furthermore, there is no contradiction between weeping at Lear's lines on Cordelia's death and investigating the play's relationships to the end of feudalism or the problem of religion. The former invites the latter, but they are still distinct activities and reactions. >>What does this kind of thinking bring us but scorn and contempt? Is the arrogance implicit in a dogmatically ideological view of the world not appalling? And does it really have any intellectual foundation, or is it not just idle talk?<< To this point, I would remind Prof. Hawkins that over-reactions and just plain rudeness are not restricted to those on his side of the theoretical divide. Just take a look at Brian Vickers' extended attack on all post-1970 criticism in _Appropriating Shakespeare_, or some of the comments in the latest ELR issue devoted to the state of Renaissance Studies. There's plenty of scorn and contempt on the other side as well. Peter C. Herman [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 00:17:53 -0000 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0364 Re: Ideology I'm afraid that Paul Hawkins really does have it wrong. He seems to think that ideology is nothing more than "illusion". So long as he thinks that, then he can continue to ask rather silly questions. Ideology fulfills a cognitive function, at least since Althusser, so it does mean that the position that he ascribes to "ideologically enlightened souls" is little more than a figment of his own imagination. Although the Althusserian notion of ideology is very much the predominant one, and has been for some time, the view that Theoretical practice produces a neutral and objectively scientific view of, say, a literary text, has been brought seriously into doubt. There is certainly a "tradition" of criticism, but I see no reason why we should necessarily assent to all of its assumptions. We view it "differently" in part because we are at some historical distance from some of its exponents. Paul Hawkins seems to want to assert that this tradition is, somehow binding, and that as teachers of Literature it is our task to keep it alive. His comments on what he takes to be the "scorning" of literary texts seem to me to be almost as fanciful as his approach to ideology. If he ie really serious then perhaps he might do well to remind himself of Walter Benjamin's observation that "There is no document in civilization that is not also, at the same time, a document in barbarism" (Theses on the Philosophy of History). Perhaps that sobering thought might do something to temper what is, in the final analysis, little more than anti-intellectual arrogance of his own. Cheers John Drakakis ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:47:42 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0367 Re: Polonius; Fear of Flying The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0367. Tuesday, 18 March 1997. [1] From: Albert Misseldine Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 09:41:54 -0500 Subj: Polonius [2] From: Ed Peschko Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 10:43:12 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0362 Qs: Shakespeare and London [3] From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 18:43:27 PST Subj: London [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Albert Misseldine Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 09:41:54 -0500 Subject: Polonius Concerning Polonius: wouldn't the audience have recognized the movement of "He closes with you in this consequence: 'Good sir' or so, or 'friend,' or 'gentleman' - and laughed? Compare "and he himself must speak ...saying 'ladies' or 'fair ladies - I would wish you' or 'I would entreat you.' And if we laugh at Polonius, where is the dignity? Cheers. A Misseldine [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Peschko Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 10:43:12 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0362 Qs: Shakespeare and London I would weigh your passion against your fear - if you value your passion more than your fear then hell-GET ON THE PLANE! If you value your fear more than your passion, then don't. But before I would make the latter assessment, I would think of not only the present cost but the future cost: now, you don't get to learn about Shakespeare. Next, you don't get to go to Ancient Greece. Forget the pyramids, or Babylon, China, or any of the wonders of the world. I'd say that the choice pretty much makes itself. Just close your eyes and think calm thoughts when you get on that plane.. I had much the same problem, and I overcame it. You can as well. Ed [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 18:43:27 PST Subject: London Fear of flying is not the same as fear of death, so I doubt if lines from Shakespeare will be of much help to Ms. Koskinen. I suppose being afraid of flying is somewhat wimpish, but I don't see why you should be ashamed. You are not doing anything wrong or harmful to anyone else. John Madden, a successful football broadcaster, refuses to fly. Flying is efficient and safe, but it is also quite unpleasant. Why not make a virtue of your aversion? Are there no longer accommodations for passengers on freighters? That used to be an exceedingly pleasant way to travel. Best, Dan Lowenstein ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:51:27 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0368 Call for Papers: Shakespeare in Popular Culture The Shakespeare Conference: . Tuesday, 18 March 1997. From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Monday, 17 Mar 1997 18:07:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Call for papers Call for Papers Shakespeare in Popular Culture panels to be presented at Mid-Atlantic Popular Culture/American Culture Assocation Conference Baltimore, Maryland October 31-November 2, 1997 Besides Shakespeare's secure place in the literary canon, the plays and characters of Shakespeare have constantly appeared as part of American popular culture. Papers are invited that explore how American appropriations of Shakespeare have bridged high and popular culture in film, television, advertising, music and theatrical productions. In addition, it is hoped that "Shakespeare in Popular Culture" panels will be a part of: Popular Culture/American Culture Association Conference Orlando, Florida April 8-11, 1998 Please send an abstract (minimum of 150 words) for either or both conferences before June 1, 1997 via email or by mail to: Elizabeth Abele 206 S. 13th Street, #901 Philadelphia, PA 19107 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 10:28:27 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0369 Re: Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0369. Wednesday, 19 March 1997. [1] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 14:42:32 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0366 Re: Ideology [2] From: Harvey Wheeler Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 97 18:01:39 UT Subj: Ideology [3] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 18:00:28 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0366 Re: Ideology [4] From: Greg McSweeney Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 22:52:23 -0500 (EST) Subj: Questions on Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 14:42:32 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0366 Re: Ideology Gabriel Egan writes: "English studies is not centuries old . . . ." Let's grant him this quibble, but add the qualifier "in its present form," though I'd construe "studies" as a plural. We know that Milton studied Spenser, that Gray studied Shakespeare, and that Tennyson studied Keats. And we all know that Chaucer was a great studier. I'm assuming that studying English poetry can be called "English studies." Gabriel writes in parentheses: "social organization, and especially class relations, are reproduced by the transmission of ideas in ways that are not immediately obvious - indeed which must not seem to be doing the work of reproduction but only the articulation of commonsense" I'd like to point out that ideas are here transmitted without agency. So we have the transmission of ideas reproducing (interesting word) social organization and class relations. By his use of rhetoric, Gabriel has taken people out of the process. We have a personified abstraction ("the transmission of ideas") doing "the work of reproduction." Need I point out that personified abstractions never (that I'm aware) get out of bed in the morning and go to work, or, to use Gabriel's metaphor, going to bed to do the work of reproduction? I think this is an important point. Theorists have so belumped us with the rhetoric of cultural work that we tend to forget where the true agency lies-i.e., with ourselves, dear Brutus. We are not the passive recipients of ideas; ideas do not come from the Great Transmitter of Ideas in the Sky. We humans have ideas, and we pass them on in conversation, in books, and with email messages. And when we don't like an idea, we have the power to reject it-as I do now! Yours, Bill Godshalk [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harvey Wheeler Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 97 18:01:39 UT Subject: Ideology I missed the reference to where T.S. Eliot deprecates Hamlet for being written in demotic style. Is this part of the dissociation of the sensibilities? Private reply is fine Harvey Wheeler verulan@msn.com [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 18:00:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0366 Re: Ideology It's nice that John Drakakis seems to have no scorn for literary texts - though the question was not about the texts but about the effort and the people that made them. It's also nice that when he says "the view . . . has been brought seriously into doubt" that "theoretical practice produces a neutral and objectively scientific view of . . . a literary text," he makes clear that he is no defender of the dogmatism which alone is what I was attacking. Since our two views thus have much in common, I am a little surprised that he finds me "wrong" for holding that ideology is an illusion (when I say no such thing) and for speaking of "ideologically enlightened souls," when I meant by this to identify those who recognize what surely is the current truism, as he expresses it, that "ideology fulfills a cognitive function." I am also a little surprised that he credits me with things I neither say nor imply. Certainly, I admire the tradition of criticism that we have been speaking of, but I have no idea why John Drakakis seems to think this implies "we should necessarily assent to all its assumptions." Nor do I know what he has in mind when he suggests that I think this tradition should be "binding" or kept "alive," except as this last means presenting it to students for their enjoyment and instruction and encouraging them to enter into dialogue with it, which seem reasonable enough things to do with an intellectual tradition that is ours to study, unless he proposes that we irrationally discard it. And I don't know why he thinks my position deaf to a comment like Benjamin's. Is he actually suggesting, though, that I stop admiring Keats's letters because of it? To borrow a phrase, that really would be rather silly. Paul Hawkins [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Greg McSweeney Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 22:52:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Questions on Ideology. Hello, everyone: I've encountered the ideology/aesthetics debate in medias res, as it were, since I'd set to "no-mail" while in the process of moving to a new apartment. The quality of the argument that is most striking to me is that the opponents seem to be working with ill-defined terms. The ideologues, if I may call them that, appear to define ideology as a functionally ontological (even if learned or inherited) phenomenon through which the world is observed by the subject - a lens that reflects all experience through its particular shape, and which apparently prevents the subject from saying something like, "Okay, though I identify and operate as a Marxist, I will now look at this text as a post-feminist might, thereby isolating some of the differences between these two ideological positions." On the other hand (and I hope some one can help me here,) the aesthetic stance in this debate seems nebulous; I can't pin down what its proponents are either advocating or condemning. I get this creeping feeling that it's connected somehow with New Critical or formalist interpretation, that the "value" of a text is stable and inherent within it, and therefore that there can be such a thing as a closed or solved interpretation of it. Alternatively, the aesthetes (sorry) seem to be saying that while no closed interpretation may be possible - or even desirable - simply "loving" a text should be the ultimate pedagogical goal. This is ideal, of course, provided that as a teacher you have the luxury of teaching something you actually love; I have often been in the opposite situation. And I don't find it inappropriate in any case to examine *why* a certain text should be loved. Should be loved? Who do we think we are? If my British and Peruvian students had identical feelings for W.S. I would consider it the result of lazy and dogmatic teaching on my part. Obviously I wouldn't suppress the fact that as a teacher I consider W.S. the seminal writer in English - but that's my opinion, based on my experience, beliefs, education, up-bringing - in short, my ideology. And for my Spanish, Asian, or Icelandic students I don't presume to valorize Shakespeare over the seminal writers of their respective cultures. All I want to do for my students is to introduce and help explore what W.S. has to offer. On the one hand, I'm aware of my own ideology, I think (socialist/queer/post-Freudian psychoanalytic) and on the other, I scour a text for all of its inherent treasures - which must be articulated as the raw material with which a student may then do what he wishes. Where's the conflict? The pendulum may swing from reader-oriented to text-based, but the change is never absolute; I find this debate a little contrived in its extremism and its exclusionary rhetoric. It's fascinating and productive to examine "The Tempest," for instance, as a closed text: its language, metaphors, conceits, and structure are amply rewarding. But why set up an opposition in which one interpretation is more legitimate than another? Why not examine the play's economy as a Marxist, it's sociology as a post-colonialist, its sexual dynamic as a feminist, post-feminist, or queer theorist? Why will people insist that there's such a thing as too much information? Or that there can be only one valid method of obtaining that information? Or that methods of investigation must, can, or should be either linked, segregated, promoted, or eliminated? I don't consider it my job to be the god of that kind of triage - and I suspect those who do of having agendas that are neither ideological nor aesthetic. Greg McSweeney ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 10:34:35 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0370 Re: Disguise; Anecdotes The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0370. Wednesday, 19 March 1997. [1] From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 97 16:21:00 GMT Subj: Disguise [2] From: Mark Mann Date: Wednesday, 19 Mar 1997 00:44:16 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0365 Re: Anecdotes [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 97 16:21:00 GMT Subject: Disguise And how about 'Here comes the lord Lysimachus disguised' in _Pericles_. Lisa Hopkins Sheffield Hallam University L.M.Hopkins@shu.ac.uk [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Mann Date: Wednesday, 19 Mar 1997 00:44:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0365 Re: Anecdotes << Someone at Stratford Ont. swore to me that was true. One fine evening the second priest at Ophelia's graveside walked up the hem of his robe, fell into the trap and knocked himself out cold. He did not emerge. Hamlet leapt in and out of the now very crowded grave with Laertes. The monk still did not emerge. Finally the scene ended, they closed the trap and 'buried' the monk with Ophelia. Mary Jane Miller, Brock University, >> Hilarious!! I heard one having to do with the same scene...a friend swears she saw this..Hamlet, played by a rather short actor, fell into the grave, which was deeper than he was tall. A moment passes, one of those three hours moments, then the audience sees a head pop up as Hamlet begins leaping repeatedly to deliver his line:" It is ... (leap) ... I ... (leap) ... Hamlet ......... (leap) .... The Dane!"No report follows as to how they disinterred" him...Cheers....Mark Mann, Arden Shakespeare Company ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 10:41:20 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0371 Re: Fear of Flying The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0371. Wednesday, 19 March 1997. [1] From: David Evett Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 16:29 ET Subj: SHK 8.0367 Re: Fear [2] From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 22:46:06 -0800 Subj: Re: Looks Like I'm Gonna Do It [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 16:29 ET Subject: SHK 8.0367 Re: Fear I second Dan Lowenstein's suggestion that you look into ships. Even freighters are expensive, but I think everybody ought to get at least one trans-Atlantic voyage - a luxury that seems to me more worth taking out a second mortgage for than most. A good travel agent can get you started. Nautically, Dave Evett [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 22:46:06 -0800 Subject: Re: Looks Like I'm Gonna Do It Well, It looks like I'm going to London this summer for intersession. I made the decision this morning, and I'm doing the paperwork tomorrow. Thanks for all the encouragement, and don't be surprised if the week before leaving you find me a little crazed. I really must not let my fears control me, right? Thanks again, everyone. JoAnna ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 10:48:23 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0372 Qs: Lear's Fool and Dante; Cowardice as a Facade The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0372. Wednesday, 19 March 1997. [1] From: Roger Schmeeckle" Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 12:27:47 -0800 (PST) Subj: Lear's fool as a symbol of reason, a la Dante [2] From: Jason Booth Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 12:56:00 -0500 (EST) Subj: Cowardice as a Facade [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Schmeeckle" Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 12:27:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Lear's fool as a symbol of reason, a la Dante Dante's Commedia is an artistic vision of all of reality, temporal and eternal, organized as Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. It contains a multitude of characters, usually making brief appearances and not reappearing. It is easy to see them, however vividly realized, as serving a symbolic function in Dante's overall vision. Even those who have major roles, such as Virgil, serve a symbolic function. Virgil represents reason, taking Dante as far as he can, but unable to go beyond the natural order. Shakespeare, compared with Dante, usually has one or more very highly developed individual characters at the center of his many dramas, so that the tendency to concentrate on character analysis blurs the possible symbolic function of these characters in a larger artistic scheme. Macbeth, for instance, is so much at the center of the play, that it is easy to miss the fact that the play is about kingship, and that Macbeth represents a usurper, contrasted with other representatives of good kings. My hypothetical suggestion is that Lear's fool functions as a symbol of reason. He is more or less taken for granted and ignored, but occasionally Lear hears him, as he describes the true condition to which Lear has been reduced. And the audience hears the fool as the voice of reason commenting on folly. Like Virgil in Dante's Commedia, the fool's dropping out of the play symbolizes the limits of human reason. If, as I believe, the play has a similar structure to Dante's Commedia, while differing greatly from it, Lear's purification cannot be realized by reason alone, but requires the experience of suffering to accomplish a stage beyond reason. And, eventually, it is accomplished through the ministrations of Cordelia. Lear's contrast between his wheel of fire and Cordelia's being a soul in bliss, then symbolizes the transition from a purgatorial phase to the paradisal phase, only briefly and obscurely glimpsed in Lear. Feedback would be appreciated. I am especially interested in whether or not Shakespeare was familiar with Dante, and any scholarship or interpretation that might have developed a view similar to mine. Roger Schmeeckle [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jason Booth Date: Tuesday, 18 Mar 1997 12:56:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Cowardice as a Facade I am currently taking a introductory course on Shakespeare and am working toward research on Richard III. I am not sure as of what theme I am going with yet, but I would greatly appreciate any assistance or discussion on the topic. I am leaning toward villainy and/or Richard's evil as a sign of his true deep dark cowardice. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 10:00:33 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0373 Re: Lear's Fool and Dante The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0373. Thursday, 20 March 1997. [1] From: Tiffany Rasovic Date: Wednesday, 19 Mar 1997 12:57:50 -0800 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0372 Qs: Lear's Fool and Dante [2] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 19 Mar 1997 12:34:08 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0372 Qs: Lear's Fool and Dante [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tiffany Rasovic Date: Wednesday, 19 Mar 1997 12:57:50 -0800 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0372 Qs: Lear's Fool and Dante I, peon and potential graduate student, did my senior essay on Lear's fool and Feste. I suggested links between Erasmus (see The Praise of Folly) and Shakes' use of fools and foolish characters as transmitters of reason - by virtue of the fact that they necessarily stand outside of conventional modes of reasoning which might be staid, corrupted, unexamined, etc.....I racked my brains and my bibliography to find the source of some very useful biographical info that characterizes the traditional curricula in schools such as the one attended by the Bard, as well as giving evidence that Shakes was indeed familiar with much of the literature of Italy...so, unless I've been having dreams about this evidence due to my own love of Dante, Erasmus, et al, the "proof" is out there. Yours, TR [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 19 Mar 1997 12:34:08 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0372 Qs: Lear's Fool and Dante Hi, Roger. My main issue with your Dante/Lear reading would concern its ending: Dante, of course, ends up in Paradise, ending in the presence of the transcendently blissful "Love that moves the sun and the other stars." Lear, of course, ends up dead and, moreover, deceived into thinking his daughter's alive, though I suppose his doubts might be seen as evidence of breaking through to the other world in which she is alive. Nevertheless, the world at the end of _King Lear_ is enormously different from the rose of Paradise. Perhaps this underlines the absolute division between earthly reason and divine grace, also enunciated in the disappearance of the fool (or Virgil). In other words, Lear may have escaped the world, as Dante does in leaving the garden at the end of Purgatorio, but his ontological status following this escape can only be understood as absence. Shakespeare, unlike Dante, makes no effort to express the structure of Paradise, or any sort of afterlife, in language. One could also argue that since the play is set before the birth of Christ, no entry into Paradise can be contemplated within the world of the play. In any case, the distinction between heaven and earth is radical: one character having left the world, we are given only the remaining characters, still trying to figure out their all-too-earthly lives. I would place the play within the context of a challenge to the metaphysics enunciated so beautifully by Dante. It is, after all, the product of the reformation, and of the radical doubts it introduced (if only later to foreclose). For more on which, see Robert Watson, _The Rest is Silence: Death as Annihilation in the English Renaissance_. And I hope you're not trying to turn Cordelia into Beatrice. The former's silence and gentle forgiveness ("no cause, no cause") stands in radical contradistinction to Beatrice's rant in the Edenic garden at the top of Mount Purgatory, which always makes me imagine one of my old Sunday school teachers possessed by Lady Thatcher. Cheers, and good luck, Sean. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 10:14:54 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0375 Q: St. Crispin's Day The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0375. Thursday, 20 March 1997. From: Michael Friedman Date: Wednesday, 19 Mar 1997 14:21:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: St. Crispin's Day SHAKSPERians, I have a question for the group. I'm in the middle of the research for a project on *Henry V* that involves the Crispin Crispian speech. It seems to me significant that Shakespeare chooses to emphasize so heavily the detail from Holinshed that the Battle of Agincourt took place on what Henry calls Saint Crispin's Day. I fully expected that some scholar would have written an article on this topic, but after poring through the Garland Annotated Bibliography of *Henry V* and the annual issues of the *World Shakespeare Bibliography*, as well as the MLA on CD-Rom, I have not been able to locate any treatments of this issue. Is there anyone out there who knows, or can point me in the direction of a source that discusses, why Shakespeare might have chosen to emphasize this date so insistently? Were there any particular associations connected with this "holiday" that might have been significant for the original audience? Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Michael Friedman University of Scranton FriedmanM1@Tiger.uofs.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 10:26:55 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0376 Re: Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0376. Thursday, 20 March 1997. [1] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 19 Mar 1997 13:12:46 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0366 Re: Ideology [2] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 19 Mar 1997 16:19:04 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0369 Re: Ideology [3] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Thursday, 20 Mar 1997 08:52:23 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0369 Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 19 Mar 1997 13:12:46 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0366 Re: Ideology Gabe asks whether, The phrase "freedom from our ideologies" >> suggests that once again this useful word 'ideology' is being taken in the un-Marxist sense of 'conscious dogma'. Those who've disagreed with Paul might reject this usage. << True enough. But I would say that the opposite, broad use of ideology as a sort of ontological function, the constitution of being as such, lies at the bottom of the difference between those open to aesthetic considerations, and those who are not. Unfortunately, raising ideology to this totalizing sort of function is unprovable, and can be achieved only by the sort of ad-hominem argument (you say you just love the work, but you *really* are motivated by an ideological unconscious) which could just as easily be turned around to defend aesthetics (you say that you are making an ideological decision, but you *really* are motivated by an unconscious aesthetic attraction to certain positions). I've no idea what solitary conversation >> is, and I don't have a deep self to talk to, so I'm unable to comment on the last sentence other than to note that it implies certain debatable theoretical notions concerning subjectivity.<< As do yours, one might add. The only difference is that yours are being used to foreclose argument on aesthetics. Paul has many times expressed his openness to ideological questions. Where your unprovable a priori has a censorious function, Paul's provides an opening. >> English studies is not centuries old and I wouldn't like to comment on other subjects.<< This is a word game. People have been thinking and writing about written texts for a long time. That the phrase "English Studies" and a few accidental (in the metaphysical sense) assumptions were attached to this term more recently is basically besides the point. In fact, if radical changes have taken place, as you seem to purport, then this is only all the more reason to wish to study that tradition, to allow its difference from our own more recent assumptions to call those assumptions (like the priority of ideology over all other studies) into question. It should be remembered that 'determination' is the > setting of boundaries and not the reduction to singularities. Like that everything is ideology, for instance? Certainly >> those who believe that social organization, and especially class relations, are reproduced by the transmission of ideas in ways that are not immediately obvious - indeed which must not seem to be doing the work of reproduction but only the articulation of commonsense - are likely to be more open-minded than those who don't perceive the process.<< I quite disagree. Time and time again on the recent debate, Paul and I have asked that aesthetics be respected as _on par with_ ideology. Only the ideologues want to rule certain questions to be always already illegitimate. > >One doesn't have to be a Christian to take an interest in the Bible, and one doesn't have to accept a critical position when consuming it. As often as not a critical work is interesting precisely because we can now perceive the received ideas which it unconsciously articulates. No?<< Of course. The question is whether we dismiss texts and their criticisms as the products of received ideas they unconsciously articulates, to which we now hold ourselves in a position of superiority, or whether we let them reveal and therefore call into question the unconsciously received ideas we bring to them. In the former case, we are truly subverted, and new ways of being in the world are opened to us. In the latter case, we stand in a position of power over the text, with an agency so unlimited that even Jean-Paul Sartre would blanche at its rise. Peter Herman writes: > >Although I hesitate to enter a conversation as extended and as detailed as this one, Paul Hawkins' impassioned response allows me an entry point. It seems to me that Prof. Hawkins is proposing a false dichotomy between "reading any work of art" and "simply grinding an ideological axe." The problem is in the denigration of the second term. Why are "ideologies" something that we necessarily need to be freed from? Ideology, in its broadest sense, is how we understand the world, the unspoken warrants of our being. << If denigrating the second term is wrong, then why are you implicitly denigrating the first term by raising ideology to ontological importance? Surely the two should be understood as equally valid, equally possible, possibilities. I agree that Paul's labeling of ideological criticism as "axe-grinding" is a bit of an overstatement, but it does not, in itself, justify such a broad reading of ideology. > >In my view, clearly not, I don't think we should scorn anybody. And yet, the difference between, say, Eliot and C.S. Lewis, and Prof. Hawkes is the *awareness* of how criticism arises from specific historical circumstances. Lewis and Tillyard really thought that they were recovering the past in itself as it really was. To my knowledge, they never dreamed that their views of early modern literature were reactions to England's debilitated post-war condition. Today, a good chunk of us realizes that we are formed by history as much as we form history, and we use that awareness to energize our criticism (or at least I do).<< Is this awareness not itself a historical product? Does historical relativism not devour itself, as Husserl once pointed out? I'm not saying that such a process would necessarily be a bad thing, since it would allow us to question ourselves, not just other people, usually dead. I must say that the rest of your post contained a number of points very well taken, such as the commensurability between an aesthetic response to Lear's lines on Cordelia's death, and an investigation of the play's historical position. Jack Drakakis writes: > >He seems to think that ideology is nothing more than "illusion". So long as he thinks that, then he can continue to ask rather silly questions.<< Were you the one who called aesthetics an illusion and allusion a while ago? Perhaps I've mixed it up. Cheers, Sean. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 19 Mar 1997 16:19:04 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0369 Re: Ideology Hi, Greg. I enjoyed your contribution to the ideology/aesthetics debate. If the qualify of your response is anything to go by, I don't think that you've missed much. >> On the other hand (and I hope some one can help me here,) the aesthetic stance in this debate seems nebulous; I can't pin down what its proponents are either advocating or condemning. I get this creeping feeling that it's connected somehow with New Critical or formalist interpretation, that the "value" of a text is stable and inherent within it, and therefore that there can be such a thing as a closed or solved interpretation of it.<< Allow me to offer my own definition, though of course I cannot speak for any sort of "school." I would define the aesthetic as that which encounters us in a text as other, prior to all efforts at interpretation. Inversely, it may be defined as the surplus remaining after ideological interpretations have been removed. Functionally, of course, it is impossible to remove ideological interpretations, since they are built into the structure of language (and so forth, ad nauseum), though it is equally impossible to explain the text totally in terms of ideology, foreclosing all other interpretive models; therefore, the surplus can never be quite explained away. In this way, the text escapes our mastery over it, and is able to call into question our own beliefs, opinions and even ways of being in the world. One might say that it confronts us in the same manner that the face of the other speaks to us in the saying, prior to the said, according to Immanuel Levinas. Levinas uses his argument to assert the priority of ethics to ontology, or any system that strives for the autonomy of philosophy. I would say that aesthetics makes the act of reading prior to "a reading" and to all ontologies, including the functionally ontological phenomenon that you identify amongst the ideologues. I hope this is helpful, and enjoyed your response immensely. Cheers, and best of luck with the new apartment. Sean. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Thursday, 20 Mar 1997 08:52:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0369 Re: Ideology Greg McSweeney asks what the defenders of the aesthetic in this debate are for and against. I can only speak for myself. First, an aesthetic stance is not necessarily attached to any of the ideas McSweeney mentions: new critical or formalist interpretation; the idea that the "value" of a text is stable and inherent; that interpretation can be closed; that loving a text *should be* the ultimate pedagogical goal; that texts *should be* loved; that there's a conflict between political and aesthetic approaches or historical and aesthetic approaches; that to defend the aesthetic is necessarily to shut out Marxist, post- colonialist, feminist or queer readings. A defence of the aesthetic does not entail any of the above limitations of criticism. I defend the teaching of Shakespeare's plays because of the pleasure and mental stimulation through pleasure that they can give students. However, I don't offer this as the universal ideal, nor do I insist students love the material or fake a love for it in order to get a good grade (that would be ridiculous); I don't think my goal precludes any other engagements with the material, nor do I think my goal is ideological in any very specific way or problematic because of whatever ideology is in the goal. An aesthetic response is a matter for the individual: no one is demanding that people have aesthetic responses; the value and meaning of the experience is individual. I am against the reduction of the aesthetic to ideology. Gabriel Egan in a recent post comments that the determining power of ideology "is the setting of boundaries and not the reduction to `singularities.'" If you don't agree with where the boundaries are set, the setting can certainly be a reduction. In another post, I offered a definition of ideology that was what I remembered of a definition Gabriel Egan had once given. I asked how certain famous critical statements by Dryden, Johnson, Woolf, Eliot, and Bloom were "ideological" in that sense. The only suggested answer, by Terence Hawkes, turned on what seemed to me a misreading-a reduction-of Eliot's essay on Hamlet. Here is Terry Eagleton's phrasing of what was more or less the Egan definition that I remembered: "The largely concealed structure of values which informs and underlies our factual statements is part of what is meant by `ideology.' By `ideology' I mean, roughly, the ways in which what we say and believe connects with the power-structure and power-relations of the society we live in. It follows from such a rough definition of ideology that not all of our underlying judgements and categories can usefully be said to be ideological. . . .I mean more particularly those modes of feeling, valuing, perceiving and believing which have some kind of relation to the maintenance and reproduction of social power" (*Literary Theory: An Introduction,* 14-15). I think aesthetic response is in some way outside of those modes of feeling, valuing, etc. that relate to the maintenance of social power-and that aesthetic judgments are among those that cannot usefully be said to be ideological. Paul Hawkins ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 10:29:09 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0377 ACTER *R&J* performances, opening The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0377. Thursday, 20 March 1997. From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Thursday, 20 Mar 1997 08:08:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: ACTER *R&J* performances, opening The final performances of the ACTER *Romeo and Juliet* will be Sat. March 22 in Clarksville AR (elgruben@dobson.ozarks.edu for info), March 27-29 at NMSU, including Sat. matinee(cdillon@nmsu.edu), and April 2 and 5th at LaSalle in Philadelphia (merians@lasalle.edu). We still have March 9-15, 1998 open for a production of *A Midsummer Night's Dream*. Please contact me ASAP if you are interested in this week or future tours. Cynthia Dessen, General Manager, ACTER csdessen@email.unc.edu 919-967-4265 (phone/fax) ACTER website: http://www.unc.edu/depts/acter/ Mail to: 1100 Willow Drive, Chapel Hill NC 27514 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 11:57:23 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0374 Re: Anecdotes; Fear of Flying The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0374. Thursday, 20 March 1997. [1] From: Harry Teplitz Date: Wednesday, 19 Mar 1997 09:22:31 -0800 (PST) Subj: Anecdotes [2] From: Rosann Eidschun Date: Wednesday, 19 Mar 1997 11:28:26 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0371 Re: Fear of Flying [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Teplitz Date: Wednesday, 19 Mar 1997 09:22:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anecdotes When I was playing the assistant grave-digger in a scene-study workshop, we used plaster skulls. The grave-digger was required to pick them up and throw them over his shoulder to Hamlet, who would catch them. One night Hamlet very obviously missed, and the skull hit the ground and basically exploded; plaster powder covered the stage. The audience laughed for a solid minute. Hamlet, being particularly quick, skipped in his text to "that might have been a great buyer of land..." but then changed it to something like "it is the fine of his fines.... to have his fine pate shattered into fine dust". Another minute of laugher ensued. -- Harry Teplitz UCLA Shakespeare Reading & Performance Group [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rosann Eidschun Date: Wednesday, 19 Mar 1997 11:28:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0371 Re: Fear of Flying JoAnna, I too, hate flying, but mustered up enough courage to fly from Arizona to Washington DC one summer, and believe me, it was worth it! Fly to England - it'll be the best thing you can do for yourself. Good luck on your trip! Rosann========================================================================= Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 13:17:22 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0378 Re: St. Crispin's Day The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0378. Sunday, 23 March 1997. [1] From: Jan Stirm Date: Thursday, 20 Mar 1997 11:04:03 -0600 Subj: St. Crispin's Day [2] From: Richard A Burt Date: Thursday, 20 Mar 1997 13:13:58 -0500 (EST) Subj: 97 Superbowl Henry V [3] From: James P. Lusardi Date: Thursday, 20 Mar 1997 13:16:44 -0500 (CDT) Subj: RE: SHK 8.0375 Q: St. Crispin's Day [4] From: Paul Nelsen Date: Thursday, 20 Mar 1997 13:55:52 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0375 Q: St. Crispin's Day [5] From: James Marino Date: Thursday, 20 Mar 1997 15:09:19 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0375 Q: St. Crispin's Day [6] From: Ed Bonahue Date: Thursday, 20 Mar 1997 17:22:38 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0375 St. Crispin's Day [7] From: Alan Rosen Date: Friday, 21 Mar 1997 01:37:53 +0300 (WET) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0375 Q: St. Crispin's Day [8] From: John King Date: Thursday, 20 Mar 1997 18:58:08 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0375 Q: St. Crispin's Day [9] From: Naomi Liebler Date: Friday, 21 Mar 97 01:04:32 EDT Subj: RE: SHK 8.0375 Q: St. Crispin's Day [10] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 22 Mar 1997 10:13:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Crispin's Day [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jan Stirm Date: Thursday, 20 Mar 1997 11:04:03 -0600 Subject: St. Crispin's Day Hi All, Re Michael Friedman's question about the importance of St. Crispin's Day; I seem to remember reading recently (an article or book I can't bring to mind right now, alas) that at least in part the speech is sadly ironic because by the late 16th century NO ONE was celebrating St. Crispin's day, and certainly not as a memorial of the Agincourt battle. So anyone in the audience might have realized that s/he didn't remember; this process undermines the "optimism" Henry's trying to produce in his soldiers. Now, if someone with a better memory can help me remember where I read this argument! Regards, Jan Stirm [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A Burt Date: Thursday, 20 Mar 1997 13:13:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: 97 Superbowl Henry V Does anyone happen to have a copy of this year's pregame Locker room quotation of Henry V's St Crispian's Day speech? If so, I'd love a copy of your copy. Thanks. Best, Richard Burt [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: James P. Lusardi Date: Thursday, 20 Mar 1997 13:16:44 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: SHK 8.0375 Q: St. Crispin's Day The quick answer is that this was the day on which the battle was fought and won. Isn't that enough? Is there any other question to be asked? If one concedes that there might be - and Henry's six references to Crispian or Crispin in twenty-six lines suggest that there might be - perhaps it has to do with these martyred brothers being the patron saints of humble shoemakers. In the same lines, Henry insists that the humblest to fight with him "Shall be my brother." My colleague John Timpane adds that at Agincourt the lowest of the English defeated the flower of French chivalry. Jim Lusardi, Lafayette College [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Nelsen Date: Thursday, 20 Mar 1997 13:55:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0375 Q: St. Crispin's Day Dear Michael, Francois Laroque offers an interesting view on the dramatic resonance of Henry's ironic appropriation of a festive holiday as a means of compelling his troops into battle. See his chapter "Festivity and Time in Shakespeare's Plays," especially page 207, in SHAKESPEARE'S FESTIVE WORLD (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991). For example, Laroque observes: "Festivity, rushing headlong in the opposite direction to the course of time, repeatedly stopped in its tracks by the principle of reality, is eventually shattered by the machinery of war and reasons of state." The collision between expectations of holiday and the call to battle adds dramatic spark to the moment as well as sparkle in Henry's rhetoric. Laroque notes the consonance (and anagramatic connection) of "FEAST of Crispian" (4.3.40) and "FEATS" (4.3.51) of those who earn their wounds on Crispin's day. Laroque's views need to be grasped in the context of his larger discussion of how original audiences would have associated with holidays. Have a look. Paul [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Marino Date: Thursday, 20 Mar 1997 15:09:19 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0375 Q: St. Crispin's Day The Oxford Dictionary of Saints, David Hugh Farmer, OUP 1978 gives the information that the martyr brothers, although probably French but usually thought of as Roman, were the subject of an unlikely tradition that had them fleeing persecution and practicing their cobbler's trade in Faversham, a tradition recorded as late as the 17th Century. I have always supposed, given the emphasis in the speech on brotherhood under fire, that the day was appropriate to that theme. The speech is mentioned by Farmer in the entry on Crispin and Crispian. [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Bonahue Date: Thursday, 20 Mar 1997 17:22:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0375 St. Crispin's Day I'm happy to take a shot at Michael Friedman's query about Crispin and Crispian. But I'd start by rephrasing the question of why "Shakespeare chose to emphasize" this date into why _Henry_ chooses to emphasize it. At this point in H5, of course, Henry is almost desperate to rally his troops in the face of far greater French forces. Here, as in all of his rallying speeches, Henry's rhetoric plays with the language of social status. He promises his "band of brothers," even the "vile" foot-soldiers, that their deeds in the upcoming battle will "gentle their condition." That is, they will be raised from their status as farmers and workers into "gentlemen." I think the reference to Crispin and Crispian has a bit of the same ideological baggage attached to it. Crispin and Crispian, according to legend, were princes driven from their palace, who became shoemakers and worked among the commoners (for a while) to earn an honest living. Borrowing from the status of these and other figures, the shoe-making trade (in actuality a rather poor profession) referred to itself as "the gentle craft"-as in Deloney's fiction and Dekker's _The Shoemaker's Holiday_. As a haven for gentles down on their luck, and as a means, too, of advancing oneself in status (see Deloney and Dekker), the Gentle Craft of shoemaking sometimes stood, in popular culture, for the mythical possibility of social mobility. Is all of this in Henry's speech? Obviously not. But Henry's emphasis on Crispin and Crispian probably recalled-for his troops and for the theatrical audience too-the popular stories in which princes and commoners worked together. A charming story, of course, in a class system that was usually quite rigid. In any case, see Deloney's _The Gentle Craft, Part 1_ (1598?) for the story of Crispin and Crispian as it was popularized in Shakespeare's time. Ed Bonahue University of Florida [7]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Rosen Date: Friday, 21 Mar 1997 01:37:53 +0300 (WET) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0375 Q: St. Crispin's Day Dear Michael, Try looking at Jonathan Baldo's nice article, "Wars of Memory in Henry V," SQ 47.2 Summer '96. I hope the article is helpful. Best, Alan Rosen [8]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John King Date: Thursday, 20 Mar 1997 18:58:08 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0375 Q: St. Crispin's Day Don't know if this helps, but perhaps there is significance in the legend from which the commemorative holiday (Oct. 25) had its origins. Crispin and Crispian were two Christian brothers living in Rome under the reign of the Emperor Diocletian, who savagely persecuted Christians. The two (whose names must have been the source of much confusion) fled into Gaul (which was to become France by the time of Henry V) and went into hiding, disguising themselves and living as shoemakers in a place called Soissons. Eventually, they were caught by the Romans (in 286? AD) and beheaded. Thus they became genuine Christian martyrs, later canonized and held as the patron saints of shoemakers. According to Isaac Asimov (from whose book on Shakespeare I have gleaned my information), the holiday known as St. Crispin's Day was celebrated with particular vigor in France. He is silent, however, on the subject of why such stress is placed on the date. Perhaps it is because the bulk of the speech in Shakespeare's play is taken from Holinshed (embellished and poeticized, of course), and Holinshed's Henry mentions the holiday. As for the stress on this date the speech contains, who knows why? Shakespeare may have been taken by the irony of having this great English victory on a major French holiday, or he may have been drawing a parallel between these two working class martyrs, commemorated by a date forever, and the thousands of potential martyrs he is addressing, or- more than likely-both. Having played Henry, I can say that I played on this latter aspect, using the association between the two shoemakers and the English army to help add another layer of motivation to the address- for me, the speech was all about motivating the men, setting them on fire, as a last hope against the impossible odds presented by the huge, rested French army. Or perhaps, the historical date of the battle provided the playwright with a perfect dramatic device to hook his speech on. All I know is that when I researched the role, I found very little about this subject myself. I will be greatly interested in reading any submissions that come in from others about it! John King [9]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Naomi Liebler Date: Friday, 21 Mar 97 01:04:32 EDT Subject: RE: SHK 8.0375 Q: St. Crispin's Day Regarding Henry's St Crispin's Day speech: This is surely one of the most successful coaching strategies ever devised. There is no mention of dying; at worst the soldiers will bear scars like trophies and live in elevated status as the king's "brothers," the envy of those now safe at home. Moreover, they will become the heroes of Saint Crispin's Day, October 25, the feast day of the patron saints of shoemakers, the brothers Crispinus and Crispianus, who fled Rome during the tyranny of Diocletian and became martyrs for Christianity in A.D. 287. Henry's choice of holiday for his would-be veterans is politically astute: Saint Crispin's day is a working-class holiday, a feast for foot-soldiers, and promises remembrance for the survivors, if any, when they return to their communities. New-made "brothers" to the king, they will be princes among shoemakers, and the king will be one of the brotherhood. After the battle of Agincourt, when Henry confronts the hapless Williams with the glove he took from him in his mock-challenge, Henry attempts to buy Williams' dignity by filling the glove with crowns, which Williams proudly refuses. Fluellen then reminds him that the money "will serve you to mend your shoes. Come, wherefore should you be so pashful? Your shoes is not so good" (IV.viii.63-65). Henry has figuratively altered the signification of a religious (Christian) holiday to encompass a political reference that will exalt both himself and his common soldiers. This kind of alteration seems to have greatly interested Shakespeare at the time he wrote this play. The date of Henry V has been fixed Henry has figuratively altered the signification of a religious (Christian) holiday to encompass a political reference that will exalt both himself and his common soldiers. This kind of alteration seems to have greatly interested Shakespeare at the time he wrote this play. The date of _Henry V_ has been fixed reliably at summer 1599 (owing to the Chorus' Act V reference to Essex's Irish campaign, which ended on September 28 and by late summer was known to have been a failure. The very next play to be staged was _Julius Caesar_, whose performance is fixed at late September/early October of the same year. In that play, too, Shakespeare shows the consequences that obtain when a political leader alters the nature of a religious holiday (the Lupercal) to suit his own ambitions. Saint Crispin's day is October 25; the performance of _Julius Caesar_ coincided with St. Michael's day (Michaelmas), October 10, which celebrated, among other things, market fairs and governmental transitions such as the investment of the Lord Mayor of London. It may be that the plays and these autumnal holidays taken together anchored for Shakespeare's audience an acute awareness of the relations between ruler and subject, and of the mutability of government within the context of those relations. . Hope this helps, Michael. Cheers, Naomi Liebler [10]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 22 Mar 1997 10:13:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Crispin's Day What strikes me as odd is that Saints Crispin and Crispianus (patrons of cobblers, perhaps?) are both French saints. It is my understanding that in those days, you conducted business on days that were considered lucky, and the French certainly would have regarded this October day as a good one for battle. This raises the possibility (nowhere in Shakespeare's text) that Henry's reference to Crispin and Crispianus was sarcastic. We're fighting them on their saints' day, so let's give them hell, sort of thing. I'm also curious if this was also an English saint's day. Good question, one which I've pondered a bit myself. Andy White Alrington, VA ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 13:21:48 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0379 Re: Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0379. Sunday, 23 March 1997. [1] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 20 Mar 1997 20:52:22 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0369 Ideology [2] From: John Drakakis Date: Fridat, 21 Mar 1997 16:16:38 -0000 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0376 Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 20 Mar 1997 20:52:22 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0369 Ideology Bill Godshalk is the champion of the autonomous agent: > Theorists have so belumped us with the rhetoric of > cultural work that we tend to forget where the true > agency lies-i.e., with ourselves, dear Brutus. We are > not the passive recipients of ideas; ideas do not come > from the Great Transmitter of Ideas in the Sky. We > humans have ideas, and we pass them on in > conversation, in books, and with email messages. And > when we don't like an idea, we have the power to > reject it-as I do now! Would you agree that ideas can travel without anyone making a conscious effort to disseminate them? If all the ideas necessary for the continuation of modern industrial capitalism had to be intentionally passed on to the young there would be no time to make anything. A model of human intercourse which gives individuals complete intellectual autonomy is as reductive as one which posits none. Surely the partial self-reflexivity of subjectivity is what accounts for historical change: individuals are constituted of received ideas upon some of which they reflect, aren't they? Gabriel Egan [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Fridat, 21 Mar 1997 16:16:38 -0000 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0376 Re: Ideology Not guilty, Sean Lawrence, I'm afraid. It would be difficult to discuss seriously the question of ideology if you are content to remain at this purely empirical level. At the moment we seem to be talking completely at cross purposes. Cheers John Drakakis ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 13:36:59 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0380 Re: Fear of Flying; Editing The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0380. Sunday, 23 March 1997. [1] From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Friday, 21 Mar 1997 10:43:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0374 Re: Fear of Flying [2] From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Friday, 21 Mar 97 22:51:30 Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 13 Mar 1997 to 14 Mar 1997 [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Friday, 21 Mar 1997 10:43:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0374 Re: Fear of Flying JoAnna: I'm happy that you are flying to London. All the well meaning advocates of going by ship have forgotten the opening scene of THE TEMPEST. Once many years ago, I was in a typhoon off Japan and I remember the terror to this day. A 10-000 ton vessel careening and pitching and rolling uncontrollably, giant seas breaking over the bows and even as high as the boat deck, crockery smashing in the dining room and galley, furniture being reduced to match wood in the lounge, lifeboats smashed, passengers and crew alike deathly ill from sea sickness, the certainty that the ship would capsize for sure on the very next lingering 45 degree roll. I hadn't even heard of THE TEMPEST then but I knew exactly what Gonzalo meant the first time I read it when he said, "Now would I give a thousand furlongs of sea for an acre of barren ground, long heath, brown [furze], any thing. . . . I would fain die a dry death." Flying can be cramped (in tourist), scary, bumpy but at least it's all over with, one way or another, in a matter of hours. Have a wonderful trip. Ken Rothwell [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Friday, 21 Mar 97 22:51:30 EST Subject: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 13 Mar 1997 to 14 Mar 1997 Paul Werstine labors mightily at the editor's craft. Within the constraints of conventional editorial practice, he and Barbara Mowat deliver a neat package. For quite a few years, in journals, seminars, and conferences, I've been trying to get him to see that there may be benefits to readers if the conventional boundaries were stretched, danced across, or even talked about in lively ways. We agree, I think, that the three HAMLET texts, for example, have important differences. We agree that we can't really know for sure who or what may have formed these different texts. I think, nevertheless, that students, actors, and scholars would benefit from seeing the alternatives. I have no problem with editing the alternatives. But they should be available and at least sampled. But Paul and Barbara foreclose consideration of alternative in several important and debilitating ways. First, they use a condescending rhetoric which lumps together a wide variety of responsibly argued positions and the battier/battiest in the field: "Many of this century's Shakespeare enthusiasts have persuaded themselves that most of the quartos were set into type directly from Shakespeare's own papers, although there is nothing on which to base this conclusion except the desire for it to be true." The strength of the calls for propaedeutic examinations of variant versions does not depend on who may have written the textual variants. The versions themselves yield delight and insight. Second, Paul and Barbara offer chimerical aids in the form of differentiated brackets and pages of textual variants. Without explanatory comments or discussion of instances in an introduction, these codes remain arcane debris rather than invitations to exploration. Experiment. Ask a class to rebuild a source text from those notes. Finally, Paul and Barbara indulge in the heady excitement of editorial improvement, fixing the disparate early testimony. In Q1 HAMLET 4.5, Ophelia enters to the King and Queen; no one gives permission, but the Queen announces the entry. "O see where the yong Ofelia is!" In Q2, A gentleman and Horatio urge the Queen to admit Ophelia. Horatio's speech reads, "Twere good she were spoken with, for shee may strew / Dangerous coniectures in ill breeding mindes, / Let her come in." Then a stage direction reads, "Enter Ophelia" and the Queen begins an aside: "To my sicke soule . . ." "Let her come in" directed to the Queen could be followed by a tacit nod of assent. Or "Let her come in" could be directed to the Gentleman. Or called offstage. Scripted dialog encourages players and readers to imagine such alternative realizations of print into speech. The Folio has no Gentleman in the scene, and Horatio's speech is given to the Queen. "Let her come in" is followed immediately by "To my sicke soule". So here the Queen has the wise political counsel, and she give a visibly obeyed verbal command. Show those alternatives to your students and they'll understand quickly how authority may be manifested or undercut through speech-acts and their consequences. But following editorial traditions, Paul and Barbara give a different reading: In their text, Horatio gives the counsel, the Queen gives the command. Fine, but without the reticence of the Queen in Q2 or HER political sagacity of F. And protestations of thoroughness of variant notes to the contrary, I'd hate to ask anyone to find the rich possibilities of Q2 and F from those textual collations. My fellow veteran of the bibliographical trenches, Paul Werstine, asks why I'm disappointed with his and similar editorial efforts. Well, I like my flavors crisp and my Shakespeare at least as sharp in a classroom text as in those early printings. Paul and the editors could serve up one or two bright variants in an introduction. Say, "Gee, we don't think Shakespeare wrote these (or we do think he may have), but they may help you see that scripts can be manipulated for theatrical effect." Or don't the editors believe that? Actually, some now are doing just such positive service for readers. Sorry for this long posting, and I truly apologize for the grumpiness of my earlier (and parts of this) posting. Tangled in administering, I've accidentally strayed into the psychological equivalent of BEOWULF. Shakespeare, texts and all, encourages us instead to dance along to the tunes of SIR GAWAINE AND THE GREEN KNIGHT. Error (or even effort) in the mead halls leads to ghastly dismemberment; in the mythic castles instead we dance, steal kisses, and heal the disgruntled wounds of shame and jealousy. Play nice, share toys. Ever, Urquartowitz ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 13:42:53 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0381 Shall I die? [No, thou shalt not!] The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0381. Sunday, 23 March 1997. From: Leonard Wasserman Date: Thursday, 20 Mar 1997 16:23:14 -0500 Subject: Shall I die? [No, thou shalt not!] Could anyone send me a copy of the text of *Shall I Die?* I know it's in the Oxford Shakespeare, but I don't have a copy of that. I want to set it to music, which I am also doing to Jonson's *To the memory of my beloved, Mr. William Shakespeare, and what he hath left us*, which I am doing a Romantic Period-type setting of. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 13:15:01 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0382 Re: St. Crispin's Day; Michaelmas; Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0382. Monday, 24 March 1997. [1] From: Steve Sohmer Date: Sunday, 23 Mar 1997 16:53:00 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0378 Re: St. Crispin's Day [2] From: Andrew Gurr Date: Monday, 24 Mar 1997 11:31:23 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0378 Re: St. Crispin's Day [3] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Sunday, 23 Mar 1997 10:52:59 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0379 Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Sunday, 23 Mar 1997 16:53:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0378 Re: St. Crispin's Day Dear Friends, In Naomi Lieber's otherwise astute assessment of the significance of St. Crispin's Day to H5, she writes: "the performance of _Julius Caesar_ coincided with St. Michael's day (Michaelmas), October 10." If I'm not mistaken, Thomas Platter's memoir cites a performance of JC on 21 September, the official date of an Autumnal Equinox which had actually occurred on 11 September due to the flaw in Caesar's Julian calendar (which England followed until 1751). Best, Steve [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Gurr Date: Monday, 24 Mar 1997 11:31:23 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0378 Re: St. Crispin's Day I'm puzzled by Naomi Liebler's ascription of the launch of Julius Caesar to Michaelmas 1599. Thomas Platter saw it on 21 September. As for Crispin's day, Shakespeare wrote Henry V in more of a hurry and with more distractions than usual-it has several oddities and discontinuities. The one thing we can be sure of is that he used Holinshed closely, and Holinshed does highlight the day of the battle as (quote) the five and twenieth of October in the yeare 1415, being then fridaie, and the feast of Crispine and Crispinian, a daie faire and fortunate to the English, but most sorrowfull and unluckie to the French (unquote). We should be grateful that he did not emphasise that it was a Friday. Andrew Gurr. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Sunday, 23 Mar 1997 10:52:59 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0379 Re: Ideology >It would be difficult to discuss seriously the question of ideology if >you are content to remain at this purely empirical level. At the moment >we seem to be talking completely at cross purposes. And it would be impossible to discuss seriously the question of aesthetics, if you are content to remain at this purely political level. What do you mean by "empirical" anyway? If you mean "prompted by a certain Humean scepticism, untempered by Kantian idealism" then I suppose I'd be honoured to plead guilty. Cheers, Sean ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 07:16:51 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0384 Re: Shall I die? The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0384. Tuesday, 25 March 1997. From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Monday, 24 Mar 1997 16:25:35 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0381 Shall I die? [No, thou shalt not!] > >Could anyone send me a copy of the text of *Shall I Die?* I know it's in the Oxford Shakespeare, but I don't have a copy of that. I want to set it to music, which I am also doing to Jonson's *To the memory of my beloved, Mr. William Shakespeare, and what he hath left us*, which I am doing a Romantic Period-type setting of.<< Sorry, I already found it. It's on the internet at http://www.op.net/docs/Literary/Shakespeare/ A song Shall I die? Shall I fly Lovers' baits and deceits, sorrow breeding? Shall I tend? Shall I send? Shall I sue, and not rue my proceeding? In all duty her beauty Binds me her servant for ever. If she scorn, I mourn, I retire to despair, joining never. {2} Yet I must vent my lust And explain inward pain by my love conceiving. If she smiles, she exiles All my moan; if she frown, all my hopes deceiving Suspicious doubt, O keep out, For thou art my tormentor. Fie away, pack away; I will love, for hope bids me venture. {3} 'Twere abuse to accuse My fair love, ere I prove her affection. Therefore try! Her reply Gives thee joy or annoy, or affliction. Yet howe'er, I will bear Her pleasure with patience, for beauty Sure will not seem to blot Her deserts, wronging him doth her duty. {4} In a dream it did seem But alas, dreams do pass as do shadows I did walk, I did talk With my love, with my dove, through fair meadows. Still we passed till at last We sat to repose us for pleasure. Being set, lips met, Arms twined, and did bind my heart's treasure. {5} Gentle wind sport did find Wantonly to make fly her gold tresses. As they shook I did look, But her fair did impair all my senses. As amazed, I gazed On more than a mortal complexion. You that love can prove Such force in beauty's inflection. {6} Next her hair, forehead fair, Smooth and high; neat doth lie, without wrinkle, Her fair brows; under those, Star-like eyes win love's prize when they twinkle. In her cheeks who seeks Shall find there displayed beauty's banner; O admiring desiring Breeds, as I look still upon her. {7} Thin lips red, fancy's fed With all sweets when he meets, and is granted There to trade, and is made Happy, sure, to endure still undaunted. Pretty chin doth win Of all their culled commendations; Fairest neck, no speck; All her parts merit high admirations. {8} Pretty bare, past compare, Parts those plots which besots still asunder. It is meet naught but sweet Should come near that so rare 'tis a wonder. No mis-shape, no scape Inferior to nature's perfection; No blot, no spot: She's beauty's queen in election. {9} Whilst I dreamt, I, exempt >From all care, seemed to share pleasure's plenty; But awake, care take For I find to my mind pleasures scanty. Therefore I will try To compass my heart's chief contenting. To delay, some say, In such a case causeth repenting. -William Shakespeare ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 07:18:40 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0383 Q: Boys to Women The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0383. Tuesday, 25 March 1997. From: Karen Coley Date: Monday, 24 Mar 1997 12:33:53 -0600 (CST) Subject: Boys to Women This is my first posting on SHAKSPER, and in the last two and a half years that I have been monitoring off and on, I have never seen a discussion of why boys are used for women on the English Renaissance stage. People speculate that there was a moral, perhaps Puritan, objection to women actors. Yet in Jonson's satire of the Puritan preacher Busy in *Bartholomew Fair*, Busy criticizes the theater for its transvestite cross-dressing. I know from Walter Cohen's *Drama of a Nation* that the Council of Castile, the Spanish equivalent to Elizabeth's Privy Council, disputed the issue of actresses. I hear tell that the Renaissance Italian stage had actresses (they also had castrattos). But is there any source which can tell me if boys playing women on the English stage was codified law, dramatic custom, economic imperative, and/or social expectation. If this has already been exhaustively covered in the conference, can someone refer me to the record number where I can find the conversation? Karen Coley Loyola University of Chicago ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 07:40:58 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0385 Re: Boys to Women The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0385. Wednesday, 26 March 1997. [1] From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Tuesday, 25 Mar 1997 09:41:04 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0383 Q: Boys to Women [2] From: Grant Moss Date: Tuesday, 25 Mar 1997 10:24:27 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0383 Q: Boys to Women [3] From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 25 Mar 1997 16:52:54 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0383 Q: Boys to Women [4] From: Melissa Aaron Date: Tuesday, 25 Mar 1997 15:39:17 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0383 Q: Boys to Women [5] From: AdrianKiernander Date: Wednesday, 6 Mar 1997 10:37:41 +1100 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0383 Q: Boys to Women [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Tuesday, 25 Mar 1997 09:41:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0383 Q: Boys to Women Two good places to start would be Stephen Orgel's book *Impersonations: the performance of gender in Shakespeare's England* (Cambridge UP, 1996) and James Stokes' article "Women and Mimesis in Medieval and Renaissance Somerset (and Beyond)," *Comparative Drama* 27:176-96. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Grant Moss Date: Tuesday, 25 Mar 1997 10:24:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0383 Q: Boys to Women Re Karen Coley's inquiry about the use of boys to play female roles, I would strongly recommend Lisa Jardine's _Still Harping on Daughters_, which deals with a number of the issues that Ms. Coley raised. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 25 Mar 1997 16:52:54 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0383 Q: Boys to Women An obvious place to look is Stephen Orgel's recent book, Impersonations: The performance of gender in Shakespeare's England (Cambridge, 1996), where reference will be found to the substantial literature on the topic. David Lindley University of Leeds [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Tuesday, 25 Mar 1997 15:39:17 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0383 Q: Boys to Women There is a record of a French company with actresses playing at the Blackfriars in the late 1620's or early 1630's. The actresses were very much disliked. Queen Henrietta Maria loved to act privately, and was very much criticized for it-one of her plays was *The Shepherd's Paradise," 1632. Earlier Queen Anne was told she ought not to appear in a masque every year-not even a play-because negative opinion was so strong. See William Prynne, Histriomastix-look in the index under "Women Actors, Notorious Whores." I can't see why economic imperative would have much to do with it. On the continent, acting was often as not a family business. And there's no law or document of control that I know of, except assuming that what applies to the church ("women shall not speak in church" ) applies to the theater. I'd say it was social custom. Melissa Aaron University of Wisconsin-Madison [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 10:37:41 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0383 Q: Boys to Women To Karen Coley I think that Stephen Orgel's recently-published _Impersonations_ should answer, or at least address, most of your questions. "Why did the English stage take boys for women" is one of the key questions in this book. If I remember correctly (and I may be oversimplifying) he makes the point that England was the only country which made such a big thing of boy actors (though Spain experimented with it, only to come to the conclusion that boys were even less morally acceptable than women on stage), and that there was in fact no law on the subject-just theatrical practice. And of course women did occasionally appear on English stages-there were Italian actresses in touring companies, and women performed in amateur situations such as performances at court. As for the Italian castrati, this was a specific response (I believe) to conditions in the Vatican, where women were not permitted on stage so the operatic soprano and alto roles had to be sung by castrati. But of course their popularity took them much further than the stages of the Vatican. Adrian Kiernander ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 07:48:54 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0386 Re: Michaelmas; New Folger Shakespeare; Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0386. Tuesday, 25 March 1997. [1] From: Naomi Liebler Date: Tuesday, 25 Mar 97 09:38:49 EDT Subj: RE: SHK 8.0382 Re: St. Crispin's Day; Michaelmas [2] From: Paul Werstine Date: Tuesday, 25 Mar 97 21:39:57 EST Subj: New Folger Shakespeare [3] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Tuesday, 25 Mar 1997 17:55:16 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0379 Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Naomi Liebler Date: Tuesday, 25 Mar 97 09:38:49 EDT Subject: RE: SHK 8.0382 Re: St. Crispin's Day; Michaelmas In response to Andy Gurr and Steve Sohmer: Well, yes, of course, the Platter reference assures us that the Swiss traveler saw the play on 21 September-no quarrel there. The point of my ascription is that, as I assume, _JC_ had a run of more than one day-perhaps even a week or two?--and that Michaelmas, though CENTERED on a single day, is a seasonal festival whose attendant events and celebrations (it was the specific time for signing contracts, trying lawsuits, harvesting crops, and electing the Lord Mayor in London and the town Bailiffs in the shires) would have resonated importantly for the audiences to _JC_, a play that, in my view, expresses serious concerns with both governmental and religious transitions. Thus Michaelmas was a particularly appropriate seasonal time for _JC_'s inauguration. BY the way, though I can't recall exactly when this change occurred, the date for celebrating Michaelmas changed from 10 October to 29 September. Platter was known to be traveling in England between 18 September and 20 October. Unless we assume a one-day-only performance for _JC_, I don't see how the 21 September date of Platter's letter obviates the "coincidence" of _JC_'s RUN with the attenuated festivities of Michaelmas. Cheers, Naomi [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Werstine Date: Tuesday, 25 Mar 97 21:39:57 EST Subject: New Folger Shakespeare Thanks to Steve [Urkowitz] for explaining the source of his hyperbolic disparagement of the New Folger Shakespeare-although no thanks for the actual disparagement, since even politeness has some limits. If I read his words accurately, he wants nothing to do with our editions because we as editors refuse in our introductions to showcase his view that textual variants are to be understood as manipulations of scripts for theatrical effect. It would, however, be quite irresponsible for us to privilege his view since we know from extant documentary evidence that a great number of agents may well have contributed to a play's reaching print and only some of these were theatrical. These agents do include playwrights, actors, theatrical scribes, adapters, revisers (insofar as we can make distinctions among these roles, which often blend together, to judge from extant theatrical manuscripts). But these agents also include extra-theatrical scribes, censors, compositors, proofreaders. As editors we cannot afford to mislead readers by pretending that history is less complex than we know it to be just to lionize the views of one scholar. It's an odd world in which Steve can brand our editorial work as "debilitating" and "chimerical" just because we fail to dance to his tune alone. I hope that editors continue to provide readers with competing accounts of the origins of variation in Shakespeare plays (rather than only Steve's account) and continue to equip readers with some display of the tremendous number and range of variants to be found in different texts of such plays as LEAR or OTHELLO. That way readers can resist opportunistic selection and narration of variants and can stand up to over-simplifications of intriguing textual differences that have long been challenging and fascinating to readers and editors alike. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Tuesday, 25 Mar 1997 17:55:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0379 Re: Ideology Gabriel Egan comments recently in response to Bill Godshalk that "A model of human intercourse which gives individuals complete intellectual autonomy is as reductive as one which posits none." I don't think Bill Godshalk was positing a complete intellectual autonomy nor has anyone else that I can remember, though I did speak of individuals attaining some measure of "freedom from their ideologies." Surely one can speak of "freedom" without suggesting that it need be absolute. And when Gabriel Egan says-"Surely the partial self-reflexivity of subjectivity is what accounts for historical change: individuals are constituted of received ideas upon some of which they reflect, aren't they?"-is he not positing just such a measure of individual intellectual freedom? And if so, is a freedom *in* an ideology all that different than a freedom *from* one? Is it a difference that makes a difference? In this light, I am interested in a few of the comments made by Althusser in his "Letter on Art," comments that, while not indistinguishable from some of the things Sean Lawrence and I have been saying, nonetheless seem to bend toward our assertion of a space between the aesthetic and ideology and away from the more confident identifications of the two by other contributors to this discussion. Althusser writes that "*I do not rank real art among the ideologies* [his italics], although art does have a quite particular and special relationship with ideology." Further, he speaks of "Art (I mean authentic art, not works of an average or mediocre level)" saying that it "makes us *see,* and therefore gives to us in the form of `*seeing,*' `*perceiving*' and `*feeling*' . . . the ideology from which it is born, in which it bathes, from which it detaches itself as art, and to which it alludes. . . . Balzac and Solzhenitsyn give us a `view' of the ideology to which their work alludes and with which it is constantly fed, a view which presupposes a *retreat,* *an internal distantiation* from the very ideology from which their novels emerged." 1. What besides an intuition of the aesthetic power or achievement which defines great art enables Althusser's easy distinction between "authentic" and "average" or "mediocre" art? 2. While Althusser is obviously taking pains in his formulation to make art special but not free from ideology, since nothing can be so to him, in what way is art's "detach"ment of itself from ideology, its retreat from ideology, and its internal distantiation from ideology *unlike* a freedom? Paul Hawkins ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 07:52:02 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0387 CFP: M/MLA The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0387. Tuesday, 25 March 1997. From: Fran Zauhar Date: Tuesday, 25 Mar 1997 15:29:16 -0500 Subject: CFP: M/MLA I am reposting this call for papers for a session on Early Modern Women Writers. The session has been accepted by the program committee of M/MLA, so the session will definitely run. I have has some submissions already, but space for two papers still remains. If you are interested in submitting a proposal for the panel, please cotact me ASAP. The deadline for submitting proposals to me is April 15. (I'm crossposting this notice on several list, so please accept my apologies for the repetition.) Fran Murphy Zauhar zauhar@acad1.stvincent.edu Call for Papers 1997 Midwest Modern Language Association Annual Convention November 6-8, 1997, 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 39th Annual Midwest Modern Language Association Convention November 6-8, 1997, Ramada Congress Hotel, Chicago, Illinois ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 07:58:07 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music; Allegory; Table of Greene The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0388. Tuesday, 25 March 1997. [1] From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Tuesday, 25 Mar 97 16:35:00 PST Subj: Shakespeare in Modern Music [2] From: Brooke Brod Date: Tuesday, 25 Mar 1997 10:27:39 -0500 (EST) Subj: Allegory [3] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Tuesday, 25 Mar 1997 20:33:00 -0500 Subj: Q: What does the *New Variorum Shakespeare* say about "and a Table of Greene feeldes"? [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Tuesday, 25 Mar 97 16:35:00 PST Subject: Shakespeare in Modern Music I have a reference query that can't be entirely answered in the Folger's hallowed halls, but that I'm sure will elicit a good response from fellow-SHAKSPERIANS! Do any of you out there know places in modern music where Shakespeare is mentioned? (I know we've just done movies and TV shows! ) Two to get the list going are Elvis's "Are You Lonesome Tonight," which mentions "the world is a stage," and the Indigo Girls' song "Romeo and Juliet." Any more......? All suggestions welcome with thanks in advance! Georgianna Ziegler ziegler@folger.edu [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brooke Brod Date: Tuesday, 25 Mar 1997 10:27:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: Allegory Fellow List Members, I am looking for some recommendations on studies, articles or books that deal with the use of allegory in the Renaissance. Don't limit your recommendations to the dramatic arts; I would also like to read material visual arts and music as well. Thanks in advance, Brooke Brod Bbanais2@aol.com [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Tuesday, 25 Mar 1997 20:33:00 -0500 Subject: Q: What does the *New Variorum Shakespeare* say about "and a Table of Greene feeldes"? I don't have it right here, and I6d like to hear this from someone who has *Henry V* from the New Variorum. Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 08:04:51 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0389 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0389. Thursday, 27 March 1997. [1] From: Jim Williams Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 08:57:04 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music [2] From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 09:00:13 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music [3] From: Jurgen Pieters Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 15:10:05 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music [4] From: Richard A Burt Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 09:17:41 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music [5] From: Sam Schimek Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 08:22:53 -0700 Subj: Sh. Mod. Music [6] From: C. David Frankel Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 09:31:06 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music [7] From: James Marino Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 07:45:56 -0700 Subj: Re: Shakespeare in Modern Music [8] From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 09:58:07 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music [9] From: Rick Jones Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 09:31:01 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music [10] From: Michael Friedman Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 10:51:51 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music [11] From: Edward T Bonahue Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 10:58:27 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0388 Shakespeare in Music [12] From: Rob Kirkpatrick Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 11:30:08 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music [13] From: Jay T. Louden Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 08:48:30 -0800 (PST) Subj: Shakespeare in modern music [14] From: Miles Edward Taylor Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 10:13:56 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music [15] From: Jean Peterson Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 17:57:36 +0200 Subj: Singing Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Williams Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 08:57:04 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music "Romeo and Juliet" - Dire Straits [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 09:00:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music Actually the Indigo Girls song is a cover. It was originally written by Dire Straits (same words, different tone). Annalisa Castaldo [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jurgen Pieters Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 15:10:05 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music Ad Georgianna Ziegler's query: Elvis Costello has a song on his album Spike that is about Lady Macbeth [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A Burt Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 09:17:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music To Georgianna Ziegler: There's a Lou Reed song on _New York_ (the first track, I believe) which mentions Romeo and Juliet and Dire Straits also does a song about Romeo and Juliet. I take it you are excluding musicals. [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sam Schimek Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 08:22:53 -0700 Subject: Sh. Mod. Music The song by the Indigo Girls is originally by Dire Straits. Elvis Costello frequently refers to Shakespeare. "Mystery Dance" is a scene between Romeo and Juliet and "Crimes of Paris" is arguably an allusion to the same. Also the album with the Brodsky Quartet "The Juliet Letters" was inspired by the fact that someone in Verona answers letters written to Juliet. Maybe I should say he frequently refers to R&J. Sam Schimek [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 09:31:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music Dire Straits have a song entitled, I think, "Romeo and Juliet" which begins "A love-struck Romeo sings a street-suss serenade. . . ." cdf [7]------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Marino Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 07:45:56 -0700 Subject: Re: Shakespeare in Modern Music Add: Dire Straits' *Juliet* [8]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 09:58:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music The list of Shakespearean references in pop songs is long. The favorite point of reference is, not surprisingly, *Romeo and Juliet*. Some possibilities: Sammy Hagar, "Rock 'n' Roll Romeo" Tom Waits, "Romeo is Bleeding" October Project, "Ariel" Tragically Hip, "Cordelia" Barclay James Harvest, "Lady Macbeth" John Cale, "Macbeth" The Eagles, "Get Over It" Sting, "Nothing Like the Sun" "What a Piece of Work is Man" from the musical *Hair* Loreena McKennitt, "Prospero's Song" Blue Oyster Cult, "The Reaper" Dire Straits, "Romeo and Juliet" (written by the Indigo Girls) Tonio K, "Romeo and Jane" Lennon and McCartney, "I am the Walrus" Melissa Etheridge, "Juliet, Where's Your Romeo?" Elvis Costello, *The Juliet Letters* (sort of classical, but appropriate to this list because of Costello's pop-rock background; he also recently released an album of Shakespeare settings with John Harle, the classical saxophonist) A couple of the songs from Baz Lurhmann's *William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet* set Shakespeare's verse to music-the soundtrack album is full of Shakespearean references. And there are several rock opera settings of Shakespeare (most notably *Catch My Soul* [on OTHELLO] and *Beach Blanket Tempest*). Cheers, Douglas Lanier DML3@christa.unh.edu [9]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 09:31:01 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music Georgianna Ziegler's request for references to WS in modern music must surely generate plenty of responses. I'm currently trying to put off finishing a conference paper, so I'll play. There's the Indigo Girls' CD/concert tour called "Swamp Ophelia"-I think it's a line in one of the songs therein, but can't seem to find it right off. There must dozens of Romeo and Juliet references. One that sticks in my mind is Elvis Costello's "Mystery Dance," which begins: Romeo was restless; he was ready to kill. Jumped out a window 'cause he couldn't sit still. Juliet was waiting with a safety net, Said "Don't bury me, 'cause I'm not dead yet." The song happens to be on my mind, as I used a different section of it ("I tried and I tried and I'm still mystified. I can't do it anymore and I'm not satisfied.") as scene change music in the last show I directed, and I'm back in the finding-entr'acte-music mentality now: this time it's Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky and Prokofieff, though. BTW, one of my actors informed me confidentially that "Mystery Dance" is "really about sex" (Imagine! What a novel topic for rock-and-roll!), so be forewarned! More later if I think of them... Rick Jones rjones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu [10]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 10:51:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music Georgiana, Here's a quick few songs before I leave for the SAA: "Cruel to Be Kind" - Nick Lowe Romeo and Juliet are mentioned in: "Cherish" - Madonna "Fire" - Bruce Springsteen "Let's Hear it for the Boy" - *Footloose* soundtrack (I can't remember the artist) "Mystery Dance" - Elvis Costello "Don't Fear the Reaper" - Blue Oyster Cult The song "Romeo and Juliet" was first recorded by Dire Straits, and is, in the opinion of many Shakespeareans, a superior version. I like to ask my students if they can come up with five pop songs that mention Romeo and Juliet, and they usually can. Michael Friedman [11]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward T Bonahue Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 10:58:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0388 Shakespeare in Music Re Georgianna Ziegler's query about Shakespeare in modern music, Sting's lyrics frequently quote and/or allude to Shakespeare, most obviously in a late '80s album called _Nothing Like the Sun_. Ed Bonahue University of Florida [12]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rob Kirkpatrick Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 11:30:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music In reference to Georgianna's question about musical allusions to Shakespeare, there are songs titled "Romeo and Juliet" by Dire Straits and "Romeo had Juliette" (I think) by Lou Reed, on his NEW YORK album. Also, lines from Hamlet are strewn throughout, of all things, the original soundtrack to HAIR. Rob Kirkpatrick Binghamton University [13]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jay T. Louden Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 08:48:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Shakespeare in modern music Dear Ms. Ziegler, Sting uses "My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun" in the song Sister Moon on his album Nothing Like the Sun and I believe he uses another quote in another song but I can't remember where right now. He was a high school English teacher before he became a rock star. Don Henley uses the phrase ...old Billy was right "kill all the laywers . . . lets kill em tonight" in Get Over It on the Hell Freezes Over CD. Hope this helps, Jay Louden jtlouden@e4e.oac.uci.edu [14]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Miles Edward Taylor Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 10:13:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music Hey all, Regarding Shakespeare showing up in modern music, here are a few references off the top of my head. First, there was a band in the 80's called This Mortal Coil, from a line in Hamlet. (There are also a band and a song by the Smiths called Shakespeare's Sister, but that comes via Woolf.) Stone Roses have an interesting tape loop song called "Full Fathom Five." There is also Lou Reed's great song on his album New York called "Romeo had Juliette." The Smiths also make reference to Antony and Cleopatra in the song "Some Girls are Bigger than Others," on The Queen is Dead. Morrissey solo also has a song called "King Leer." I know too that Sting has a version of Sonnet 130 ("My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun"), which I believe is called "Nothing Like the Sun," but that's a guess at the title. I think too that there are some loops of dialogue from Henry IV playing over the end of The Beatles' "I am the Walrus." It's interesting that with the exception of the Beatles, these groups fall under the category "alternative" or the old term "college radio." Hoping to read more allusions, Miles Taylor [15]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean Peterson Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 17:57:36 +0200 Subject: Singing Shakespeare A small correction: the "Romeo & Juliet" song covered by the Indigo Girls is by Mark Knopfler and originally recorded by Dire Straits. Speaking of Elvis, don't leave out Elvis Costello's "Mystery Dance" Romeo was restless, he was ready to kill (I can't remember the next line) Juliet was waiting with a safety net, She said "don't bury me, 'cause I'm not dead yet!" And then there's Sting, with both a song and an album titled "Nothing Like the Sun." Musically yours, Jean Peterson Bucknell University Jean Peterson Associate Professor of English Bucknell University jpeter@bucknell.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 08:14:16 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0390 Re: Michaelmas; Boys to Women; Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0390. Thursday, 27 March 1997. [1] From: Steve Sohmer Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 12:22:20 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0386 Re: Michaelmas [2] From: Eckart Voigts-Virchow Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 1997 10:20:04 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0385 Re: Boys to Women [3] From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 16:08:30 Subj: SHK 8.0379 Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 12:22:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0386 Re: Michaelmas Dear Friends, Naomi Liebler may be quite correct about the connection between "Julius Caesar" and Michaelmas. However, the connections between Shakespeare's Roman tragedy and 21 September 1599 are much more specific. September 21 was the official-but incorrect date-of the Autumnal Equinox, which had been observed on 11 September 1599. This error of 10 days was due to a flaw in Caesar's Julian calendar (imposed 1 Jan 45 BC). Pope Gregory XIII had issued a reformed calendar on 24 Feb 1582 which restored the dates of the Equinoxes and Solstices to the radix at the time of the Council of Nicea (325 AD). Because of maneuvering by Archbishop Edward Grindal, Elizabeth had been compelled to reject Gregory's reform, and England continued to live and worship by Caesar's scientifically-discredited calendar under Lord Chesterfield's act (1751). By performing "Julius Caesar" on the incorrect date of the Equinox, the Lord Chamberlain's Men were able to deliver a cheeky comment on Elizabeth's rejection of a calendar reform which had been adopted by the Catholic world, and endorsed by Dee (sorta), Digges, Brahe, et alia. All the best, Steve Sohmer [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eckart Voigts-Virchow Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 1997 10:20:04 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0385 Re: Boys to Women In the published script for Trevor Nunn's 12N, Nunn explains why he set the play in late Victorian times. He says, 'I wanted this story to happen in a society where the differences between men and women were the greatest...'. Consequently he changed Viola's 'Thou shalt present me as a eunuch to him' into 'I shall present me as a boy to him'. Not having seen the movie, I can't pass a judgment on it. It seems to me, however, that the entire historicist discussion on 'gender trouble' and the early modern one-sex model so well described in Thomas Laqueurs *Making Sex* might be contradicted (or at least: can't be represented) in Nunn's decidedly 'two-sex'- interpretation. Apparently *eunuch* was not infrequent as a term for early modern cross-dressers. Keir Elam (Sh Quarterly 1.96) has recently pointed out the double effect of (1) a private disembodiment and (2) a public eroticism. I wonder if Nunn does justice to Viola's 'small-piped' troubled gender in his Victorian version, and I am looking forward to see the movie once it hits the German screens (belatedly). Phyllis Rackin should have mentioned her own 'Androgyny, Mimesis, and the Marriage of the Boy Heroine on the English Renaissance Stage', PMLA 102 (1987): 29-41. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 16:08:30 PST Subject: SHK 8.0379 Re: Ideology Last week, Gabriel Egan wrote: "Would you agree that ideas can travel without anyone making a conscious effort to disseminate them? If all the ideas necessary for the continuation of modern industrial capitalism had to be intentionally passed on to the young there would be no time to make anything. A model of human intercourse which gives individuals complete intellectual autonomy is as reductive as one which posits none. Surely the partial self-reflexivity of subjectivity is what accounts for historical change: individuals are constituted of received ideas upon some of which they reflect, aren't they?" I should certainly agree with this statement, with two minor qualifications. First, the dynamic Egan is describing is by no means limited to "the ideas necessary for the continuation of modern industrial capitalism." Second, "partial self-reflexivity" is only part of what accounts for historical change. But this is merely a quibble. I should go further than Egan, because I do not believe the phenomenon he describes is limited to "ideas." Perhaps even more importantly, the social environment in which we live conditions our emotions, which interact with and strongly influence our ideas. But I do not agree with this statement by Egan in an earlier message: "Certainly those who believe that social organization, and especially class relations, are reproduced by the transmission of ideas in ways that are not immediately obvious-indeed, which must not seem to be doing the work of reproduction but only the articulation of commonsense-are likely to be more open-minded than those who don't perceive the process." First, it seems to me quite wrong to describe the boundaries to the ideas that we can hold as doing any "work" at all. That implies that the boundaries are set with a conscious intent. But the only reason they are boundaries in the first place is that we are not conscious of them. Secondly, Egan's general proposition is questionable or worse. If he intends it as an empirical proposition-that people who hold this belief happen, in fact, to be more open-minded-it is without support. If anything, in my experience, I should say that people who hold the belief Egan refers to tend to be unusually dogmatic and closed-minded. That is just an impression, and I do not claim that I could demonstrate it's empirical truth. But neither can Egan demonstrate the opposite. More likely, the word "certainly" implies that Egan intends to be making a logical rather than an empirical claim. If so, his reasoning is fallacious. Those who hold the belief Egan describes are no more exempt from the boundaries to thought than anyone else. Even if, as a theorist, you hold the belief that all ideas held by humans are partial and reflect a certain kind of social and intellectual conditioning, that does not mean that when you form your own ideas on, say, social, political, and economic questions, your ideas are anything other than partial and reflective of conditioning. To the contrary, if it did mean that, your theory would be self-contradictory. Best, Dan Lowenstein UCLA Law School ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 08:35:11 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State Univeristy Subject: SHK 8.0391 Qs: Poet in JC; Hamlet's Misogyny: Lr. Video The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0391. Thursday, 27 March 1997. [1] From: C. David Frankel Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 17:10:23 -0500 (EST) Subj: The Poet in Julius Caesar [2] From: Don R. Hamersley Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 18:06:08 -0800 Subj: Non-Freudian Reasons for Hamlet [3] From: Skip Nicholson Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 20:43:11 -0800 Subj: Re: Lear Video [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 17:10:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: The Poet in Julius Caesar In Act IV, scene iii of JC, while Brutus and Cassius are arguing in the tent, a character identified as POET in my text (and I assume the Folio) enters, makes an attempt to stop the argument, and is shooed away by both Cassius and Brutus (hence achieving, though not quite in the way he intended, his goal). I have two questions: 1) since the character is not called a poet in the text (except, possibly, for Cassius's caustic comment "How vilely doth this cynic rhyme"), would the Elizabethan audience have known he was a poet-was there, for example, a conventional costume? 2) Is there any larger reason, do you think, for this little snippet's existence beyond the practical need to have *something* serve as a stimulus for Cassius and Brutus to end their argument? Thanks. cdf [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don R. Hamersley Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 18:06:08 -0800 Subject: Non-Freudian Reasons for Hamlet I have just done a short paper on Laurence Olivier's 1948 "Hamlet" and the Freudian/Oedipal approach to interpreting the play. Without opening a huge can of worms on the topic (if that is possible with "Hamlet"), I am in search of some more non-Freudian explanations of Hamlet's apparent misogyny. Perhaps a large source of it is Hamlet's frustration over his inability to share with the 2 women in his life, Gertrude and Ophelia, his suspicions of Claudius both before the arrival of the ghost ("O my prophetic soul!" (1.5)) and after. In contrast, Hamlet seems to have no problem identifying with Horatio (1.2.161: "Horatio-or I do forget myself") and confiding in him, but he cannot say a word to either Ophelia or Gertrude. This does NOT mean that he easily trusts all men either, as we see him drive Marcellus to distraction with his demands for an oath (Mar: "but my lord we have sworn already!") Indeed, from the point of view that I suggest above, it seems to make more sense that the turning point in Hamlet's relationship with Ophelia occurs right AFTER he appears to her all disheveled after the ghost's visit. Maybe he went to her to confide in her and then determined that he could not (thinking that she might give his secret away-"Frailty, thy name is woman"). Certainly, their relationship goes straight downhill from this point forward... Seen from this view-i.e., that Hamlet is disappointed only in the 2 particular women nearest to him-perhaps Hamlet is not a misogynist at all. He seems to talk to Rosen. & Guild. about women like an excited schoolboy (2.2.225 and "man delights not me" soon after) upon their arrival. And he is not shy or disgusted about sexual and "country" matters talking to Ophelia in 3.2. So maybe he is just upset with the 2 women in his life who have let him down. And besides, others in the play use phrases like "Frailty, thy name is woman," as does Claudius in 1.2 telling Hamlet in front of all the courtiers that he is acting like a woman ('tis unmanly grief). Any thoughts on this, smaller than a thesis or a byte-sized breadbox, would be appreciated... [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Nicholson Date: Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997 20:43:11 -0800 Subject: Re: Lear Video Does anyone know if a video exists of the old (mid-70s?) TV production of King Lear with James Earl Jones? I think Joseph Papp did it, and I want to say that Raul Julia played "one of the 'E' guys." Much obliged for any leads...========================================================================= Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 13:17:00 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0392 Technical Problem The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0392. Friday, 31 March 1997. From: Hardy Cook Date: Monday, March 31, 1997 Subject: Technical Problem Dear SHAKSPEReans, On Friday, the Sun work station that runs SHAKSPER shut down. I was just able to get the machine repaired, but I do not think that I will be able to get to the accumulated mail until tomorrow. Hardy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 16:20:59 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0393 RE: Shakespeare in Modern Music The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0393. Monday, 31 March 1997. [1] From: Matthew Hansen Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 1997 13:04:41 +0000 (GMT) Subj: RE: Shakespeare in Modern Music [2] From: Wes Folkerth Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 1997 09:00:50 -0500 Subj: Mod Music Shakespeare [3] From: David Lindley" Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 1997 16:02:34 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0389 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music [4] From: Mark Mann Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 1997 12:27:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music [5] From: K. Graham Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 1997 10:55:39 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0389 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music [6] From: Charles Ross Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 1997 16:29:21 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0389 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music [7] From: Sam Schimek Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 1997 16:26:14 -0700 Subj: Shakespeare and Modern Music [8] From: Shaul Bassi Date: Monday, 31 Mar 1997 15:40:32 +0200 (METDST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Hansen Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 1997 13:04:41 +0000 (GMT) Subject: RE: Shakespeare in Modern Music For Georgianna Ziegler, It is with extreme caution that I submit my first public posting to SHAKSPER. I shall return to my silent post behind the arras hopefully before the knives are out. I do, however, have a few additions to Georgianna's catalogue of modern musical Shakespeare allusions. XTC have a song on their album Nonsuch (which is noticeably Shakespearean and Elizabethan in its physical design) entitled "My Bird Performs" the song contains the line "Shakespeare's sonnets leave me cold/ The Drama, Stage, and the high-brow prose." The Smiths have a song called "Shakespeare's Sister" and of course there was also later a band of the same name. There was a (now alas defunct) Minneapolis-based band that called themselves Trip Shakespeare. My memory is not recalling immediate song allusions though they are certainly there. They do have one song entitled "Pearl" which the lyrics reveal to be very allusive to the poem of the same name. I am still trying to work out whether I love that band because of its name (and very intelligent music) or if I decided to specialise in Early Modern Studies because I love that band. In all likelihood the two elements are mutually exclusive. And more information than you cared to know. I also have a CD somewhere from a band that called themselves the Merchants of Venus. Related, but indirectly: Deep Blue Something (recent top ten single equaled "Breakfast at Tiffany's") have a track entitled "Gammer Gurten's Needle". I'm not sure if the mis-spelling is theirs or if it originates in the catalogue advertising their album that I read a few days ago. Yours, Matt [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wes Folkerth Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 1997 09:00:50 -0500 Subject: Mod Music Shakespeare Here's another one, Back in the late 60s when Fleetwood Mac was still a blues band, Peter Green titled their first album "Then Play On," a slight paraphrase from TN. Shakespeare leaves the "then" out of the if...then construction, "If music be the food of love, play on." Wes Folkerth tfolke@po-box.mcgill.ca [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley" Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 1997 16:02:34 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0389 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music I wonder if the fact that Romeo and Juliet turn up in a song by Dire Straits has anything to do with the fact that Mark Knopfler is a graduate in English from Leeds University? David Lindley School of English University of Leeds [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Mann Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 1997 12:27:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music << Do any of you out there know places in modern music where Shakespeare is mentioned? >> As I recall, Sting's album The Dream of the Blue Turtles, contains a song with Shakespearean references, though I'm damned if I can remember what it is. It is mentioned in the liner notes, though.....cheers, Mark Mann [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: K. Graham Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 1997 10:55:39 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0389 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music Harry Chapin's "There Only Was One Choice" (reference to Hamlet) hasn't been mentioned yet. Also, didn't The Band have a song that mentioned Ophelia? Ken Graham New Mexico State University [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Ross Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 1997 16:29:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0389 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music Re Georgina Ziegler's pop music request: Does anyone remember Donovan from the 60s? He recorded "Under the Greenwood Tree" on one of his albums. Charlie Ross Purdue [7]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sam Schimek Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 1997 16:26:14 -0700 Subject: Shakespeare and Modern Music The following is has been put together by the Elvis Costello list who always like to help. Many thanks are due to these fine people. I did not include references to historical personages unless it was clear that the reference was based on the play. (Cleopatra, Henry VIII (Saving us a reference to Herman's Hermits)) Lyrics are included when the reference is not obvious and the original poster included them. Let me know if you need more, this thread is pretty active. My only comment is that I can guess what a lot of people had to read in high school. Adamson, Barry Something Wicked This Way Comes Alvin, Dave Romeo's Escape. Beatles, The I am the Walrus Big Audio Dynamite Over The Rise Bon Jovi Romeo is Bleeding Cherry, Neneh Buddy X Costello, Elvis Crimes of Paris Juliet Letters, The (album) Just A Memory - "...better take another measure for measure" Miss Macbeth Mystery Dance Terror and Magnificence Counting Crows Miller's Angels Dire Straits Romeo & Juliet Dixon, Don Romeo at Julliard (album) Romeo Dylan, Bob Desolation Row - "Now Ophelia, she's 'neath the window For her I feel so afraid On her twenty-second birthday She already is an old maid" Highway 61 Revisited - "Now the fifth daughter on the TWELFTH NIGHT Stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again "Shakespeare, he's in the alley.." Forbert, Steve Romeo's Tune Hagar, Sammy Rock 'n' Roll Romeo Indigo Girls Romeo & Juliet (cover of Dire Straits version) Touch Me Fall Morrissey King Leer Parton, Dolly Romeo Penn, Michael No Myth - "What if I was Romeo in black jeans ..." Reed, Lou Romeo Had Juliette The Smiths Shakespeare's Sister Sting Nothing Like the Sun (Album) Consider Me Gone Waits, Tom Romeo is Bleeding Wasserman, Rob Put Your Big Toe in the Milk of Human Kindness (w/Elvis Costello) XTC My Bird Performs - "Shakespeare's sonnets leave me cold The drama stage, the high brow prose" Omnibus - "Ain't nothing in the world like a black skinned girl Make your Shakespeare hard and make your oyster pearl" [8]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shaul Bassi Date: Monday, 31 Mar 1997 15:40:32 +0200 (METDST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music Laurie Anderson has a beautiful song, "Blue Lagoon" (in *Mr. Heartbreak*) in which she sings "Full fathom five". An anecdote from Italy: Ron, winner of the 1996 San Remo Festival (the most important and tacky musical contest in the country) with "Vorrei incontrarti tra cent'anni" (I wish I could meet you in a hundred years) was accused of having plagiarized one of Shakespeare's sonnets, and risked losing the award because the song was not "original"... all singers are warned! Shaul Bassi (Venezia, Italy) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 16:26:22 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0394 Workshop: Thinking And Doing The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0394. Monday, 31 March 1997. From: Julie Bleha Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 1997 10:57:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Thinking And Doing Columbia University THINKING AND DOING: Performance and Text May 2-4, 1997 In three days of workshops, panel discussions, and performances, this conference will bring together theatre theorists and practitioners to explore the position of text in theatrical production. The conference will take place within the theatres on Columbia campus and is set to coincide with Anne Bogart's production of AMERICAN SILENTS. Panelists include: Robert Auletta, Arnold Aronson, Susan Bennett, Anne Bogart, Una Chaudhuri, Helene Foley, David Greenspan, Anne Hamburger, David Henry Hwang, Margo Jefferson, Bill T. Jones, Richard Knowles, Shelby Jiggetts, James Leverett, Kristin Linklater, Emily Mann, Oliver Mayer, Martin Meisel, Charles L. Mee, Joseph Roach, Andrei Serban, Priscilla Smith, Kendall Thomas, Froma Zeitlin. With performances by Elevator Repair Service and Premium Bob. For more information, contact Heidi Coleman at hbc3@columbia.edu or, beginning April 1st, visit our website at: www.columbia.edu/cu/arts/conference ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 16:39:52 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0395 Re: Poet in JC; St. Crispin's Day; Michaelmas The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0395. Monday, 31 March 1997. [1] From: Norm Holland Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 97 15:14:29 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0391 Qs: Poet in JC [2] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 1997 21:41:35 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0382 St. Crispin's Day [3] From: Skip Nicholson Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 1997 22:44:00 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0382 Re: St. Crispin's Day [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 97 15:14:29 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0391 Qs: Poet in JC David Frankel asks for a "larger reason" for the episode of the poet in _JC_ who breaks into Brutus' and Cassius' quarrel. I can suggest one. In fact, when I was teaching Sx long ago, I used to use this as a "way in" to the play. I read JC as about a schism between Brutus and Cassius along the lines of idealist/realist, spirit/body. The two aspects are joined in Caesar and foolishly torn apart by the conspirators. "In the spirit of men there is no blood; / O that then we could come by Caesar's spirit, / And not dismember Caesar," is Brutus' idealistic wish. The cynic-poet episode should be read against the Cinna the Poet episode. (Both, Sx kept from Plutarch.) The plebeians demonstrate the same folly as Brutus-Cassius when they capture Cinna: "Pluck but his name out of his heart and turn him going." The cynic-poet comes to the generals' tent to put the two men and the body-spirit split they represent back together. He combines an appeal to "love," some-laughs at him, but Brutus indignantly chases him off. Both reject anything that would re-create the unity of body and spirit. Perhaps Sx is saying that that's what poetry does: a physical medium with a spiritual significance. The kind of splitting Brutus & Cassius create destroys not only Caesar and themselves, but poetry. I suspect, though, that this may be a critic's ingenuity. In any case I think the second episode would strike an audience as out of place, particularly since Brutus and Cassius have already made up their quarrel. --Best, Norm Holland [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 1997 21:41:35 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0382 St. Crispin's Day Steve Sohmer writes > Thomas Platter's memoir cites a performance of > [Shakespeare's] JC on 21 September [1599] Andrew Gurr concurs > Thomas Platter saw it [Shakespeare's JC] on 21 > September [1599]. Platter wrote: "in the straw-thatched house we saw the tragedy of the first Emperor Julius Caesar" (Schanzer's translation). This might be Shakespeare's play, but then again it might not. Gabriel Egan [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Nicholson Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 1997 22:44:00 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0382 Re: St. Crispin's Day Regarding St. Crispin and kin, Gary Taylor's Oxford _H5_ says the days figure on Elizabethan and Jacobean almanacs, but simply having a feast day on the calendar is no sign of status among saints. After all, _every_ day is the feast day of one saint or another, and most days of more than one. If these two ever were of any importance to the French, there remains no evidence; they're not mentioned in standard lists today, and their only namesake seems to be the unscrupulous and impudent hero of Lesage's 1707 "Crispin rival de son maitre." Shakespeare mentions neither anywhere but in Henry's speech. John King's mention of "a place called Soissons," though, rings loud Gallic bells. Two things every French schoolboy knows about Clovis are that he was the first king of all the Franks and that he broke a (possibly legendary) vase at Soissons, a city in the northeast, now about half way between Paris and the Belgian border. Clovis's name is forever linked in French minds to the start of French glory as well as to Soissons. If Shakespeare had any such connection in mind, though, he would most likely have named Clovis or Soissons, both much more widely known, then as now, than the obscure Crispin & Co. Fluellen's lines that Naomi Liebler cites about mending shoes are echoed in the cobblers' lines that open "Caesar," providing another small link between the plays she convincingly pairs up politically and religiously. Now, where can I find more of Steve Sohmer's discoveries of the connections between Shakespeare's plays and the English obstinacy in holding to the outdated Julian calendar? All the best, Skip Nicholson========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 09:53:06 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0396 Qs: Harbage; Formal Address; Suicide; Shall I; Hamilton The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0396. Tuesday, 1 April 1997. = [1] From: Albert Misseldine Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 1997 11:04:47 -0500 Subj: [Q: Harbage] [2] From: Lysbeth Benkert-Rasmussen Date: Monday, 31 Mar 97 14:43:00 CST Subj: Formal Address [3] From: Frank Whigham Date: Monday, 31 Mar 1997 16:55:36 -0600 Subj: Early Modern/Roman Suicide [4] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Saturday, 29 Mar 1997 20:53:42 -0500 Subj: Speaking of "Shall I Die?" [5] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Monday, 31 Mar 1997 20:18:39 -0500 Subj: Chas. Hamilton [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Albert Misseldine Date: Thursday, 27 Mar 1997 11:04:47 -0500 Subject: [Q: Harbage] I'm leaving this highly enjoyable chat line soon, but before I do I would dearly love to hear what you-all think of Alfred Harbage's ideas in his book As They Liked It - specifically the Shakespeare-as-moral-but-not-a-moralist idea, and his view of dramatic art as a "highroad leading nowhere." I confess I am quite taken with his stance. = Cheers. A Misseldine [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lysbeth Benkert-Rasmussen Date: Monday, 31 Mar 97 14:43:00 CST Subject: Formal Address When a play was performed on the 18th or 19th century stage, what would have been the form of address used in the programs for the female actors, and what, then, would have been the proper abbreviation? Lysbeth Em Benkert Northern State University [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frank Whigham Date: Monday, 31 Mar 1997 16:55:36 -0600 Subject: Early Modern/Roman Suicide Can anyone help with recommendations for the best secondary sources on early modern English appropriations/adaptations of the Roman ethic of honorable suicide? Many thanks. Frank Whigham [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Saturday, 29 Mar 1997 20:53:42 -0500 Subject: Speaking of "Shall I Die?" Well, I am interested in the fact that, um, well, y'know, um, a-COUGH, COUGH, the fact that Don Foster's SHAXICON catalogues "Shall I Die?" = After all, didn't he write a long article in rebuttal of that? Speaking of "Shall I Die?", what about the "Will" *The Second Mayden's Trag=9Cdy* (Doesn't anie-one haue reespect for= th' dead) *Edmund Ironside* *Leir* *die Breschafte Brudermond* (Fratricide Punished) Q1 *Hamlet* [Though I know he's done|Q1 *Merry Wives* |it, I include it for sake of completeness] = [Though I know he's done|Q1 *2H6* |it, I include it for sake of completeness] [Though I know he's done|O1 *3H6* |it, I include it for sake of completeness] [Though I know he's done|Q1 *H5* |it, I include it for sake of completeness] [Though I know he's done| *E3* |it, I include it for sake of completeness] [Though I know he's done| *Double Falsehood* |it, I include it for sake o completeness] *A Yorkshire Trag=9Cdy* *Sir Thomas More*, hand D *The Famous Victories of Henrie the Fifth* *The Troublesome Raigne of Kinge John* (parts 1 and 2) [Though I know he's done it| *Taming of A Shrew* | I include it for sake of completeness] *The True Trag=9Cdy of kinge Richard 3* [Though I obviously know |*Funeral Elegy* |he's done it, I include it for sake completeness] *Locrine* ET CETERA {O, please pronounce that "et KEH-teh-rah" as it is pronounced in proper Latin [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Monday, 31 Mar 1997 20:18:39 -0500 Subject: Chas. Hamilton Today, I read Charles Hamilton's *In Search of Shakespeare*. (You know...I had a bitte of free time...I decided to read some good fiction...) I figured that Hamilton's complete list of things (besides signatures) in Shakespeare's handwriting is: (1) The Will(He's probably right about this one) (2) Sir Thomas More, Hand D(") (3) The several drafts of the papers for the Coat of Arms, including the pictures (4) The legal papers for something or other, I forget what (5) Annotations in Holinshed's Chronicles (6) Annotations in something else (7) The Langleat page, including the picture=87 (8) The Northumberland manuscript (cover, a few pages of text, and annotations) To which we may add, though they're not mentioned in the book (9) Annotations is Edward Halle's *Union of the Two Noble Houses of York and Lancaster* (I think I read somewhere that Hamilton believes that Shakespeare wrote them) (10) The Second Mayden's Tragedy (He wrote a whole book about it) (11) Edmund Ironside (E. Sams mentions that Hamilton says that it's in Shakespeare's hand. He believes the picture of the bearded guy on the right to be a Shakespearean self-portrait. But why am I playing you with this? I must have a point to make. That point is to ask you: = What doe yoo thinke of ye Northumberland manuscript. m not taken in by Hamilton's Shenanigans. Reading the book was excruciating, but it = was fun. (Is that an oxymoron? [I mean "excruciating fun".]) I guess to please everyone, a COMPLETE edition of Shakespeare should include: Commendatory Poems and Prefaces, 1599-1640 COMEDIES All's Well That Ends Well = As You Like It = The Two Gentlemen of Verona = The Comedy of Errors The Taming of a Shrew The Taming of the Shrew Love's Labour's Lost = A Midsummer Night's Dream The Merry Wives of Windsor (Quarto) = The Merry Wives of Windsor (Folio) Measure for Measure Much Ado About Nothing Twelfth Night, or What You Will Fair Em Locrine = TRAGEDIES Macbeth Hamlet (Fratricide Punished) Hamlet (First Quarto) Hamlet (Second Quarto [and folio]) Othello King Leir King Lear (Quarto) King Lear (Folio) Julius Caesar = Romeo and Juliet (First quarto) Romeo and Juliet (Second Quarto [and folio]) Titus Andronicus Timon of Athens = Coriolanus Antony and Cleopatra HISTORIES Edmund Ironside = The Troublesome Reign of King John, Parts 1 and 2 The Life of King John The Reign of King Edward the Third Richard the Third Henry the Fourth, Part 1 Henry the Fourth, Part 2 The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth Henry the Fifth (Quarto) Henry the Fifth (Folio) Henry the Sixth, Part 1 The Contention Between the Houses... Henry the Sixth, Part 2 Richard, Duke of York Henry the Sixth, Part 3 The True Tragedy of Richard the Third Richard the Third Sir Thomas More, Hand D Henry the Eighth ROMANCES Pericles Cymbeline The Tempest The Winter's Tale The Two Noble Kinsmen The Second Maiden's Tragedy POEMS Sonnets A Lover's Complaint Venus and Adonis The Rape of Lucrece Various Poems, including: A Song (Shall I Die) The Phoenix and Turtle The Passionate Pilgrim = Epitaphs, including: Upon a Pair of Gloves = Upon the King Upon John Combe = Upon Ben Jonson = Upon Himself = Upon the Stanley Tomb = The Funeral Elegy = MISCELANNEOUS Will Northumberland manuscript The Langleat Page (with picture) All the drafts for the coat of Arms Annotations in Holinshed Annotations in Halle ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:08:17 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0397 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0397. Tuesday, 1 April 1997. [1] From: Kila Burton Date: Friday, 28 Mar 1997 09:40:03 -0500 Subj: Shakespeare and Song [2] From: Laurie E. Osborne Date: Sunday, 30 Mar 1997 15:03:47 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0389 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music [3] From: Peter Greenfield Date: Monday, 31 Mar 1997 14:53:29 -0800 Subj: Shakespeare in Modern Music [4] From: Heather Stephenson Date: Monday, 31 Mar 1997 16:39:47 U Subj: Shakespeare in Modern Music [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kila Burton Date: Friday, 28 Mar 1997 09:40:03 -0500 Subject: Shakespeare and Song Madonna's version of /Fever/ has a reference to R & J; also there was an R&B song maybe 10 years ago that mentions R&J I think it was titled "That's What Love Is" and went something like: Just like Romeo & Juliet Our love is strong and stronger we'll get Never had enough Nothing stronger than this That's what love is. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laurie E. Osborne Date: Sunday, 30 Mar 1997 15:03:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0389 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music Back from SAA and ready to weigh in with mod music. No one has mentioned yet "The Cinema Show" by Genesis on _Selling England by the Pound_ or a British group called "Not-Shakespeare." Laurie Osborne leosborn@colby.edu [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Greenfield Date: Monday, 31 Mar 1997 14:53:29 -0800 Subject: Shakespeare in Modern Music A recent Eagles song, "Get Over It," includes the lines: "Old Billy was right/Let's kill all the lawyers...." Peter Greenfield English Department University of Puget Sound [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Heather Stephenson Date: Monday, 31 Mar 1997 16:39:47 U Subject: Shakespeare in Modern Music On the Indigo Girls' _Rites of Passage_ album: *In the song "Love will Come to You," the line: "Strength from the milk of human kindness..." *In "Virginia Woolf," the song begins "Some will strut and some will fret, see this, an hour on the stage..." Somewhere on the Spin Doctors first big album: "I'm quite contented to take my chances, With all the Guildensterns and Rosencrantzes..." Please let us know if we can take a peek at the final list. I'd love to have a copy for future classes. Cheers, Heather ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:33:40 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0399 Re: Richard 3 The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0399. Tuesday, 1 April 1997. [1] From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Saturday, 29 Mar 1997 15:27:04 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0339 Qs: Richard 3 [2] From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Sunday, 30 Mar 1997 20:54:59 -0800 Subj: Cowardice as a Facade [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Kendrick Date: Saturday, 29 Mar 1997 15:27:04 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0339 Qs: Richard 3 JoAnne - I hate to disagree so vehemently with you but I must. Look up Frued's *The Complete Psychological Works* Vol. XIV - "The Exceptions" and I think you'll change your mind. Pollard refers to Freud's "Exceptions" as well. " ... Richard III .... projection of the character's grievance into the world in the form of various kinds of disfiguring action." Richard, I think, was a product of the war times, an aggressive father and a mother who thought Richard "tetchy and wayward was thy infancy; Thy schooldays frightful ... " vile as well as a younger son with nothing to look forward to. He was "foresworn" in his mother's womb. Also read Richard's beginning in 3 Henry VI which clarifies his status as deformed, younger son and sibling jealousy of Edward. Richard knew that only Richard loved Richard. I could go on but won't. Thanks for letting me vent. Kitty Kendrick [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Sunday, 30 Mar 1997 20:54:59 -0800 Subject: Cowardice as a Facade Dear Jason, I am very interested in your analysis of Richard III. Please give more detail as to why you see his evil as a sign of cowardice, along with how you define "dark" in this case. As a TA in an Intro to Shakespeare class this semester, Richard III was one of the plays we did, and I would very much like to hear some other approaches. By the way, if I haven't said to each of you individually, let me say publicly that I truly appreciated your input on Richard III as well as my fear of flying episode. I am dealing with the flying issue (I'm going to London this summer), but if you recall, my fellow is an actor, and I am having some problems with his arrogance and ego. It would appear that ever since the presentation, he has been a little "chilly," and made it a point to throw a dig at me last week. It's really too bad-I very much wanted to dialogue with an actor on Shakespeare. However, I choose not to conclude that every Shakespearean actor is pretentiousness and affected. I met quite a few at the LA conference last year, and they were kind and more than open to conversation. Either way, I've decided not to let this dampen my first experience in teaching Shakespeare. Onward to the next play, which is King Lear! JoAnna ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:40:22 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0398 TN Questions The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0398. Tuesday, 1 April 1997. [1] From: Kila Burton Date: Friday, 28 Mar 1997 11:45:16 -0500 Subj: The 12th Night Songs [2] From: Kila Burton Date: Friday, 28 Mar 1997 09:47:00 -0500 Subj: Viola's 3 days vs Sebastian's 3 months [3] From: Kila Burton Date: Friday, 28 Mar 1997 09:58:00 -0500 Subj: Feste [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kila Burton Date: Friday, 28 Mar 1997 11:45:16 -0500 Subject: The 12th Night Songs Were the songs in 12th Night written specifically for the play, or were they already known tunes? The lyrics seem just a little too appropriate. Kila dcl@lanlaw.com [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kila Burton Date: Friday, 28 Mar 1997 09:47:00 -0500 Subject: Viola's 3 days vs Sebastian's 3 months Does anyone have any theories about the seeming discrepancy between the length of time the 12th Night twins were apart? Antonio says 3 months; Viola in the play's beginning; says 3 days. The only way I can clarify it from a performance perspective is that we don't necessarily know how much time has elapsed between Orsion initially sending off Ceasario to Olivia and the time Ceasario and Olivia actually meet. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kila Burton Date: Friday, 28 Mar 1997 09:58:00 -0500 Subject: Feste Could someone suggest articles dealing with the role of the clown as advisor, singer, and comedian? and what their social status was? And was there anything similar to being a "ward of the court" We are playing with Feste being of the same age as Olivia in a world filled with those older than the both, as well as the idea of Feste being a singer with many jobs (one of them being the officer who arrest Ant.) Any insight or ideas would also be appreciated. Kila ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:52:39 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0400 Announcements: James IV; Anthology; Web Site The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0400. Tuesday, 1 April 1997. [1] From: Ed Gieskes Date: Monday, 31 Mar 1997 15:18:23 -0500 (EST) Subj: James IV Performance [2] From: Sara Jayne Steen Date: Monday, 31 Mar 1997 18:42:44 -0500 Subj: Anthology [3] From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 08:43:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: New Web Site [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Gieskes Date: Monday, 31 Mar 1997 15:18:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: James IV Performance Willing Suspension Productions Presents: Robert Greene's *James IV* April 11 at 8 p.m. April 12, 13 at 2:30 and 7:30 p.m. Performances at the Boston Playwrights' Theatre 949 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston MA 02215. Tickets: $6 Adults, $5 Students. For Reservations or Information call 617/353-2506 or 617/264-9111. Willing Suspension Productions was founded in 1993 by a group of graduate students in Boston University's Department of English for a production of Thomas Middleton's _Revenger's Tragedy_. In following years, we have produced Ben Jonson's _The Alchemist_, Thomas Kyd's _Spanish Tragedy_, and Middleton's _Chaste Maid in Cheapside_. The fall of 1996 saw our first non-Renaissance production (and our first fall show) which was William Wordsworth's _The Borderers_. The company is dedicated to producing rarely performed plays of theatrical as well as intellectual interest. For more information, write to: Kirk Melnikoff (kbazler@bu.edu) Ed Gieskes (egieskes@bu.edu) Michael Walker (mwalker@bu.edu) or to Willing Suspension Productions c/o Department of English Boston University 236 Bay State Road Boston, MA 02215. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sara Jayne Steen Date: Monday, 31 Mar 1997 18:42:44 -0500 Subject: Anthology An announcement that may be of interest to Shakespeareans: "Major Women Writers of Seventeenth-Century England," eds, James B. Fitzmaurice, Josephine Roberts, Carol Barash, Eugene Cunnar, and Nancy Gutierrez. 408 pages. University of Michigan Press, $29.00 in paperback. ISBN 0-472-06609-9 (for the paperback). Credit Card orders by phone at 313-764-4392. Fax orders 800-876-1922. Order from the web: http://www.press.umich.edu/TitlesF96/fitzmajo.html. To receive examination copies, teachers should write to The University of Michigan Press, P.O. Box 1104, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106-1104. Do not prepay. You will receive an invoice. The invoice will be canceled. if the book is adopted for a class (and the college bookstore orders at least ten copies) or if the book is returned in usable condition within 60 days. Otherwise pay the invoice at a 20% discount on the above price. The examination discount offer expires October 31, 1997. General Introduction (Fitzmaurice and Roberts) Feminist Criticism and Seventeenth-Century Women Writers (Gutierrez) Survey of the Topic Bibliography for Feminist Criticism Lanyer (Roberts) Introduction Bibliography Salve Deus (Author's Dream) To the Virtuous Reader Salve Deus (Eve's Apology) Description of Cookham Elizabeth Cary (Gutierrez) Introduction Bibliography Mariam (complete) Lady Mary Wroth (Roberts) Introduction Bibliography P to A (26 sonnets) Urania Cephalonian Lovers The Throne of Love Veralinda and Leonia Lindamira The Tomb of Love Margaret Cavendish (Fitzmaurice) Introduction Bibliography Sociable letters (20 letters) Katherine Philips (Cunnar) Introduction Bibliography Poems (26 poems) Behn (Fitzmaurice and Barash) Introduction Bibliography The Rover (complete [Fitzmaurice]) Poetry (7 mostly long poems [Barash]) Anne Finch, countess of Winchilsea (ed. Barash) Introduction Bibliography Poems (15 poems, some quite long) Swetnam Controversy (Cunnar) Introduction Bibliography Introduction to Speght Speght (brief selection) Introduction to Esther Sowernam Ester Sowernam (brief selection) Sara Jayne Steen Montana State University steen@english.montana.edu [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 08:43:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: New Web Site ACTER aficionados may wish to visit the new Web site of Prof. Homer Swander's highly acclaimed Theatre in England summer program: http://humanitas.ucsb.edu/depts/english/research/faculty/swander/Theatre_In_England.html -- this program offers an excellent college credit program for students who wish to study with our ACTER alumni in England and for anyone who wants to combine an intensive theatre going experience with Q&A sessions with actors in current London/Stratford plays. You can also contact Prof. Homer "Murph" Swander at swander@gte.net now. Cynthia Dessen, General Manager, ACTER csdessen@email.unc.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 11:17:55 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0401 Re: Polonius's Advise; Poet in JC The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0401. Tuesday, 1 April 1997. [1] From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Monday, 31 Mar 1997 04:29:10 -0900 Subj: Polonius's Advice Speech [2] From: C. David Frankel Date: Monday, 31 Mar 1997 21:13:04 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0395 Re: Poet in JC [3] From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 02:18:10 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0395 Re: Poet in JC [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Monday, 31 Mar 1997 04:29:10 -0900 Subject: Polonius's Advice Speech These lines from Siddhartha present some insight into interpreting Polonius's advice speech; Sid is speaking to his buddy, Govinda in the chapter, "Govinda": "Wisdom is not communicable. The wisdom which a wise man tries to communicate always sounds foolish. . . . Knowledge can be communicated, but not wisdom. One can find it, live it, be fortified by it, do wonders through it, but one cannot communicate and teach it." If the advice is sound, but sounds foolish, Sid has perhaps explained why. Mike S [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Monday, 31 Mar 1997 21:13:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0395 Re: Poet in JC Thanks to Norm Holland for his insights into the poet in the tent scene in JC. Along those lines-and purely speculatively and for fun-I wonder if Shakespeare played the part? cdf [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 02:18:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0395 Re: Poet in JC Thank you Norm Holland for the reading of what happens to the "poet" in JC. I don't find it at all perverse. For a useful, and somewhat more cynical (as regards the role and name "poet"), complement to NH's reading, one may consider Rene Girard's in his THEATRE OF ENVY (Girard also points out that all the examples that Philostrate suggests and which Theseus rejects for entertainment in lieu of PYRAMUS AND THISBE involve a similar disfiguring of the poet). My own sense of the significance would build upon Holland's and Girard's and suggest that the conception of the poet as "he who can unite body and soul" or other such antinomies that must appear differentiated in order for there to be DRAMA was conceived of, by the dramatist, as too reductive of a representation-the poet doesn't really die in Shakespeare's plays, just dies AS POET..... Chris Stroffolino (freshly returned from my first experience at an SAA conference, it was a pleasure to meet y'all). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 08:44:02 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0402 Re: Suicide The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0402. Wednesday, 1 April 1997. [1] From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 07:20:45 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0396 Suicide [2] From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 08:19:52 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0396 Qs: Suicide [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 07:20:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0396 Suicide Michael MacDonald and Terence Murphy, in _Sleepless Souls: Suicide in Early Modern England_ (1990), have a chapter on "The Secularization of Suicide" with a subsection on "Elite Opinions, Plebeian Beliefs" that may be relevant. Their chapter on "Opposition and Ambivalence" also discusses classical attitudes, as reflected, for example, in codes of chivalry; they cite a number of plays and prose works. Sara van den Berg [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 08:19:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0396 Qs: Suicide To Frank Whigham: You might find it useful to check out Coppelia Kahn's new book, *Roman Shakespeare* (Routledge [Feminist Readings of Shakespeare Series, Ed. Ann Thompson], 1997). Regards, Evelyn Gajowski ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 09:01:57 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0403 Re: Shall I; Hamilton; Polonius The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0403. Wednesday, 1 April 1997. = [1] From: Harry Hill Date: Tuesday, 01 Apr 1997 14:03:08 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0396 Qs: Shall I [2] From: Gabariel Wasserman Date: Tuesday, 01 Apr 1997 12:07:42 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0396 Q: Hamilton [3] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Tuesday, 01 Apr 1997 12:08:21 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0401 Re: Polonius's Advice [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Tuesday, 01 Apr 1997 14:03:08 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0396 Qs: Shall I SHALL I DIE? If I read, yes. "Shall I Die" might work set to a pretty melody. Otherwise, no. No melody of the human voice could derive any pleasure from it. Harry Hill [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabariel Wasserman Date: Tuesday, 01 Apr 1997 12:07:42 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0396 Q: Hamilton For some reason, I forgot one category: TRAGICOMEDIES Troilus and Cressida The Merchant of Venice PS: I showed my *Lover's Complaint* composition to two music teachers, both of whom are composers. The first one said, "You're putting the accent on the wrong beat! You're going tah-RAH | tah-RAH | tah-RAH | tah-RAH. Music doesn't work that way. In music, it should go thus: tah| RAH-tah| RAH-tah | RAH-tah | RAH-tah." I explained that it was in iambs, so it should go my way. "Oh no!!", he told me. I reluctantly accepted. When I showed it to the next music teacher, I explained what the first one had said. "NO, DON'T!!", was his response. "It's SHAKEspeare. You should do it the FIRST way. It's more INteresting that way. I mean the music from SHAKEspeare's time goes that way. You know, like the paVANNE..." Oh, well. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Tuesday, 01 Apr 1997 12:08:21 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0401 Re: Polonius's Advice I once heard someone (my mother, in fact) compare Polonius' precepts to the maxims in the Jewish tractate *Pirq=E9 Avot*. I don't remember the exact comparisons, but I will find out, and post them. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 09:13:26 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0404 Re: Michaelmas; St. Crispin; Poets; Antinomies The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0404. Wednesday, 2 April 1997. [1] From: Steve Sohmer Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 12:46:24 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0395 Re: Michaelmas [2] From: Norm Holland Date: Tuesday, 01 Apr 97 15:54:49 Subj: Re: Shakespeare on Poets [3] From: C. David Frankel Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 19:24:53 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0401 Re: Poet in JC [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 12:46:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0395 Re: Michaelmas Dear Friends, Gabriel Egan is, of course, quite correct when he notes that the play about Julius Caesar which Thomas Platter attended on 21 September 1599 "might not" have been Shakespeare's play. I'd like to return to this subject in a few days, and see if I can't persuade Dr. Egan (and others, perhaps). For the moment, perhaps this brief comment on Henry V's exploitation of St. Crispin's Day would be useful. In H5 4.1, Shakespeare offers us a startling peek into Henry's mind, his religion, and his attitude toward his soldiers. Henry deceives Pistol (4.1.36-64), and spies on Gower and Fluellen (4.1.65-81). Henry (4.1.84-217) deludes Bates, Court, and Williams with the sophistical parable of a father and the son who "do sinfully miscarry upon the sea." In the climax of this scene Henry attempts to negotiate with God (4.1.277-293). His speech includes a wicked parody of the Catholic Eucharistic Prayer, "Momento, Domine . . . Unde et memores, Domine . . . Memento etiam, Domine . . ." as Henry implores God not to remember, but to forget: "Not today, O Lord, O not today, think upon etc." Henry cites his many acts of contrition, a litany which would have rung hollow in the ears of an audience of Protestants who rejected the Doctrine of Good Works. In the play which Shakespeare wrote shortly after H5 ("Julius Caesar"), 4.1 is the black proscription scene wherein Antony, Octavius, and Lepidus condemn senators and kinsmen to death. Perhaps the dark light Shakespeare casts on Henry in 4.1 colors his reference to St. Crispin's Day in 4.3 much as the black proscriptions color the victory of Antony-Octavius at Philippi. On the morning of Agincourt Henry is attempting to pluck-up the spirits of his meager force by tinting the coming, unequal battle with the luster of a holy combat. And, true, the date was mentioned in the sources. But Shakespeare's insistence upon it-he mentions Crispin five times, and Crispian once, in 37 lines-suggests mischief. Against the French, Henry is invoking French martyr-saints; Gary Taylor rightly sees an irony in this (Oxford 229n). Furthermore, Crispin/Crispin didn't live to brag and show their wounds. They died. In a recent Elizabethan literary incarnation- Deloney's "The Gentle Craft" (1597) -- the pair had been presented as (disguised) princes who apprentice with an English shoemaker in Feversham. But Crisipian eventually goes off to fight for the French side against the Persians, and Crisipin marries into the imperial family of Rome. The king in Dekker's "Shoemaker's Holiday" (after 15 July 1599) seems to be Henry V-even though the historical Henry died more than 10 years before Simon Eyre became Sheriff of London. But the boys go off to the French wars (and Agincourt) under the banner of St. Hugh, not Crispin/Crispian. This may be variously interpreted. But it can be construed to suggest that St. Hugh, and not Crispin/Crispian was the preferred patron of English shoemakers. Perhaps the point of Shakespeare's insistence on Crispin/Crispian is that they were obscure, foreign saints whose feast day had been erased from the English liturgical calendar under Henry VIII (if it ever appeared in the calendar). An Elizabethan audience which had overheard Henry hondeling with God-and then heard him proclaim a jihad in the name of Crispin/Crispian- could hardly have failed to detect the hollowness of this king's piety. After all, Henry described himself: "We are no tyrant, but a Christian king" (1.2.241), which is rather different from saying, "I'm a Christian." In a certain sense the character of Hal-Harry-Henry-throughout all of 1&2 Henry IV and Henry V-drives toward the moment when the roll of English dead is read out after Agincourt. Hearing the miraculous numbers, Essex exclaims "'Tis wonderful" (4.8.110) -- a word which had supernatural overtones for Shakespeare. After which moment Henry is, I think, somewhat converted to a true faith. Others might disagree. All the best, Steve Sohmer [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Tuesday, 01 Apr 97 15:54:49 EST Subject: Re: Shakespeare on Poets In a recent paper of mine, as yet unpublished, I suggest that WS was quite ambivalent about poets and being a poet. My evidence is an rhaps analysis of language from Falstaff (1H4) and Ant. I think he felt a bit inadequate for not following in his father's commercial and political footsteps. You can access the paper at www.clas.ufl.edu/users/nnh/barge.htm The part about Shakespeare on poets comes about halfway through. --Best, Norm Holland [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 19:24:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0401 Re: Poet in JC In reply to Chris Stroffolino: Although antinomies (presented in the form of agon, or conflict, must appear differentiated at least at *some* point within a (the) drama, don't many plays (especially those in the comic vein) suggest that these differences unite in a way that "transcends" the original conflict? cdf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 09:25:05 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0405 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0405. Wednesday, 2 April 1997. [1] From: Alison Horton Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 10:42:28 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0393 RE: Shakespeare in Modern Music [2] From: William D Walsh Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 16:00:50 -0500 (EST) Subj: Shakespeare in modern music (fwd) [3] From: Walter Cannon Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 14:57:49 -0600 (CST) Subj: RE: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music [4] From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 12:00:43 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0389 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alison Horton Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 10:42:28 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0393 RE: Shakespeare in Modern Music I used to have an album by Holly and The Italians which began with a paraphrase from Twelfth Night: "Some people are born great, some achieve greatness, and then there are those that have greatness thrust upon them." Alison Horton [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: William D Walsh Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 16:00:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shakespeare in modern music (fwd) Here are a couple more: Rush-"Limelight", from _Moving Pictures_ (1981), contains a paraphrase of (_AYL_ 2.7.139-40) Metallica-"Damage, Inc.", from _Master of Puppets_ (1986), contains a paraphrase of (_Mac._ 3.4.122) Bill Walsh [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Walter Cannon Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 14:57:49 -0600 (CST) Subject: RE: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music Regarding Georgianna Ziegler's query about Shakespeare in/and modern music: I don't know if the jazz settings by Dankworth and others and sung beautifully by Cleo Laine on the "Wordsongs" album are "modern" enough, but this album consists mostly of Shakespeare-songs from plays, some sonnets (18, 40, 147) and other bits-all in the jazz idiom. Try it; you'll like it. Walter Cannon cannonw@central.edu [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 12:00:43 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0389 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music Nobody's mentioned the wonderful but only briefly famous and now little-known group Sparks (Ron and Russell Mael). On their album _Kimono My House_ is a witty and poignant song based on _Romeo and Juliet_, called "Here in Heaven", which represents the thoughts of Romeo who has arrived in Heaven to discover that Juliet is not dead. Some of the lyrics (from memory) go something like: Here there are many things to do And a panoramic view Of the universe completely surrounding you And here you cannot buy souvenirs For you're never going back, never, never... Juliet, you broke our little pact, Juliet, I'm never going back. Up here in Heaven without you I'm here in Heaven without you It is hell knowing that your health Will keep you out of here For many many years. (I used to be a big fan of Sparks many years ago but I've heard nothing of them for ages, and I hope that I'm not the only living person who remembers them.) Adrian Kiernander ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 09:31:11 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0406 Columbia University Seminar; Shakespeare Movies on BRAVO The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0406. Wednesday, 2 April 1997. [1] From: Jill Niemczyk Smith Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 19:57:42 -0500 (EST) Subj: Columbia University Seminar On Shakespeare [2] From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 14:33:42 -0500 (EST) Subj: Shakespeare Movies on BRAVO [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jill Niemczyk Smith Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 19:57:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Columbia University Seminar On Shakespeare THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY SEMINAR ON SHAKESPEARE is pleased to announce that Randall McLeod (Erindale College, University of Toronto) will be speaking on the text and editorial tradition of *Romeo and Juliet* at our meeting on Friday, 11 April 1997. The title of Professor McLeod's talk is "The Vary Truth," and it will be held at Faculty House on the Columbia University Campus in New York City. Local and visiting Shakespeareans are welcome. Please contact Jill Niemczyk Smith at jan5@columbia.edu for further information. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 14:33:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shakespeare Movies on BRAVO For those who get BRAVO on your cable TV systems, this month is something of a bonanza for Shakespeare films. During the month, BRAVO will, according to their website, be showing the following: Welles' OTHELLO Olivier's HENRY V, OTHELLO, RICHARD III Zeffirelli's THE TAMING OF THE SHREW Kurosawa's RAN, THRONE OF BLOOD Lubitsch's TO BE OR NOT TO BE (which includes much Shakespeare) Specific showtimes can be gleaned from the website: http://www.bravotv.com/ . I am not affiliated with BRAVO, etc., etc. Cheers, Douglas Lanier DML3@christa.unh.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 09:40:53 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0407 Re: Editing; Richard 3; TN Songs The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0407. Wednesday, 2 April 1997. [1] From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Tuesday, 01 Apr 97 20:56:22 EST Subj: Dancing to the Tunes of Qs and Fs [2] From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Tuesday, 01 Apr 1997 17:20:54 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0399 Re: Richard 3 [3] From: David Crosby Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 20:06:07 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0398 TN Questions [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Tuesday, 01 Apr 97 20:56:22 EST Subject: Dancing to the Tunes of Qs and Fs Appropriately donning cap and bells for the celebration of All Fools Day, I returned from the SAA in Washington to find Paul Werstine's posting of 25 March. Whew! He remarks, "even politeness has some limits." Okay. But so too are there limits to how one presents or misrepresents documentary evidence and the state of scholarly opinion before one may be accused of, shall we say, stacking the deck, queering the pitch, or blowing smoke to cover what you don't feel happy about showing. First, I don't think the New Folger editions are somehow anathema. They work hard at what they choose to do. They embody the results of years of careful scholarship and close examination of texts and sources. No problem. But they seem to mask the long tradition of editors covering over the testimony of the early printed versions of the texts. Let me offer what we used to call in the Bronx "a f'rinstance." In LEAR, when Kent exits from 1.1, the next spoken line is "Here's France and Burgundy, my noble lord." In the 1608 Quarto, the speech prefix is "Glost." In F it reads "Cor." Now, either can "work" onstage. And here by "work" I mean that either version could be played by actors to great dramatic effect. When "Glost" says the line, one could direct him to pretend that he is unaware of the disasters that just befell Cordelia's marital prospects. Or he could play the line worried, as if he reads in the body language or locational semiotics that something has gone wrong. Or following F Cor=Cornwall we could have this jaunty mutilater point out to Lear that his rashness has to be paid for practically at once. Or even following Cor=Cordelia, the maid could say the line to bring the king once again to see what is most plain but most unspoken by others. We could also imagine that these two alternatives were not real alternatives. I'm away from my desk, so I can't quote exactly what the New Folger edition says. But it's something like, "We follow F except for a very few words [including this speech prefix] where Q gives a word that more accurately fits the story." (Or the story of the play, something like that.) The editors of the New Folger edition here leave the evidence in favor of an idealized construct, THE story. I've argued that Q Lear has one story, and F a modestly but interestingly distinct story. No, No, No, sez Paul Werstine. Because we can't know who mucked about with those speech prefixes, nor when, nor for why, we had better not bother our readers with anyone's thoughts about the alternatives. Well, I've repeatedly suggested that if a typesetter or a censor, or the apprentice picking up spilled type and stuffing it back at random into the composed formes created these variants, we ought to at least look seriously at the patterns of variation. We indeed are meaning-making critters. In LEAR there are a bunch of "interrupted speeches." They happen at moments of dramatic excitement. And many are the sites of textual variation. One happens in 3.1; it's one of a series. In Shakespeare Quarterly, Richard Knowles looks at it, waves away without consideration the patterned context of similar instances, and "demonstrates" that the variant is not theatrically valuable. Instead he jumbles and shifts lines to patch together a semicoherent version. The speech in Q runs about 20 lines, its F version 13 lines, the conflated version Knowles treasures and tranforms, about 26. Dumb theatrical revisers? Hey, maybe. But also maybe smart authors. , or smart scribes, or smart compositors. These unknown agents produced documents. I on all fools day suggest that our editors should spend time showing readers what the documents offer. Paul takes me to task: "As editors we cannot afford to mislead readers by pretending that history is less complex than we know it to be just to lionize the views of one scholar." Wow! I don't want to hide my own certainly challengable views in some kind of share-the-blame herd, but I really can count more than one lonely figure in the parade. A wonder of the internet and Shaksper allows more open discussion than has ever been possible in most of the journals handling these issues. I invite other scholars, actors, students, ghosts-of-compositors, or dancin' fools to raise their voices. I am not Prince Editor, nor am meant to be. But Let's use this open space to explore issues unthought of in the confined prescriptions of school editions. We've paid our prices of admission. Let the mad rumpus begin. Where the wild things are, Steve Urkowitz [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Tuesday, 01 Apr 1997 17:20:54 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0399 Re: Richard 3 In response to Kitty Kendrick: I have no problem with this, though I am having trouble finding what I said to cause you to vent so. Can you refresh my memory? I do believe that Richard is evil because Shakespeare needs him to be. I make that statement from the point of view of a playwright. I don't know if it's right or wrong, it's just an interpretation. As far as Richard clarifying his status in 3Henry VI, I don't argue that point either, except to say that during that period deformity was often viewed as a satanic or occult-like punishment for the previous sins of the forebears. If I focus on the supernatural/superstitious forces that operated during that period, then I can see why Richard's deformity fit so well with his character (Let's not forget that there are many suggestions that he had not been so deformed in real life). So, I guess for me, after all the research and analysis has made its mark on the play, I look to the period from which the play is performed. Either way, all interpretations are legitimate in my opinion, so please don't vent...it takes away the joy of discussion. JoAnna [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Crosby Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 20:06:07 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0398 TN Questions At least one, and likely most of the songs in TN were already known. "Hey Robin, Jolly Robin" is from a poem by Sir Thomas Wyatt, and was set to music by William Cornish, master of the Revels under Henry VIII. David Crosby Alcorn State University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 09:50:22 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0408. Wednesday, 2 April 1997. From: Ian Doescher Date: Tuesday, 1 Apr 1997 22:43:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Sources for Oedipus Theory SHAKSPERians, I'm wondering if anyone knows if there are sources that pointed to a possible Hamlet-Gertrude Oedipal complex BEFORE Lawrence Olivier's stage production, and the film that follows. This issue arose in my Shakespeare on film class: my professor thinks Olivier was the first, I think he probably wasn't, and my roommate thinks that maybe Freud talks about Hamlet. I know that Olivier's main source for the Oedipal idea came from one of Freud's colleagues and biographers (his name escapes me right now), but I'm still not sure that it was an original idea of Olivier's. Can anyone shed some light on this topic? Thanks, Ian Doescher ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 10:20:08 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0409 Re: Sources for Oedipus Theory The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0409. Thursday, 3 April 1997. [1] From: Fran Teague Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 97 10:00:35 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory [2] From: Simon Malloch Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 23:36:56 +0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory [3] From: Jacqueline Strax Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 11:16:52 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory [4] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 11:20:41 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory [5] From: Richard A Burt Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 11:32:49 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory [6] From: Erika Lin Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 11:52:27 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory [7] From: Mark Mann Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 12:05:56 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory [8] From: Derek Wood Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 12:48:56 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory [9] From: Cristina Keunecke Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 14:15:34 -0800 Subj: Re: Sources for Oedipus Theory [10] From: Jameela Ann Lares Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 11:33:46 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory [11] From: Ron Dwelle Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 13:44:22 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory [12] From: Stephen Schultz Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 97 13:49:21 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory [13] From: Roger Gross Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 13:21:41 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory [14] From: Norm Holland Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 97 15:11:39 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory [15] From: Fred Wharton Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 16:00:22 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory [16] From: Syd Kasten Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 11:26:44 +0200 (IST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 97 10:00:35 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory In an article, "Hamlet in the Thirties," _Theatre Survey_ 26 (1985): 63-79, I've argued the John Barrymore was aware of Ernst Jones' work and made use of it in his 1922 production. My source was John Kobler's biography of Barrymore, _Damned in Paradise_ (1977); Kobler says that Olivier modeled parts of his interpretation on Barrymore's, which Olivier saw at the age of 17. Hope that helps! Fran Teague [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Malloch Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 23:36:56 +0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory Ian, Yes, Freud does discuss Hamlet in light of the Oedipal complex. You will find it in his *Interpretation of Dreams*. As for "collegues and biographers" you are most probably referring to Ernest Jones. He wrote two pieces on the subject, the most important being *Hamlet and Oedipus* (1949). Simon Malloch. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacqueline Strax Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 11:16:52 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory Dear Ian: You ask, "my roommate thinks that maybe Freud talks about Hamlet." He does. In a footnote to The Interpretation of Dreams. It will be in your library. Hamlet will be listed in the index. You also ask about "one of Freud's colleagues and biographers (his name escapes me right now)." Ernest Jones. His book will be near Freud's. Ah the joy of looking things up! Good luck with your project Jackie Strax [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 11:20:41 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory In *Die Traumdetung*, pg. 298 [in my edition], Freud says: "Another of the great creations of tragic poetry, Shakespeare's *Hamlet*, has its roots in the same soil as *Oedipus Rex*. But the changed treatment of the same material reveals the whole difference in the mental life of these two widely separated epochs of civilization: the secular advance of repression in the emotional life of mankind. In the *Oedipus* the child's wishful fantasy that underlies it is brought into the open and realized as it would be in a dream. In *Hamlet* it remains repressed; and-just as in the case of a neurosis-we only learn of its existence from its inhibiting consequences. Strangely enough, the overwhelming effect produced by the more modern tragedy has turned out to be more compatible with the fact that people have remained in the dark as to the hero's character. The play is built up on Hamlet's hesitations over fulfilling the task of revenge that is assigned to him; but its text offers no reasons or motives for these hesitations and an immense variety of attempts at interpreting them have failed to produce a result. According to the view which was originated by Goethe and is still the prevailing one today, Hamlet represents the kind of man whose power of direct action is paralyzed by an excessive development of his intellect. (He is 'sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought.') According to another view, the dramatist has tried to portray a pathologically irresolute character which might be classed as neaurasthenic. The plot of the drama shows us, however, that Hamlet is far from being represented as a person incapable of taking any action. We see him doing so on two occasions: first in a sudden outburst of temper, when he runs his sword through the eavesdropper behind the arras, and secondly in a premeditated and even crafty fashion, when, with all the callousness of a Renaissance prince, he sends the two courtiers to the death that had been planned for him. What is it, then, that inhibits him in fulfilling the task set him by his fathers ghost? The answer, once again, is that it is the peculiar nature of the task. Hamlet is able to do anything-except take vengeance on a man who did away with his father and took that father's place with his mother, the man who shows him the repressed wishes of his own childhood realized. Thus the loathing which should drive him on to vengeance is replaced in him by self-reproaches, by scruples of conscience, which remind him that he himself is no better than the sinner whom he is to punish. Here I have translated into conscious terms what was bound to remain unconscious in Hamlet's mind; and if anyone is inclined to call him a hysteric, I can only accept the fact as one that was implied by my interpretation. The distaste for sexuality expressed by Hamlet in his conversation with Ophelia fits in very well with this: the same distaste which was destined to take possession of the poet's mind more and more during the years that follow, and which reached its extreme expression in *Timon of Athens*. For it can of course only be the poet's own mind which confronts us in *Hamlet*. I observe in a book on Shakespeare by Georg Brandes (1896) a statement that *Hamlet* was written immediately after the death of Shakespeare's father (in 1601) that is, under the immediate impact of his bereavement and, as we may well assume, while his childhood feelings about his father had been freshly revived. It is known, too, that Shakespeare's own son who died at an early age bore the name of 'Hamnet', which is identical with 'Hamlet'. Just as *Hamlet* deals with the relationship of a son to his parents, so *Macbeth* (written at approximately the same period) is concerned with the subject of childlessness. But just as all neurotic symptoms, and, for that matter, dreams, are capable of being 'over-interpreted' and indeed need to be, if they are fully understood, so all genuinely creative writings are the product of more than a single motive and more than a single impulse in the poet's mind, and are open to more than a single interpretation. In what I have written I have only attempted to interpret the deepest layer of impulses in the mind of the creative writer. [Added 1919]-The above indications of a psycho-analytic explanation of Hamlet have since been amplified by Ernest Jones and defended against the alternative views put forward in the literature of the subject. Further attempts at an analysis of *Macbeth* will be found in a paper of mine and in one by Jekels. [Added 1930]-Incidentally, I have in the meantime ceased to believe that the author of Shakespeare's works was the man from Stratford." I hope this helps. GZW [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A Burt Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 11:32:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory Freud discusses Hamlet in the Interpretation of Drams; Ernest Jones, the colleague to whom you refer, wrote a book about Hamlet and the Oedipus complex (sorry, can't remember the title). Jackie Rose has an excellent discussion in an essay in _Alternative Shakespeares_, ed John Drakakis worth checking out. If you haven't already seen the Zeffirelli film, check itout. It is even more overtly Oedipal version than Olivier's. For superb discussion of the two films (Olivier as Freudian, Zeff as Lacanian), see Julia and Reinhard Lupton's book _Shakespeare After Oedipus_. Best, Richard [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Erika Lin Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 11:52:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory Ian, Re: "possible Hamlet-Gertrude Oedipal complex BEFORE Lawrence Olivier's stage production, and the film that follows"-see Freud, _The Interpretation of Dreams_ (pub. originally in 1898, though Freud wanted the title page dated 1900), section V.D (Material and Sources of Dreams: Typical Dreams). In my copy, ed. and trans. by James Strachey, and pub. by Avon Books, it's on pp. 294-300. All the best, Erika Lin [7]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Mann Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 12:05:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory John Barrymore, who played Hamlet in the 20s, was once asked what he thought when he looked at Claudius onstage, and he said what went through his mind constantly was, " You dirty @$#%^@#, you're $@#$%% my MOTHER!!" Not exactly textbook Freud, but ...cheers, Mark Mann Arden Shakespeare Company, Columbus, Ohio [8]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Derek Wood Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 12:48:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory Ernest Jones? [9]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cristina Keunecke Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 14:15:34 -0800 Subject: Re: Sources for Oedipus Theory Regarding the query about sources for the Oedipus Theory, I can surely answer that was Freud who first linked it to Hamlet. He debated this question in his book *The Interpretation of the Dreams*, published in 1900. In later works, Freud had added several examples of Hamlet related with his theory. After this, his colleague and biographer ERNEST JONES had published a more complete essay with the tittle *The Oedipus Complex as an Explanation to the Mystery of Hamlet*. This essay was first published in 1910, in *The American Journal of Psychology*. In 1949, the essay was expanded and was published as a book, entitled *Hamlet and the Oedipus Complex*. So, although the book was published one year after the Olivier's movie version, I think that the psychoanalytical interpretation of Hamlet was not Olivier's original idea. Yours, Cristina Keunecke [10]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jameela Ann Lares Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 11:33:46 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory I imagine a number of list-members will respond on this, but according to the Susanne L. Wofford, ed. Case Studies edition on _Hamlet_ (Bedford, 1994), the disciple of Freud you're thinking is Ernst Jones. Even though Olivier's 1948 production predated Jones's _Hamlet and Oedipus_ (1949; repr. Norton, 1976), parts of Jones's argument were published in essay form in 1910 and 1923. Wofford's bibliographical note indicates that Jones "influenced the Olivier film version of _Hamlet_" (p. 255). Jameela Lares Univ. of So. Miss. [11]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Dwelle Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 13:44:22 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory Ernest Jones published the long essay, "The Oedipus Complex as an Explanation of Hamlet's Mystery," in The American Journal of Psychology, January, 1910. I believe the general idea had a wide audience from this point on. If I recall correctly, it was this essay which Jones expanded into the book Hamlet and Oedipus, published shortly after WWII. In short, I don't think Olivier did any more than adopt a known theory. [12]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Schultz Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 97 13:49:21 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory In response to Ian Doescher's query about Oedipal Hamlets onstage: If I remember correctly, Gene Fowler credits John Barrymore with the stage original. That would place it ca. 1920. Olivier (and Tyrone Guthrie) were attracted to the Oedipal reading by Ernest Jones's . [13]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Gross Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 13:21:41 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory Ian Doescher asks about the "source" of the Hamlet/Oedipus idea. The psychologist you are thinking of is Ernest Jones who was not only, as you say, Freud's English biographer but Olivier's therapist at the time when Olivier was shaping his ideas about both HAMLET and OTHELLO. Jones is the author of a book that probably holds something for you, HAMLET AND OEDIPUS. Jones persuaded Olivier that Hamlet had an Oedipal attachment to Gertrude and that Iago had a homosexual attraction to Othello. The story of the unfortunate production which resulted when Olivier as Iago played the idea and Ralph Richardson as Othello rejected it is pretty widely known. I heard it from Tony Guthrie who was the director-as-helpless-bystander of the production. Roger Gross U. of Arkansas [14]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 97 15:11:39 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory Re: Oedipal stagings of Ham. Mr. Doescher's question was not quite clear to me, whether he was asking when the oedipal reading of Ham. originated or when there were oedipal stagings. Presumably the latter, but just for the record- Freud first broached the oedipal reading of Ham. in a letter to Fliess, October 15, 1897. He repeated the insight again and again, most fully (if I remember right) in _The Interpretation of Dreams_ (1901). Ernest Jones expanded Freud's one-paragraph insight into a book that grew and grew as it went through successive editions. Looking back at my _Psychoanalysis and Shakespeare_, I find some oedipal stagings prior to Olivier's 1937 production and 1948 film. The earliest I found was Arthur Hopkins' production in 1922 with John Barrymore as the prince. (Hopkins also produced Mac. in 1921 drawing on psychoanalytic ideas.) Next came a production in 1946 by Jean-Louis Barrault, also, apparently influenced by the Freud-Jones reading. Then came Olivier, who actually consulted Jones in person. Then, the interpretation became fairly standard for a while. If memory serves me right, Olivier in his autobiography (the professional one) says he thought by the end of his life that he had overdone it. It is interesting to me that the more recent Hamlets I've seen make the relation between Hamlet and his mother open to that interpretation without making it as obvious as Olivier did, Branagh certainly, and Mel Gibson, as I recall. Now, may I pose my own question? Can anyone suggest to me why Hamlet in his final instructions to his mother states them as a long, affirmative instruction to do bad things, prefaced by a single, bracketing negative? "Not this, by no means, that I bid you do: / Let the bloat king tempt you again to bed," etc. What is the psychological or thematic sense in his *bidding* her to do these things? Is he relishing his imagining of her in these incestuous acts? That's kind of sick, and I'd love to hear a better reason. --Best, Norm Holland [15]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fred Wharton Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 16:00:22 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory How about Freud himself? Ernest Jones' essay, *Hamlet and Oedipus,* didn't appear until 1949, a year after the Olivier film. Fred Wharton. [16]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Syd Kasten Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 11:26:44 +0200 (IST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory Freud discussed Hamlet in his book The Interpretation of Dreams (1900), contrasting the actual transgression of the incest taboo and the later explicit awareness in the Oedipus story with the hypothesized fantasized experience and its unconscious continuation in Hamlet. He suggested that Hamlet's inability to kill Claudius had something to do with the fact that Claudius, in killing Hamlet's father, had done the deed that the boy Hamlet had wished to bring about. Recognizing that a stage character is an expression of the author's mental state, Freud suggested that the play has something to do the death of Shakespeare's father apparently a short time before the play was written. Freud used Hamlet as an illustration in a couple of places in the book in discussing the work of dreams. The student and, later, biographer (excellent) was Ernest Jones, a British (Welsh?) psychoanalyst, to whom Freud gave credit in a 1919 footnote for amplifying his own "indications of a psycho-analytic explanation of Hamlet". Jones' original article was written in 1910 and appeared in a more complete form in "Hamlet and Oedipus" ( A Doubleday Anchor Book) in 1949. (S. Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams, translated by James Strachey, Basic Books in the U.S. by arrangement with George Allen & and Unwin and The Hogarth Press) Freud, incidentally, had something to say on a rhetorical question that is invoked from time to time on the list. "Just as *Hamlet* deals with the relation of a son to his parents, *Macbeth*......is concerned with the subject of childlessness." Which implies his belief that if the Macbeths ever had children, by the time we observe them they didn't. Best wishes Syd Kasten ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 10:36:40 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0410 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0410. Thursday, 3 April 1997. [1] From: Jameela Ann Lares Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 08:52:57 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0405 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music [2] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 09:49:37 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0405 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music [3] From: Charles Ross Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 10:24:40 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0405 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music [4] From: Katherine Acheson Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 10:36:00 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0405 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music [5] From: Peter Hadorn Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 11:06:01 -0500 Subj: Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music [6] From: Amy Ulen Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 10:59:41 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0393 RE: Shakespeare in Modern Music [7] From: Peter D. Holland Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 20:34:47 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0393 RE: Shakespeare in Modern Music [8] From: Louis Scheeder Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 19:00:07 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0405 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jameela Ann Lares Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 08:52:57 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0405 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music I haven't entirely been following this thread, but are we only talking about tag lines? I can't remember the title or artist, but there's a classic rock song which compares one's new romance with Romeo & Juliet's. The refrain includes the phrase "just like Romeo and Juliet." (It also has a catchy syncopated beat.) If memory serves, one stanza goes something like-- "Right now I'm speculatin' 'Bout what tomorrow's gonna really bring. If I don't find love tomorrow, It's gonna be heartbreak and sorrow-- Our love is gonna be [?] a tragedy Just like Romeo and Juliet." Submitted for correction-- Jameela Lares University of So. Miss. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 09:49:37 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0405 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music In the show *The Compleat Works of Wllm Shkspr (Abrdged), they did a rap song of Othello: Desdemona loved Othello Like Adonis loved Venus; 'Cause Othello had A really big---SWORD! Now there was a fellow, That made Othello sick -Cause Iago was A really big dick! et cetera-ad nauseum-ad infinitum It was in very poor taste [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Ross Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 10:24:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0405 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music And then there's the greatest line in all pop music, by the king of course (Elvis): I can't remember the title, but the line is, "Someone once said that all's the stage!" Sweet smoke of rhetoric! Charlie Ross Purdue [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Katherine Acheson Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 10:36:00 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0405 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music And Elvis Costello's album -- something like _The Juliet Letters_? Kathy Acheson [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Hadorn Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 11:06:01 -0500 Subject: Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this "early modern" Shakespeare reference, but at the end of the Beatles "I am the Walrus" snatches of _King Lear_ are spoken, supposedly recorded off of a radio play. [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amy Ulen Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 10:59:41 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0393 RE: Shakespeare in Modern Music "Limelight" by Rush contains the following AYL paraphrase: "All the world's indeed a stage, And we are merely players, Performers and portrayers, Each another's audience Outside the gilded cage." [7]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter D. Holland Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 20:34:47 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0393 RE: Shakespeare in Modern Music And to show that not all references to Shakespeare in modern music need be Anglophone: Udo Lindenberg and Nina Hagen have recorded a number called 'Romeo und Julia' [8]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Scheeder Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 19:00:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0405 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music Has anyone mentioned Ellington's *Such Sweet Thunder* album? Dedicated to the (at that time) Stratford Shakespearean Festival in Stratford, Ontario. Recorded New York 1956-57. Composed and orchestrated by Duke Ellington and Billy Strayhorn. First performed April of 57, Town Hall, NYC. Includes Lady Mac, Sonnet to Han Cinq, Madness in Great Ones, etc. Ellington's music was featured in the National Actors Theatre production of *Timon of Athens* (the Langham/Bedford production) a few seasons back. Louis Scheeder ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 10:53:15 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0411 Re: Editing; TN Questions; Antinomies The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0411. Thursday, 3 April 1997. [1] From: Richard A Burt Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 11:36:14 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0407 Re: Editing [2] From: Steve Sohmer Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 11:45:02 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0398 TN Questions [3] From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 00:03:12 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0404 Re: Antinomies [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A Burt Date: Wednesday, 02 Apr 1997 11:36:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0407 Re: Editing Since Steve asks us to raise our voices, I'll simply say I think Paul is being quite responsible as an editor, informing readers as to all the possible ways of making sense of variants and multiple editions, including Steve's, rather than pushing a narrow agenda. If sides are to be taken, I'll stand with him. Best, Richard [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 11:45:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0398 TN Questions Dear Friends, I'm going to take a whack at answering Kila Burton's question about how long the 12th Night twins have been apart. Twelfth Night has a date for its title (the night of 5 January, the Eve of Epiphany). Epiphany was an act of recognition, and the action of TN drives to the act of recognition between Viola and Sebastian at 5.1.209: "Most wonderful!" The play is rife with references to time, a striking clock, and changes wrought by time's "whirligig." Just as the church calendar year recapitulated the story of Christ, so the 12 days of Christmas were imagined to engross the 12 months of the year. This accounts for the curious equivalence of 3 days and 3 months. The key to establishing the play's internal clock perhaps can be found in Feste's closing song: "When that I was and-a little tiny boy, etc." (5.1.366-). This is a light-hearted parody of 1 Corinthians 13, the Epistle for Quinquagesima Sunday: "When I was a child I spake as a child, etc." In the minds of the Chamberlain's Men, TN was apparently associated with Candlemas. They played it at the Middle Temple on 2 February 1602. The play is variously dated to 1600 or 1601. It happens that Quinqugesima Sunday fell on Candlemas 2 February in 1600, which might lend weight to the argument that the play (or an early draft) was in hand for that date. >From this assumption, the following calendar may be deduced. According to Antonio, the reunion of Viola and Sebastian takes place three months and one day after the shipwreck (5.1.75-91). If the reunion takes place on Quinqugesima Sunday 2 February (1600), the shipwreck occurred on All Saints' Day 1 November (1599). Oddly enough, this dating sorts well with Curio's question whether Orsino will "go hunt . . . the hart" (1.1.16), a November pastime. November was the Elizabethan month of the dead, and its first two days (All Saints' and the defunct All Souls') were strongly associated with mourning, which accords with Viola's grief for her lost brother, and the talk of Olivia's losses of father and brother (1.2.3-33). Viola-Cesario enters Orsino's service on the following day (2 November), and on her third day of service (4 November) she/he is dispatched to court Olivia. This is the day on which Olivia chides Feste for his absence (1.5.35-). Malvolio joins in the chiding of his fellowservant (1.5.71-85). In 1599, 4 November was the 22nd Sunday after Trinity, and the Gospel reading was Matthew 18:21-end. This is the famous Parable of the Unforgiving Servant who wishes to be himself forgiven but will not forgive his fellowservant. When Viola-Cesario attempts to court Olivia with a prepared text, she declines: "'Tis not that time of moon with me to make one in so skipping a dialogue" (1.5.192-3). Olivia is suggesting the moon is not full and she is not subject to romantic "lunacy." On 4 November 1599 only a sliver of the moon was visible; the new moon was on 6 November Julian. This may be coincidental, but I think not. Then there is Sir Toby's curiously truncated lyric: "O, the twelfth day of December-" (2.63.73). This comes on the play's long night of song and drink. Because England was living under the antiquated Julian calendar, 12 December Julian = 22 December Gregorian. So, the 12 December in Shakespeare's England was the longest night of the year. Almanacs were popular, and lettered Elizabethans would have known this. There are a number of other intriguing (and, I think, compelling) calendrical allusions in TN (the name "Sir Topas," for example, after the birthstone of November). But one of the more curious allusions is embodied in the letter which Malvolio discovers on a day which the play's internal clock nominates 5 November. Maria characterizes it as an "obscure epistle(s) of love" (2.3.131). Now, on 5 November the Book of Common prayer called for English Christians to begin reading Saint Paul's First Epistle to the Thessalonians. Thessaly was the region of northern Greece which abutted Illyricum. The Geneva gloss characterizes Paul's letter: "He commendeth them for three special gifts . . . effectual faith, continuall love, and patient hope." Maria's epistle urges Malvolio to cast his present skin, hope to be raised, keep smiling, to wear crosses, and adopt "the trick of singularity" (2.5.125). This strikes me as an impious parody of Paul's letter, and his appeal to the Thessalonians to hold their fellows in "singular love." Some might think otherwise. Hope this helps. All the best, Steve Sohmer [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 00:03:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0404 Re: Antinomies Reply To David Frankel---- Yes. I agree, they (differences) are "transcended" or they "collapse" at least at SOME point (though it doesn't necessarily get the last word)--Would you object to the synonymity of those two words in quotes? --Chris S. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:03:22 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0412 Re: Shall I Die, Canon, SHAXICON, and More The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0412. Thursday, 3 April 1997. [1] From: David J. Kathman Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 23:26:07 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0396 Qs: Shall I; [2] From: Dale Lyles Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 06:48:33 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0403 Re: Shall I; Hamilton; Polonius [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David J. Kathman Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 23:26:07 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0396 Qs: Shall I; Gabriel Wasserman wrote: >>Well, I am interested in the fact that, um, well, y'know, um, a-COUGH, COUGH, the fact that Don Foster's SHAXICON catalogues "Shall I Die?" After all, didn't he write a long article in rebuttal of that?<< Yes, he did (in SQ in 1987). But I think you're laboring under a misconception here. It's true that "Shall I Die" is one of the auxiliary texts which Don Foster has indexed in his SHAXICON database, but that has nothing to do with whether he believes Shakespeare wrote it-in fact, I believe SHAXICON indicates that "Shall I Die" is most likely not by Shakespeare. See, SHAXICON contains an entry for each word which appears in the canonical Shakespeare plays at least once but no more than twelve times -- 18,135 different words in all. Various auxiliary texts-including Shakespeare's nondramatic poems, a variety of works that have been attributed to Shakespeare, and two Ben Jonson plays- are also indexed, but they do not affect the 12-token cutoff, which is based only on the canonical plays. Theoretically, an indefinite number of auxiliary texts could be indexed, but it wouldn't alter the basic database of 18,135 entries. These auxiliary texts are indexed to make it easier to compare their rare-word patterns with that of the core Shakespeare canon, and thus (in the case of the Apocrypha) to help determine how likely it is that Shakespeare wrote them. I'm going to respond to the rest of this post based on my knowledge of the results Don Foster has obtained using SHAXICON. This may not in every case agree entirely with what Don would say now, so take this with a grain of salt until the full SHAXICON Notebook is available on the Web. A few parts of the Notebook are already available on Don Foster's web site, at http://vassun.vassar.edu/~foster; this includes a detailed and very interesting discussion of the sources and textual history of *Romeo and Juliet*. >>Speaking of "Shall I Die?", what about the "Will" I believe SHAXICON indicates that the Will is largely in Shakespeare's own words (though of course this is an entirely separate question from whether it's in his handwriting-he could have dictated it.) >>*The Second Mayden's Trag=9Cdy* (Doesn't anie-one haue reespect for th' dead) I don't think this is indexed by SHAXICON. I also don't think too many people believe Shakespeare wrote it-Middleton's authorship is pretty generally accepted. >*Edmund Ironside* Don Foster believes this was written by Robert Greene, though I haven't seen his evidence in detail. > *Leir* I don't think this is indexed in SHAXICON, but I also don't think very many people seriously believe Shakespeare wrote it. > *die Breschafte Brudermond* (Fratricide Punished) Well, this is written in German, so word comparisons would be pretty pointless. > Q1 *Hamlet* As I understand it, SHAXICON casts some doubt on Shakespeare's authorship of Q1 Hamlet. I don't know enough details to say much more. >>[Though I know he's done Q1 *Merry Wives*, I include it for sake of completeness]<< SHAXICON indicates that Shakespeare did not write Q1 *Merry Wives*, except possibly for some minor revisions; however, he did act in it, in the role of the Host. >>[Though I know he's done Q1 *2H6*, I include it for sake of completeness]<< SHAXICON confirms Shakespeare's authorship of Q1 *2H6*, and indicates that he acted in it as well (as Suffolk). >>[Though I know he's done O1 *3H6*, I include it for sake of completeness]<< SHAXICON confirms Shakespeare's authorship of O1 *3H6*, and indicates the he acted in it as well (as Clifford). >>[Though I know he's done Q1 *H5*, I include it for sake of completeness]<< Ditto for Q1 *H5* (with Shakespeare playing Exeter). >>[Though I know he's done *E3*, I include it for sake of completeness]<< SHAXICON supports the now widely-accepted view that Shakespeare wrote the Countess scenes in *Edward III*, though I don't believe it supports his authorship of the rest of the play. >>[Though I know he's done *Double Falsehood*, I include it for sake of completeness] As I mentioned in a post a few weeks ago, SHAXICON does index *Double Falsehood* (Lewis Theobald's alleged adaptation of Shakespeare and Fletcher's lost *Cardenio*), and the first two acts look a lot like a Shakespeare work from around 1612. > *A Yorkshire Tragedy* Not in SHAXICON, as far as I know. > *Sir Thomas More*, hand D SHAXICON confirms the view, now almost universally accepted, that Shakespeare is the author of this scene. > *The Famous Victories of Henrie the Fifth* > *The Troublesome Raigne of Kinge John* (parts 1 and 2) Not in SHAXICON, as far as I know. >>[Though I know he's done it *Taming of A Shrew* I include it for sake of completeness]<< SHAXICON does not support Shakespeare's authorship of *A Shrew*, but it indicates that he probably acted in it, as the Lord. > *The True Tragedy of kinge Richard 3* If you mean Q1 *R3*, SHAXICON supports Shakespeare's authorship. >>[Though I obviously know *Funeral Elegy* he's done it, I include it for sake completeness]<< As many people reading this are probably aware, SHAXICON fully supports Shakespeare's authorship of the Funeral Elegy. Details can be found in Don Foster's article in the October 1996 PMLA. > *Locrine* Don't think this is in SHAXICON, but I don't think it's too likely that Shakespeare wrote it. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 06:48:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0403 Re: Shall I; Hamilton; Polonius Gabriel Wasserman: Without hearing your music, I (as a composer) would be inclined to agree with your first teacher. Check out any hymnal at your disposal: the weak bit of the iamb is the upbeat for the strong downbeat. In fact, I was thinking about that in the choir loft last Sunday, how the many intricacies of iambic verse get smushed by metrical hymn settings. It was a bad hymn, with many "the"s thrown onto the first beat of the measure. As I check the handiest hymnal here, "Finlandia" comes closest to "Lover's Complaint," with six lines of pentameter. Hm. Maybe you could just chuck out one of those extra lines in each stanza. I can't imagine the audience would miss them much, especially towards the end. (Merciful heavens, can you imagine such a thing as 47 verses of "Finlandia"???) As for the paVANNE, it was dactylic, not iambic: PUM, pum pum | PUM, pum pum... Now humming "Mille regretz" in his head, Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:07:01 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0413 Qs: Elizabeth Espionage; Falstaff The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0413. Thursday, 3 April 1997. [1] From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 10:47:45 -0500 (EST) Subj: Elizabeth Espionage [2] From: Ken McCoy Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 10:03:33 -0500 (EST) Subj: Who in S's company played Falstaff? [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 10:47:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: Elizabeth Espionage My son, a screenwriter, is embarking on a project about Elizabethan espionage, with special reference to Walsingham's network. I would appreciate hearing about any overviews of the subject, also any relevant books on the Elizabethan criminal underworld, and occult practice (notably Dr Dee, so forth). Many thanks, HR Greenberg md [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ken McCoy Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 10:03:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Who in S's company played Falstaff? Does anyone know of a list of Shakespeare's acting company and the roles they originated? Specifically, I am looking for the actor who first played Falstaff. Ken ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:23:50 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0414 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: SAA1997 SHASKPER The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0414. Thursday, 3 April 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, April 3, 1997 Subject: New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: SAA1997 SHASKPER As of today, SHAKSPEReans may retrieve my essay "The Politics of an Academic Discussion Group" (SAA1997 SHAKSPER) from the SHAKSPER file server. This paper was my contribution to "The Politics of the Electronic Text" seminar of the 1997 SAA conference held in Washington, D.C. last week. To retrieve "The Politics of an Academic Discussion Group", send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET SAA1997 SHAKSPER". Should you have difficulty receiving this or any of the files on the SHAKSPER file server, please contact the editor at or . ************************************************************************ This is the abstract I composed before I wrote the paper itself. 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 the paper, I use the responses of the approximately 50 SHAKSPEReans who answered the questions I posed in this year's first SHAKSPER digest to address some of the issues raised in this abstract. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:38:21 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0415 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: FAIRES ANDGODS The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0415. Thursday, 3 April 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, April 3, 1997 Subject: New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: FAIRES ANDGODS As of today, SHAKSPEReans may retrieve "'Faires and Gods': A Socio-Religious Context for _King Lear_" (FAIRES ANDGODS) from the SHAKSPER file server. To retrieve "'Faires and Gods': A Socio-Religious Context for _King Lear_", send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET FAIRES ANDGODS". Should you have difficulty receiving this or any of the files on the SHAKSPER file server, please contact the editor at or . ************************************************************************ "'Faires and Gods': A Socio-Religious Context for _King Lear_" by Jessica Wylie The action of _King Lear_ predates Christianity, a simple fact of chronology which profoundly complicates the play, depriving it of the familiar moral context of tragedies like _Hamlet_ which rely heavily on Christian doctrine to order the action and its consequences. In _Lear_, heaven and hell are bodily conditions rather than incorporeal projections; Lear wishes to make his paradise on earth in the homes of his daughters and finds just the opposite in the same. This pagan universe provides the perfect backdrop to the sense of chaos and despair created by the action, a chaos which culminates in the seemingly senseless death of the play's one consistently sympathetic character, Cordelia. But pre-Christian England has been imagined as the home of two very different kinds of paganism, and both can be seen to have a part to play in influencing the action and outcome of _King Lear_. As he prepares to commit suicide by throwing himself from what he thinks is a high cliff, the king's faithful courtier, Gloucester, blesses his guide with the words, "Fairies and gods/Prosper it with thee!" (4.6.29-30). These are the powers which hold sway in Lear's England, and the pattern of conflict between them provides a possible order to the chaos of Lear's tragedy. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:08:50 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0416 Re: Elizabethan Underworld and the Occult The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0416. Friday, 4 April 1997. [1] From: Nick Clary Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 12:13:45 -0500 Subj: Elizabethan Underworld and the Occult [2] From: Douglas Abel Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 11:22:28 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0413 Qs: Elizabeth Espionage [3] From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 10:29:56 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0413 Qs: Elizabeth Espionage [4] From: Maria Concolato Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 23:27:27 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0413 Qs: Elizabeth Espionage [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Clary Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 12:13:45 -0500 Subject: Elizabethan Underworld and the Occult Two titles come to mind: Gamini Salgado, The Elizabethan Underworld (1977) and Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (1971). Nick Clary [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Abel Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 11:22:28 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0413 Qs: Elizabeth Espionage Any biographies on Christopher Marlowe give lots of info about Walsingham's spy operations. There is a very recent Marlowe work, whose title I forget, which, while suspect with respect to Marlowe, gives all the sordid details about Elizabethan spying. I have the book at home, and will look up title and author for you. You can e-mail me personally at doug.abel@keyanoc.ab.ca [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 10:29:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0413 Qs: Elizabeth Espionage For Elizabethan espionage, check: Alan Haynes, _Invisible Power: The Elizabethan Secret Services 1570-1603 (1992) Alison Plowden, _The Elizabethan Secret Service_ (1991) John M. Archer, _Sovereignty and Intelligence: Spying and Court Culture in the English Renaissance_ (1993) Richard Rambuss, _Spenser's Secret Career_ (1993) Sara van den Berg University of Washington [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maria Concolato Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 23:27:27 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0413 Qs: Elizabeth Espionage To H.R.Greenberg I would suggest Alan Haynes's Invisible Power.The Elizabethan Secret Services 1570-1603, New York, St.Martin's Press, 1992 and John Michael Archer's Sovereignty and Intelligence. Spying and Court Culture in the English Renaissance, Stanford, Stanford U.P., 1993.I hope they may be useful. Maria Concolato ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:14:33 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0417 Q: SHAXICON The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0417. Friday, 4 April 1997. From: John V Robinson Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 16:11:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0412 Re: Shall I Die, Canon, SHAXICON, and More << SHAXICON confirms Shakespeare's authorship of Q1 *2H6*, and indicates that he acted in it as well (as Suffolk). >>[Though I know he's done O1 *3H6*, I include it for sake of completeness]<< SHAXICON confirms Shakespeare's authorship of O1 *3H6*, and indicates the he acted in it as well (as Clifford).<< I'm confused. How can, or does, SHAXICON indicate that Shakespeare acted a certain role in a certain play? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:19:43 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0418 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0418. Friday, 4 April 1997. [1] From: J. Tate Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 14:17:10 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0405 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music [2] From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 21:42:16 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0410 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: J. Tate Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 14:17:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0405 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music I don't believe anyone has mentioned Sting's song "Consider Me Gone" on -Dream of the Blue Turtles-. It alludes to Sonnet 35. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 21:42:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0410 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music You do know Cleo Laine's CD "Wordsongs"? One of them uses all 37 titles in a jazz piece. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:25:16 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0419 Re: Sources for Oedipus Theory; Antinomies The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0419. Friday, 4 April 1997. [1] From: John Boni Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 16:39:50 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0409 Re: Sources for Oedipus Theory [2] From: C. David Frankel Date: Friday, 4 Apr 1997 07:12:24 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0411 Re: Antinomies [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Thursday, 3 Apr 1997 16:39:50 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0409 Re: Sources for Oedipus Theory Norman Holland asks about Hamlet's instruction to his mother in Gertrude's closet after he has murdered Polonius. What is important is Hamlet's negative exists because his second set of instructions to Gertrude contradicts the first, given to her only a few lines earlier. In the first set, he had posed the possibility of reform to Gertrude: "Confess yourself to heaven/Repent what's past..." in the most orthodox terms. Then Hamlet accepts his role as scourge ("For this same lord/ I do repent; but heaven hath pleased it so,/ To punish me with this and this with me,/ that I must be their scourge and minister." (G. R. Elliott has a good piece with this title.) Thus, the "bloody" Hamlet, enjoying the pain of "the bloat king" 'paddling' Gertrude's cheeks and bestowing his "reechy kisses" upon her, now sets Gertrude as a tool to work on Claudius. Now comes MY question: Why does Hamlet instruct her to essentially expose his subterfuge: "ravel all this matter out,/ That I am essentially not in madness,/ But mad in craft." Responses? John M. Boni [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Friday, 4 Apr 1997 07:12:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0411 Re: Antinomies On Thursday, 3 Apr 1997, Chris Stroffolino wrote: >> Yes. I agree, they (differences) are "transcended" or they "collapse" at least at SOME point (though it doesn't necessarily get the last word)--Would you object to the synonymity of those two words in quotes? --Chris S. Not at all. In my recent reading of Kenneth Burke, I've contracted Burkean flu. He frequently focuses on various linguistic dichotomies and discusses the way that as levels of generalization change the original terms get transcended either upward or downward. I think that sometimes, at least, that means that as one term or the other gets stressed, we go up or down (each, of course, being relative to the mind of the interpreter who gets to decide which term is up). cdf========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 22:22:31 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0420 Re: Elizabethan Underworld and the Occult The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0420. Monday, 7 April 1997. [1] From: Tai-Won Kim Date: Friday, 04 Apr 1997 09:53:10 -0500 Subj: Re: Elizabethan Underworld and the Occult [2] From: Steven Brock Date: Friday, 04 Apr 1997 10:12:27 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0413 Qs: Elizabeth Espionage [3] From: James Marino Date: Friday, 04 Apr 1997 08:50:40 -0700 Subj: Re: Elizabethan Underworld and the Occult [4] From: H. R. Greenberg HrgSmes@aol.com Date: Saturday, 5 Apr 1997 13:25:43 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0416 Re: Elizabethan Underworld and the Occult [5] From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Monday, 7 Apr 1997 10:13:59 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0413 Qs: Elizabeth Espionage [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tai-Won Kim Date: Friday, 04 Apr 1997 09:53:10 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0416 Re: Elizabethan Underworld and the Occult Sara Vandenburg's list of books might be of great help to anybody interested in the issue of Elizabetahn espionage. To the list, I would add John Bossy's (Yale, 1991). Also a few chapters in Patricia Parker's new book < Shakespeare from the MArgins> (Chicago, 1996) and Albert Tricomi's (Gainesville, 1996). [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Brock Date: Friday, 04 Apr 1997 10:12:27 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0413 Qs: Elizabeth Espionage; Falstaff Nichols' "The Reckoning" is a magnificent study of Marlowe's apparently lifelong involvement in the Elizabethan secret service. It makes a persuasive case that those with Marlowe when he was murdered were also involved with various secret service factions and that the official records recounting a brawl over the reckoning at an inn (Shakespeare's "great reckoning in a small room") are suspect. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Marino Date: Friday, 04 Apr 1997 08:50:40 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0416 Re: Elizabethan Underworld and the Occult Also relevant is Linda Woodbridge, The Sythe of Saturn, a scholarly and very readable book on magic good and bad. Jim Marino [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: H. R. Greenberg HrgSmes@aol.com Date: Saturday, 5 Apr 1997 13:25:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0416 Re: Elizabethan Underworld and the Occult For this relief, much thanks.... [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Monday, 7 Apr 1997 10:13:59 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0413 Qs: Elizabeth Espionage For HR Greenburg and his inquiry about Elizabethan espionage; try John Bossy's 'Giordano Bruno and the Embassy Affair', and Charles Nicholls' 'The Reckoning' - both of which are good and accessible studies of two of the more notorious cases. Rob O'Connor ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 22:37:05 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0421 Re: Oedipus, Hamlet, and Gertrude The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0421. Monday, 7 April 1997. [1] From: Tai-Won Kim Date: Friday, 04 Apr 1997 09:59:04 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory [2] From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Friday, 4 Apr 1997 09:24:00 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0419 Re: Sources for Oedipus Theory [3] From: John Boni Date: Friday, 4 Apr 1997 15:48:38 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: Hamlet and Sanity [4] From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Friday, 4 Apr 1997 19:03:04 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0409 Re: Sources for Oedipus Theory [5] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Sunday, 06 Apr 1997 11:25:28 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0419 Re: Sources for Oedipus Theory [6] From: Norm Holland Date: Sunday, 06 Apr 97 15:17:54 EDT Subj: Hamlet & Gertrude [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tai-Won Kim Date: Friday, 04 Apr 1997 09:59:04 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0408 Q: Sources for Oedipus Theory Dear Ian, Why don't you look at Peter Rudnytsky's (Columbia UP, 1987) which might shed light on your question? You will run across here and there his comments on Hamlet which would lead you to some useful references. Cheers. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Friday, 4 Apr 1997 09:24:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0419 Re: Sources for Oedipus Theory To John Boni: Hamlet does not, at 3.4.186, instruct Gertrude "to essentially expose his subterfuge," as you put it; he is confiding in her the truth about his role-playing at "madness." She responds, at 3.4.197, "Be thou assur'd, if words be made of breath, / And breath of life, I have no life to breathe / What thou hast said to me." She therefore responds to Claudius's query, "How does Hamlet?" thusly: "Mad as the sea and wind when both contend / Which is the mightier" (4.1.7). Regards, Evelyn Gajowski [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Friday, 4 Apr 1997 15:48:38 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Hamlet and Sanity Norman Holland continued our discussion "offstage." He suggested I send along this query. Hamlet, when he denies madness to Gertrude in III.iv, recites a standard formula for lucidity, "Bring me to the test,/And I the matter will reword, which madness/ Would gambol from." Has anyone seen a comment on this? On the one hand, it is a modern technique for confirming lucidity. On the other, it seems pretty standard (judging from Hamlet's forthright tone) for the times as well. John Boni [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Friday, 4 Apr 1997 19:03:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0409 Re: Sources for Oedipus Theory French psychoanalyst Andre Green I believe wrote a piece on Hamlet retracing and revising Jones' work-in a collection several years ago. Cant place it more precisely at this moment [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Sunday, 06 Apr 1997 11:25:28 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0419 Re: Sources for Oedipus Theory Hi, John. I'm wondering what edition you're using. I think that your question only makes sense in terms of non-folio punctuation. In the F1 text, at least, Hamlet's entire speech is prefaced with the line "Not this by no meanes that I bid you do:" Everything following, I believe, should be read ironically, as anti-instructions. Telling Gertrude to reveal his madness is, then, like both the instructions to "let the blunt King tempt you againe you bed" and "like the famous Ape / To try Conclusions in the Basket, creepe / And breake your owne necke downe" which precede and follow it, respectively. > >Thus, the "bloody" Hamlet, enjoying the pain of "the bloat king" 'paddling' Gertrude's cheeks and bestowing his "reechy kisses" upon her, now sets Gertrude as a tool to work on Claudius. Now comes MY question: Why does Hamlet instruct her to essentially expose his subterfuge: "ravel all this matter out,/ That I am essentially not in madness,/ But mad in craft."<< Cheers, Sean. [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Sunday, 06 Apr 97 15:17:54 EDT Subject: Hamlet & Gertrude An answer to my query: Why does Hamlet, in his second caution to his mother, after killing Polonius, state it as a series of pictures of what she ought *not* to do, preceded by a reversal, "Not this, by no means, that I bid you do"? What thematic or psychological senses does this striking rhetoric make? --Best, Norm Holland ----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carol J. Verburg Date: Friday, 04 Apr 1997 17:32:34 -0500 Subject: Hamlet & Gertrude Your query (inter alia) was forwarded to me from a cast member in the production of HAMLET I'm currently directing. My opinion, as a writer and director, is that Hamlet's choice of a negative instruction is dictated by theatrical rather than psychological reasons. Hamlet is thereby able to paint a vivid and unnerving picture for the audience of what it is he can't bear about his mother and Claudius-hard (probably impossible) to do if each clause were prefaced by "Don't . . ." or the whole approach were something other than a direct description. Also, as someone else suggested, the change of rhetorical tack enlivens the last section of what might otherwise be an overlong scene in a long play. Psychologically, I would guess H finally has to utter what it is he's been suppressing/repressing for so many months. We are rehearsing this scene tonight-thanks for the thought-provoking question and comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------- P.S. This passage, esp. in Carol Verburgh's reading, seems to me at least as powerful evidence for the Oedipal reading of the scene as the whole Freud-Jones argument. --Best, Norm ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 23:24:54 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0422 Re: SHAXICON The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0422. Monday, 7 April 1997. [1] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Friday, 04 Apr 1997 10:57:31 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0417 Q: SHAXICON [2] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Friday, 04 Apr 1997 11:18:42 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0412 Re: SHAXICON [3] From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Saturday, 5 Apr 1997 11:05:59 -0500 Subj: SHAXICON, the Elegy & Edmund Ironside [4] From: David J. Kathman = Date: Sunday, 6 Apr 1997 15:29:19 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0417 Q: SHAXICON [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Friday, 04 Apr 1997 10:57:31 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0417 Q: SHAXICON A while ago, the great Don Foster Himself (notice the capital "H") posted: Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0533. Thursday, 6 July 1995. From: Don Foster Date: Tuesday, 04 Jul 1995 11:40:16 +0100 Subject: Re: SHAXICON To all of you good folks out there who have inquired lately about SHAXICON and its availability, and about the roles that Shakespeare may have played: Caveat: This will be a long post, but I'm trying to answer loads of queries in one swoop (or, as Pogo used to say, "in one fell soup"): First, what is it? SHAXICON is a lexical database that indexes all of the words that appear in the canonical plays 12 times or less, including a line-citation and speaking character for each occurrence of each word. (These are called "rare words," though they are not rare in any absolute sense-"family [n.]" and "real [ad.]" are rare words in Shakespeare.) All rare-word variants are indexed as well, including the entire "bad" quartos of H5, 2H6, 3H6, Ham, Shr, and Wiv; also the nondramatic works, canonical and otherwise (Ven, Luc, PP, PhT, Son, LC, FE, the Will, "Shall I die," et. al.); the additions to Mucedorus and The Spanish Tragedy, the Prologue to Merry Devil of Edmonton, all of Edward III and Sir Thomas More (hands S and D); Ben Jonson's Every Man in His Humour (both Q1 and F1) and Sejanus (F1); and more; but these other texts have no effect on the 12-occurrence cutoff that sets the parameters for SHAXICON's lexical universe. What SHAXICON demonstrates is that the rare-words in Shakespearean texts are not randomly distributed either diachronically or synchronically, but are "mnemonically structured." Shakespeare's active lexicon as a writer was systematically influenced by his reading, and by his apparent activities as a stage-player. When writing, Shakespeare was measurably influenced by plays then in production, and by particular stage-roles most of all. Most significant is that, while writing, he disproportionately "remembers" the rare-word lexicon of plays concurrently "in repertory"; and from these plays he always registers disproportionate lexical recall (as a writer) of just one role (or two or three smaller roles); and these remembered roles, it can now be shown, are most probably those that Shakespeare himself drilled in stage performance. SHAXICON electronically maps Shakespeare's language so that we can now usually tell which texts influence which other texts, and when. Moreover, when collated with the OED or with early modern texts in a normalized machine-readable format, SHAXICON provides an incomplete record of Shakespeare's apparent reading. The main value of this resource has less to do with biographical novelties, however, than with problems of textual transmission, dating, probable authorship of revisions, early stage history, and the like. And because SHAXICON is a closed system, human bias in measuring lexical influence of this sort is effectively eliminated. The evidentiary value of supposed "verbal parallels" is no longer a matter of private intuition or subjective judgment, but quantifiable, using a stable lexical index (and measurable against a virtually limitless cross-sample of machine-readble texts). In 1991, I published a 3-part report in SNL about SHAXICON (the database was not then completed, and not yet dubbed), in which I made (in a few cases, mistaken) projections concerning Shakespeare's apparent stage roles (based on entries for about a third of the final lexical sample). The few botched projections derived in part from key-punching errors-e.g., "Pand" (Pandarus of TRO) was often being entered for "CPan" (Pandulph of JN), and "QnElz" (R3) for QnEliz (3H6); and in part from unavoidable limitations, explained in the SNL series, concerning the variable "richness" of character-specific lexicons, which could not be measured until the whole canon was indexed. These problems have been eliminated. The following list represents a corrected catalogue of those roles that Shakespeare is most likely to have acted. These assignments vary somewhat in statistical significance, depending on sample size, etc. A fuller report (with instructions on how to run cross-checks and fully automated statistical analysis) will appear in my "SHAXICON Notebook" (a written commentary that has yet to be completed). In the meantime, here follows a list of Shakespeare's most likely stage-roles, as statistically derived. Keep in mind that this catalogue cannot be proven to represent historical actuality. SHAXICON handily selects Adam of AYL and the Ghost of Ham as probable Shakespeare roles, both of which are supported by hearsay evidence from the 17th century; the remaining roles find no external historical confirmation (although Davies mentions that Shakespeare played some kings, and SHAXICON indicates that Shakespeare played king-roles in AWW, 1H4, 2H4, HAM, LLL, PER, and probably MAC). Having studied the evidence from every conceivable angle, I'd say that the assignments below are good bets, even despite the lack of archival evidence to back them up, for the disproportion in Shakespeare's persistent recall of these roles is quite striking relative to other roles in the corresponding texts. There are a few texts (principally ADO, MV, and Jonson's EMI) in which Shakespeare may have played two different roles in two successive seasons of the same theatrical "run." But the statistical weight of Shakespeare's selective recall of particular roles is in most instances pretty clear; in fact, when multiple roles are identified by SHAXICON as probably Shakespearean, they are in most instances roles that are easily doubled (exceptions and problems are are noted below). MOST PROBABLE SHAKESPEARE ROLES, BASED ON THE POET'S PERSISTENT AND MEASURABLE RECALL OF PARTICULAR CHARACTER-SPECIFIC LEXICONS: ADO: Leonato; later switching to Friar (Q version registers higher lexical recall for Leonato, F1 version higher for Friar. Could be viewed as a problem, since the same actor cannot have played both roles simultaneously, yet Shakespeare clearly "remembers" both roles (unlike all other principal parts in ADO, which he "forgets"). ANT: Agrippa, Philo, Proculeius, Thidias, and Ventidius, probably simultaneously [!] (thus requiring some accommodation at 3.2.1 for Vntd/Agri), and probably with Proculeius taking Agrippa's lines in 5.1 (hence the textual crux recently discussed on SHAKSPER). AWW: King of France AYL: Adam; adding old Corin the Shepherd in two revivals of AYL. COR: Shakespeare role uncertain. Highest relative post-COR lexical "influence" comes from Sicinius, but Sicinius-"influence" is tepid relative to the the whopping excess in lexical recall that obtains for the designated Shakspeare roles in most other plays. CYM: 1.Gent (I.i), Philario (I.iv, II.iv), and Jupiter (V.iv) EMI-F (Jonson): Very complicated. Looks as if F1 may represent a major Elizabethan revision of Q1, followed by a minor Jacobean revision (as per established textual scholarship on EMI). SHAXICON confirms that Shakespeare probably knew the play in performance: in 1598, and again in 1604, words from EMI come pouring into Shakespeare's writing, forming very distinct peaks of lexical influence just when we know that EMI was, indeed, acted by the King's Men (and again in 1612-13). But lexical influence by character (entirely independent of general lexical overlap) gives mixed signals: Shakespeare has extraordinarily high recall of two roles that cannot have been performed simultaneously by the same player: Old Lorenzo-Knowell (esp. the F1 Old Knowell), and Judge Clement (esp. the Q1 Clement); and indeed, these two roles seem to alternate in their peaks of lexical "influence" on Shakespeare's writing, which suggests that he may have alternated roles. (But Shakespearean texts have also an irregularly high overlap with the Thorello-Kitely role both before AND after 1598, which cannot be explained, except as a statistical aberration.) ERR: Egeon (I.i, V.i) and Dr. Pinch (IV.iv). 1H4: King Henry. 2H4: King Henry (and perhaps Rumor, but only briefly). H5: Complicated: It looks as if Shakespeare played the French Messenger and Exeter in the "bad"-Q version (in 1599, while also playing Exeter in a revival of 1H6); in H5-F1, Shakespeare appears to have performed Bishop Ely and Montjoy. But it looks also as if Shakespeare may sometimes have performed the Chorus (less strongly marked, but still pronounced in its lexical influence on late Shakespearean texts relative to other roles in the play). The Chorus-role is easily doubled with Montjoy-but tripling with Ely raises a problem at I.i.0, when the Chorus walks offstage and Ely walks on. 1H6: Exeter (in I.i, III.i, IV.i, V.i) and probably Mortimer (II.iv) in first run and again in 1599; switching to Bedford in 1600 ff. after slight revisions, principally in I.i. A problem: the same actor cannot easily play both Exeter and Mortimer in the F1 version, given the Exeter entrance at III.i.0 following the Mortimer exit at II.iv.212; so if SHAXICON's Exeter/Mortimer data are correct, there has either been some material cut betweeen II.iv and III.i, or else Shakespeare was one fast dude when changing his duds (switching from a dead Mortimer to a living Exeter in just 8 lines). 2H6: Suffolk (also Suffolk in the "bad" 2H6-Q, which appears certainly to antedate the F1 version, as has been argued by Steve Urkowitz). 3H6 Warwick (Old Clifford in the "bad" 3H6-Q, which appears certainly to antedate F1 version, as has been argued by Steve Urkowitz). H8: Prologue and 1.Gentleman; or none (statistically uncertain, due to insufficient post-H8 lexical sample). HAM: Ghost, 1.Player, Mess-Gent. of 4.5 (and perhaps also role in the Mousetrap, most probably Lucianus; and probably not, as per SNL, the player-king); Mess-Gent partly folded into Horatio role in F1 version. JC: Shakespeare role(s) a little uncertain, due to apparent revision and shortening. Most probably, Decius; and, somewhat less probably, Flavius. Note: Decius-Flavius doubling is not possible in the F1 version unless F1 has been shortened from an earlier version. In F1, at I.ii.0, Flavius and Decius enter as mutes; but the very text of JC I.ii offers some evidence that the text has, indeed, been shortened at this point (e.g., in the same scene, at I.ii.285, Casca reports that "Murellus and Flavius, for pulling scarfs off Caesar's images, are put to silence"; but, if we may believe the F1 stage direction at I.ii.0, Casca was on stage with Murellus and Flavius moments earlier-from I.ii.0 to at least I.ii.214--and Casca hasn't heard boo about Caesar's images in the interim). SHAXICON thus seems to confirm the view that JC-F1 is a shortened text (albeit with some added bits (e.g., the second account of Portia's death, which are indexed in SHAXICON under JC-b). I am inclined to accept the assignments of both Decius and Flavius to Shakespeare, but there is room for doubt. JN: Cardinal Pandulph. LLL: Ferdinand (possibly with one brief stint as Boyet). LR: Albany. The Albany role reduced in (revised) F1 version, one of several designated Shakespeare roles that appears to have been cut or reduced ca. 1612; doubtful that Albany was subsequently performed by Shakespeare. MAC: Shakespeare's most probable roles in this equivocating play are Duncan, Lord, and Scots Doctor, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it, for the evidence is itself equivocal. That MAC was revised ca. 1612 seems altogether likely from the evidence of SHAXICON (principally in I.v.1-30,. I.v.71-3, IV.iii all, and V.ix.1-19; the Hecate material is independently indexed under MAC-c-III.v all; IV.i.39-43, IV.i.125-32, date and provenance unclear). Simon Forman's eye-witness account of MAC as acted in 1611 suggests that the ur-MAC had a larger Duncan-role than in the F1 version. And it has recently been argued on SHAKSPER that there was an Elizabethan MAC on which the 1606 version was based; I find these theories of revision attractive, and wish that someone would prove them true, since taken together they would provide a satisfactory explanation for the irregularities in the SHAXICON data for MAC. MM: Escalus. MND: prob. Theseus, but with very irregular figures, enormously high Theseus-"influence" on the post-1594 poems, rather slight Thesus-"influence" on the post-1594 plays (though still higher than for other MND characters). MV: Somewhat conflicted results: almost certainly Antonio in all productions; but Morocco is a second "remembered" role, especially as manifest in the lexicon of the post-1594 poems and in the 1595-6 plays. Morocco tends to register its strongest influence on Shakespeare's writing when Antonio doesn't, and vice versa. No other role in the play comes close to these two parts in lexical "influence" upon the poet's post-MV writing. Perhaps Shakespeare alternated roles; he cannot easily have played both simultaneously, at least not in the Q1 or F1 text. OTH: Brabantio. The Brabantio role is reduced in the (acc. to SHAXICON, revised) Q1 version; SHAXICON identifies a final "run" of OTH (1611-13), but it is doubtful that Brabantio was performed by Shakespeare later than 1612. PER: SHAXICON suggests that PER is a very early play (ur-PER), the palimpsest of which is imperfectly represented by acts I-II of PER-Q. PER was clearly revised in 1607 by Shakespeare (new or greatly re-written acts III-V). SHAXICON offers no support for the view of the Oxford editors that PER-Q represents a Wilkins-Shakespeare collaboration, yet it leaves open such a possibility insofar as Wilkins could be shown to have tinkered some with acts I-II while Shakespeare was rewriting all of acts III-V. (This could be tested by indexing other texts by Wilkins.) Shakespeare appears to have acted both Antiochus and (at least when doubling was needed) Simonides, and he may have performed or read Gower's part from time to time, most notably ca. 1608/9 (cf. notes on H5-F1, another script for which Shakespeare registers sporadically high recall of the chorus-role, especially ca. 1608/9--perhaps the company was short-handed in that year). Shakespeare probably performed Antiochus and Simonides both before and after the 1607 revision, without taking on any wholly new or additonal role after the new acts (III-V) replaced those in the the ur-PER. R2: Gaunt (in I.i - I.iii, II.i), the Gardener (III.iv), the Lord (IV.i), and probably also the Groom (V.v). Troublesome dating: SHAXICON seems to indicate that R2 derives from an earlier play, and that R2 was revised immediately after 1H4 (but prior to publication of R2-Q1). This finding is at odds with all past textual scholarship on the play, which has been nearly unanimous in viewing R2 as a text begun and completed ca. 1595. R3: Clarence (in I.i, I.iv, and V.iii) and Scrivener (III.vi). Possibly also Third Citizen (II.iii) in a late revival. ROM: Chorus and Friar Lawrence (Chorus-role omitted in late revival, as per F1). SEJ (Jonson): Macro (I.i, II.iii, III.i, IV.ii); probably also (but less well-marked) Sabinius (I.i, II.iii, III.i, IV.iii), with some accomodation for a costume change after IV.ii (but Jonson reports in F1 that he has revised Sejanus, which means that this problem at IV.iii.0 may not actually have come up in the performed text). SHR: Lord, and perhaps also Pedant. TGV: Duke. TIM: Poet in TIM-a (representing ur-F1 version, the parts of TIM-F1 customarily ascribed to Shakespeare); no role apparent in TIM-b (widely supposed to represent Middleton or late-Shakespearean revision; SHAXICON suggests that TIM-F1 is a late, unfinished revision (ca. 1613) of a play first acted in 1601. TIM-F1 appears not to be a collaborative text per se. TIT: probably but not certainly Aaron (a role uncharacteristic of Shakespeare and less strongly marked statistically than most other roles identified in this catalogue). TMP: no Shakespeare role apparent TNK: no Shakespeare role apparent; insufficent post-TNK sample. TNT: Antonio (later adding Valentine [I.i]). TRO: perhaps none until 1609; then, Ulysses (a role that seems out of keeping with the others designated by SHAXICON) WIV: In WIV-F1, Ford, but only in two evidently brief runs. The Host in WIV-Q (which, though a "bad" quarto, appears certainly to antedate the F1 version). WT: Archidamus (I.i), Antigonus (II.i, II.iii, III.iii), and 3rd Gentleman (V.i). WHAT DO YOU NEED TO USE SHAXICON: 1. Patience. 2. Disk space. In its present form, SHAXICON sucks up 40+ megs just for the raw data, plus another 20 megs or so for the commentary, help files, and graphics; plus another 20 megs or so for the software. But don't start erasing those electronic games just yet in order to make room for it. The main database for SHAXICON is now complete, purged of errors, and generally usable; but it's not yet ready for prime time: SHAXICON now runs on ETC Word-Cruncher, which is limited in its capabilities and requires way-too-much manual labor (keying in lexical searches, etc.). = We're now using Excel for the summary figures and graphics, which is a big time-saver-but we're likely to change over, prior to publication, to a slicker and more fully automated database-management system so that SHAXICON is more user-friendly in ALL respects. I'm inquiring after Oracle, 4D, and Fox. If anyone out there has suggestions, I'd be obliged to hear them. In advance of publication we're drawing on the expertise of people in various fields so that when it's finally distributed SHAXICON will be fully intelligible even to those users without expertise in computers, statistics, and/or textual scholarship. I'm shooting for 1996 publication, but cannot guess what technical problems may arise in the interim. CD-rom may be too slow to be practicable, but disk-space may otherwise be a problem for many users. I am eager to familiarize other scholars with SHAXICON, and will be available next year to give a talk or seminar if there are interested parties in your department. Next week I'll be in Santa Barbara, where I'll be presenting SHAXICON at the ACH/ALLC conference. Hope to see you there. Thanks for your interest. Don Foster I hope this helps. If not, check out http://vassun.vassar.edu/~foster; that should help. (Click on, if I remember straight, SHAXICON notebook from the table of contents.) [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Friday, 04 Apr 1997 11:18:42 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0412 Re: SHAXICON Those two things were both responses to things I posted. I think I'm going to discuss (how DO you spell "disscus-I know it's not "discus"-I'm not talking about frizbees!) both of them. First of all, what exactly IS an "auxiliary test" in SHAXICON lingo ("shaxiconese", if I may!)? = Second, if SHAXICON "decides" that a particular work IS by Shakespeare, why doesn't it include its words in the 12-word cutoff. Fourth, why are the non-dramatic poems only used for "auxiliary tests"? Fifth, does SHAXICON count the words of the "dedications" to Southampton for *Luc* and *Ven*, or the *argument* in *Luc*? Sixth, if the music was murdering the rhythm, and it was a bad hymn, wouldn't it be GOOD to follow the adc\vice of the second teacher? (By the way, so that we don't have to call them "first teacher" and second teacher, I'll tekk you their names: Dan T. and Chaim F. For protection of privacy I won't tell you their full last names.) And last of all, why doesn't anyone ever answer my question about whether anyone in the past has ever formulated a theory about whether Moli=E9re's *The Would Be Gentleman* is= based on *Love's Labour's Lost*!!!!!!? Gabriel Z. Wasserman P.S.: If I want to give someone a good biography of Shakespeare for their birthday (I swear that this is a PURELY hypothetical case), which one should I get them. I know MY favorite one is Sams's one, but most people don't have my strange tastes. Should I get the Schoenbaum, the Lee, the Malone, or Should I write my own. (By the way, my hypothetical gift receiver is between the ages of zero and five hundred.) [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Saturday, 5 Apr 1997 11:05:59 -0500 Subject: SHAXICON, the Elegy & Edmund Ironside The thing to keep in mind, is that SHAXICON analyzes just a part of the spectrum that may or may not define an author's work as *that* author's work, albeit a very rigorous sampling. Although I've now read Foster's work on the Elegy, and am as forcefully struck as Foster by the parallels found in the elegy and Shakespeare's works, such elements as are *not* examined by SHAXICON continue to contradict. Edmund Ironside, examined by Sams in "Shakespeare's Edmund Ironside" is a case in point. Sams, setting aside his tone of voice (which Jonathan Hope describes as smacking of nineteenth century monomania), nevertheless makes a rigorous and thorough argument in favor of Shakespeare's authorship using a very different set of criteria than Foster's SHAXICON. Which set of criteria, when they disagree, holds more weight? In light of this question, I would enjoy an opinion on the Elegy from someone like Sams or Hope. I suspect Sams' criteria would suggest that Shakespeare was *not* the author - where is the natural world so prevalent in all of Shakespeare's other writings? - for example. Anyway, Edmund Ironside is interesting because, as far as I know, it is one of a few apocryphal works on which all three authors (Foster, Hope, Sams) have published opinions, and they all come to somewhat different conclusions. Sams finds the whole of it Shakespeare's. Jonathan Hope writes (The Authorship of Shakespeare's Plays): "As has been stated, Edmund Ironside is one of only three non-canonical plays to fall within the range of the Shakespearean comparison sample for auxiliary 'do' use. No individual scene in the play gives an un-Shakespearean result, and the auxiliary 'do' evidence is entirely compatible with Shakespearean authorship of the whole text of the play." Hope then goes on to say that "Edmund Ironside" "certainly stands as a strong candidate for further detailed examination of possible Shakespearean authorship." Foster's conclusions are as stated below... Patrick >*Edmund Ironside* Don Foster believes this was written by Robert Greene, though I haven't seen his evidence in detail. [Editor's Note: The attachment was not an ASCII file.] [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David J. Kathman = Date: Sunday, 6 Apr 1997 15:29:19 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0417 Q: SHAXICON John V. Robinson wrote: >>I'm confused. How can, or does, SHAXICON indicate that Shakespeare act= ed a certain role in a certain play?<< First, why don't I quote from Don Foster's article on SHAXICON which appeared on SHAKSPER on July 6, 1995, and which is now available (in revised form) on both Don Foster's web page (http://vassun.vassar.edu/~foster) and on the Shakespeare Authorship web site (http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/~tross/ws/will.html): "What SHAXICON demonstrates is that the rare-words in Shakespearean texts are not randomly distributed either diachronically or synchronically, but are "mnemonically structured." Shakespeare's active lexicon as a writer was systematically influenced by his reading, and by his apparent activities as a stage-player. When writing, Shakespeare was measurably influenced by plays then in production, and by particular stage-roles most of all. Most significant is that, while writing, he disproportionately "remembers" the rare-word lexicon of plays concurrently "in repertory"; and from these plays he always registers disproportionate lexical recall (as a writer) of just one role (or two or three smaller roles); and these remembered roles, it can now be shown, are most probably those that Shakespeare himself drilled in stage performance." Roughly, the way it works is this. You take a play, say *Hamlet*, and isolate the rare words (i.e. words used by Shakespeare 12 times or fewer in the canonical plays) contained in the text. It turns out that these words appear disproportionately often in those other Shakespeare plays which were written around the same time as *Hamlet*, even when they have very different subject matter (e.g. *Twelfth Night*). The influence of *Hamlet*'s rare words eventually tapers off, but then these words start reappearing disproportionately in Shakespeare's writings several years later. The inference is that *Hamlet* was revived for performance at this time, and that Shakespeare reacquainted himself with the play as his company rehearsed and performed it. This inference is supported by the fact that in every case where we have documentary evidence of a revival of one of Shakespeare's plays, this corresponds exactly with a revival identified by SHAXICON's rare-word patterns. But that's not all. Shakespeare also acted in his own plays, and his use of vocabulary allows us to reconstruct with some confidence the roles he played. For example, take the example of *Hamlet* again. = Using SHAXICON, you can go through each of the other plays one by one, making a list of the rare words which occur both in that play and in *Hamlet*. In the plays written earlier than *Hamlet*, the shared rare words are divided proportionally among all the characters; that is, if a character speaks 5 percent of the words in *Hamlet*, he will also speak roughly 5 percent of the rare words shared by the two plays. In the plays written after *Hamlet*, though, the shared rare words are disproportionately concentrated in the roles of the Ghost and the First Player. The inference is that these are the roles Shakespeare memorized for performance as an actor, but this conclusion is not necessary for accepting SHAXICON's results; for whatever reason, Shakespeare was especially familiar with one or two roles in each play, and the vocabulary of these roles disproportionately affected the vocabulary of his later writing. This works remarkably well all across the canon; the rare-word patterns consistently pick out the same role(s) in each play as the "Shakespeare-role". When two are more roles are identified as Shakespeare's, these are in virtually every case characters who never appear on stage together and are thus easily doubled; in the few cases where there is a possible conflict, other evidence indicates that the text we have is revised. The two roles which seventeenth century theater gossip said Shakespeare played in his own plays --- the Ghost in *Hamlet* and Adam in *As You Like It* --- are both identified by the rare-word patterns as Shakespeare's roles. The roles identified as Shakespeare's are remarkably uniform: in almost all cases they are father figures, kings, or allegorical chorus-like figures, and in almost every case a Shakespeare role is among the first characters to come on stage, and the first or second to speak. There's plenty more to be said about SHAXICON, but it will have to wait until the full SHAXICON notebook is available on the Web. Meanwhile, Don Foster's web page, noted above, already has some material available. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 00:23:10 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0423 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0423. Monday, 7 April 1997. [1] From: Date: Saturday, 5 Apr 1997 15:04:56 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0410 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music [2] From: Johanna Schmitz Date: Saturday, 5 Apr 1997 10:44:05 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music [3] From: John Drakakis Date: Sunday, 6 Apr 1997 23:46:55 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Date: Saturday, 5 Apr 1997 15:04:56 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0410 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music Here's some more: Laurie Anderson's 'Blue Lagoon' from the Gravity's Angel-album mixes The Tempest and Moby Dick in a passage that starts off 'Full fathom five thy father lies... and ends '...call me Ishmael'. There may also be a reference to Macbeth in The Fall's* Elves* but I could never work out the lyrics and I blame it on Mark E. Smith's idiosyncratic singing. I'd suspect there should be something in Bauhaus, too. They did this catchy tune on Artaud. Eckart Voigts-Virchow [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Johanna Schmitz Date: Saturday, 5 Apr 1997 10:44:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music Sting: "Nothing Like the Sun" [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Sunday, 6 Apr 1997 23:46:55 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0388 Qs: Sh. Mod. Music Try The Sin Doctors, "Cleopatra's Cat", and then of course, there's Dire Straits' "Romeo and Juliet" Cheers John Drakakis ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 00:42:35 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0424 Qs: Arden of Feversham; Public Relations in Shakespeare's Day The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0424. Monday, 7 April 1997. [1] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Friday, 04 Apr 1997 12:50:36 -0500 Subj: Arden of Feversham [2] From: Michael Skovmand Date: Monday, 7 Apr 1997 09:18:58 MET Subj: Re: Public Relations in Shakespeare's Day [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Friday, 04 Apr 1997 12:50:36 -0500 Subject: Arden of Feversham On http://www.dwnet.com/marlowe/02msnews.html it says that *Arden of Feversham* is by Marlowe (there was no question mark after Marlowe.) I wasn't aware that such a firm attribution had been made. Tell me about it. Gabriel Z. Wasserman P.S.: Why is this listserv called "SHAKSPER" and not "SHAKESPEARE" or "SHAKESPERE" or "SHAKE-SPEARE" or "SHAK-SPEAR" or "SHAKSPEARE" or "SHAKSPERE" or "SHAKE-SPER" or "SHAKESPEARE" or "SHAKE-SPEAR" OR "SHAKESPEAR" or "SHAXPER" or "SHAGSPER" or "SHAKBERD" or "SHAXBERD" or "SHAGSBEARD" or "SHAGSBEARD" or "SHAGS-BEARD" or "SHEXBER" or "CHOXPER" or "CHAXPER" or "CHOCKSBEARD" or... [Editor's Note: I'll answer this one directly. Listserv requires that lists have an eight character name. SHAKSPER's founder Ken Steele selected SHAKSPER after rejecting a number of vowelless alternatives. As to the pronunciation of the SHAKSPER, I pronounce as if it were spelled SHAKeSPEaRe; others pronounce it as it is spelled - this is a matter of preference. HMC] [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Skovmand Date: Monday, 7 Apr 1997 09:18:58 MET Subject: Re: Public Relations in Shakespeare's Day Can anyone refer me to literature regarding ways of letting the people of London know about forthcoming performances in Shakespeare's day? Was the flying of the pennant from the top of the Globe (as in the Olivier Hen.V) sufficient? To what extent were hand-bills used? What about town criers? Any ideas how word of mouth actually worked? I'd be grateful for any references to literature on the subject. either on SHAKSPER or privately. Michael Skovmand Dep't of English U. of Aarhus 8000 Aarhus C Denmark ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 01:02:05 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0426 Announcement: Voice Workshop The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0426. Monday, 7 April 1997. From: Catherine Fitzmaurice Kozubei Date: Saturdau, 5 Apr 1997 22:16:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Voice Workshop [Forward] [Editor's Note: A forward from VASTA] From: Dudley Knight Date: Friday, 4 Apr 1997 14:51:03 -0800 Subject: Voice Workshop Temple Theatres Present: A Five-Day Voice Workshop With Catherine Fitzmaurice & Associates June 23 - June 28, 1997 The unique approach to the action of breath and voice developed by Catherine Fitzmaurice is being utilized by more and more voice teachers, actors, and other voice professionals around the country. Catherine has taught and coached at the Juilliard School, New York University, University of California-Irvine, American Conservatory Theatre, Lincoln Center, New York Shakespeare Festival, the Guthrie Theatre, the Goodman Theatre, the Shakespeare Theatre, Hartford Stage Company, the McCarter Theatre, La Jolla Playhouse, and the Shakespearean Festival of Stratford Canada. This is an intensive workshop for Voice Professionals: Teachers, Actors, Singers. $475. DISCOUNT PRICE FOR VASTA MEMBERS: $375. For further information contact Professor Donna Snow, Head of Acting, Temple Theatres, at 215-204-8652. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 00:53:19 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0425 Re: Q-F Lear; Falstaff; Suicide; Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0425. Monday, 7 April 1997. [1] From: Robert G. Marks Date: Saturday, 05 Apr 1997 00:52:54 -0800 Subj: "Let the mad" Lear "rumpus begin." [2] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Sunday, 06 Apr 1997 11:11:18 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0413 Qs: Falstaff [3] From: Juliette Cunico Date: Saturday, 5 Apr 1997 15:21:45 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0402 Re: Suicide [4] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Saturday, 5 Apr 1997 11:22:51 -0500 (EST) Subj: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert G. Marks Date: Saturday, 05 Apr 1997 00:52:54 -0800 Subject: "Let the mad" Lear "rumpus begin." I was interested to read Steve Urkowitz submission on Q and F particularly with reference to Lear. Those of you who read my earlier posts on Cordelia and the Fool will perhaps surmise correctly that I have a deep interest in this play, and that I use the opportunity of this forum (which I, like Steve, find wonderful) to unashamedly promote the sale of my book : _Cordelia, King Lear and His Fool_ which I wrote over a period of some 15 years! I am not familiar with the New Folger edition of Lear, but can't help thinking that any attempt to let the reader know what the Q and F offers can't be anything but positive in helping the modern reader to come to grips with the reason for the two texts. Reading a conflated text has left us in the dark for too long. H.A. Mason calls for something radical to be done. "Although the critics by and large agree on a high estimate of the play, they agree on nothing else. There is therefore a task of mediating and searching for a reading that will command wider assent than any so far obtained." I was interested to see Steve Urkowitz point to some differences in speech prefixes between Q and F. I believe that we can learn a lot about the play by noting the differences between the speech prefixes and stage directions in Q and F. While some differences might have been caused by compositor error, I believe that not all are this way. Note that the prefixes for Oswald's speeches in Q are "Gent", "Osw" and "Stew". We know that the speeches prefixed by these abbreviatons were in fact all intended for Oswald to speak because of the redaction to one prefix "Stew" in F. In Q the speech prefixes for Edgar are his name or some abbreviation of it, but Edgar's stage direction at 3.6 calls for the entry of "Tom," his disguised name. The F changes this to his name. I maintain that we can safely conclude from this and other evidence, that, as in many plays of the era, consistency in speech prefixes in Lear can not be counted on, and that one character's speeches could be introduced by more than one prefix. So that if Cordelia never went to France but served her father disguised as his Fool, it would be perfectly natural to simply prefix her speeches while she is dressed in the motley with "Fool". There are many reasons why I conclude this which I can't go into here. But, if she didn't go to France, did France leave her alone in England? I don't believe that he did. To me he would have been going against his assertion that "love's not love When it is mingled with regards, that stands Aloof from th'entire point." I have come to see him there disguised under the different speech prefixes - Servant / Knight / Gentleman, all of which are disguises employed by other characters elsewhere in Lear. We have treated these speeches as though they were spoken by three "minor characters" in the play instead of being possible indicators of the different disguises France employed in order to stay by the side of his new wife. If Oswald can have three speech prefixes why can't France? I was pleasantly surprised to learn that we have no list of the characters of Lear before Nicholas Rowe's seven volume edition of Shakespeare's plays of 1709. There is no list of characters for Lear and most of Shakespeare's plays comes with his authority, and we often have to draw conclusions about who says what based on our general understanding of the action of the play. I contend that when at the end of the play Lear says, while looking at Cordelia's face "And my poor Fool is hanged... Look there, ...." Shakespeare is telling those in his audience who hadn't already seen it, that Cordelia had been Lear's Fool. I could write a whole lot more - in fact I've written 133 pages to show my line of reasoning, which if you are a serious student of Lear you should want to consider even if it's just to show me where I'm wrong! I have also included the complete texts of Shakespeare's sources, and a conflated text so that you can read the play the way I see that it should be read. The only real differnce is in the speech prefixes. Steve Urkowitz concluded with "Let the mad rumpus begin." I concede that many might consider my thesis fertile soil for a mad rumpus. But I assure you that I have many answers to questions which have been posed about Lear and still remain unanswered. The most obvious being the disappearance of the Fool after "I'll go to bed at noon." My book presents a radically different approach to King Lear when considered in the light of the way we have traditionally come to view the play. But it is not, I suggest, radically different from the way we have come to view most of Shakespeare's plays, nor those of his contemporaries. In fact, I believe it is much more in harmony with these than the traditional approach is. The first printing of my book was quite limited - sufficient to establish copyright, and share with a few. I am looking to print a quantity for sale. Several have already ordered the book. If you are interested in seeing it let me an expression of interest or order. House of Cordelia P.O. Box 36 Harbord NSW 2096 Australia. Sincerely, Bob Marks [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Sunday, 06 Apr 1997 11:11:18 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0413 Qs: Falstaff >> Does anyone know of a list of Shakespeare's acting company and the roles they originated? Specifically, I am looking for the actor who first played Falstaff.<< I've always been given the impression that the role was created by Walter Kemp. I was at the RSA this weekend, though, and someone mentioned that he departed the Lord Chamberlain's men mysteriously in 1599. We have, moreover, no really solid evidence that *The Merry Wives of Windsor* was written before late 1601 (it was entered in the Stationers' Register in January 1602 and must have been written by then). I rather wonder if this would tend to effect the vexed question of what relation the Falstaff of *Merry Wives* bears to that of the 4Henry plays. If they could have been written for different players wouldn't that tend to change our view of their continuity? Cheers, Sean Lawrence. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juliette Cunico Date: Saturday, 5 Apr 1997 15:21:45 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0402 Re: Suicide See my dissertation, "Audience Attitudes Toward Suicide in Shakespeare's Tragedies" (1991). Juliette Cunico [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Saturday, 5 Apr 1997 11:22:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Ideology I know everyone is probably happy that the aesthetics vs. ideology thread has taken a break, but I have one further question if there are any who might be interested in answering it. When an aesthetic object or an aesthetic response is claimed to be "ideological," what is the nature of the claim, its force, and its usefulness? To make these questions as specific as possible, take just one example of an aesthetic response: probably like most readers, I am moved tremendously by the last scene of *The Winter's Tale*; I am struck most particularly by the imaginative richness of its conception and the simplicity of its execution, by the burnished spareness of its language, and by such particular things in the scene as the effect of the statue on Leontes, by Paulina's stage management of the situation and her remarkable line recalling to us the dead Antigonus-"I, an old turtle, / Will wing me to some withered bough"-before she is integrated into the comic resolution of the scene, and by the first and only words Hermione speaks in the scene: You gods, look down, And from your sacred vials pour your graces Upon my daughter's head! Tell me mine own, Where hast thou been preserved? Where lived? How found Thy father's court? . . . More than anything else in the scene, it's these lines that move me, the representation of a mother's joy made more intense by the direction of her first words away from the daughter who has been found to the gods that have brought about this miracle. While I am sure that most readers of the play are moved-or can be-by this scene (but that claim can be contradicted), I allow that there is of course something highly individual about the precise nature and meaning of anyone's response-no one will be moved by the precise things in the scene in the precise way that I am moved-shaped as the response will be by any reader's previous reading and experience. This allowed, however, what is ideological about my response? What is the nature of that claim? What is its force, and what its usefulness? Paul Hawkins ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 11:24:44 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0427 Re: Hamlet and Sanity; Underworld; Kempe; Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0427. Tuesday, 8 April 1997. [1] From: Nick Clary Date: Monday, 7 Apr 1997 10:52:39 -0400 Subj: Hamlet and Sanity [2] From: Billy Houck Date: Monday, 7 Apr 1997 12:05:10 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0420 Re: Elizabethan Underworld and the Occult [3] From: Keith Richards Date: Monday, 7 Apr 1997 15:12:37 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0413 Qs: Falstaff [4] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 8 Apr 1997 13:17:09 GMT Subj: Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Clary Date: Monday, 7 Apr 1997 10:52:39 -0400 Subject: Hamlet and Sanity John Boni notes, "Hamlet, when he denies madness to Gertrude in III.iv, recites a standard formula for lucidity, 'Bring me to the test,/And I the matter will reword, which madness/ Would gambol from.' [Hamlet (TLN 2526-7)]." He goes on to ask, "Has anyone seen a comment on this?" I believe H. N. Hudson's edition (1851-6) provides the first editorial annotation that I have found pertinent to Boni's question: "Science has found the Poet's test a correct one. Dr. Ray, of Providence, in his work on the Jurisprudence of Insanity, thus states the point: 'In simulated mania, the imposter, when requested to repeat his disordered idea, will generally do it correctly; while the genuine patient will be apt to wander from the track, or introduce ideas that had not presented themselves before.'" This note, which introduces modern corroboration from a non-literary source, is an early example of the American strain in editorial commentary. Nick Clary [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Monday, 7 Apr 1997 12:05:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0420 Re: Elizabethan Underworld and the Occult Peter Whelan's play THE SCHOOL OF NIGHT covers this topic in a very readable and enjoyable manner. Shakespeare is a character with the code name Stone. Everything I know I learned in the theatre, Billy [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith Richards Date: Monday, 7 Apr 1997 15:12:37 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0413 Qs: Falstaff Sean K. Lawrence wrote: "I've always been given the impression that the role [Falstaff] was created by Walter Kemp. I was at the RSA this weekend, though, and someone mentioned that he departed the Lord Chamberlain's men mysteriously in 1599." William Kemp's departure from London wasn't mysterious . . . he went off on his famous morris dance to Norwich (which is commemorated in _Kemps nine daies wonder_). There is also some evidence to suggest that he returned to the Chamberlain's Men after his trip and performed again at the Globe. This can be found in SQ 44:4 (1993). It is by James Nielson, author of the brilliant _Unread Herrings: Thomas Nashe and the Prosaics of the Real_. [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 8 Apr 1997 13:17:09 GMT Subject: Re: Ideology Paul Hawkins gives what he calls an aesthetic response to part of the last scene of The Winter's Tale and asks what ideology has to do with it. Part of Paul's description of his response is: > . . . I am moved tremendously by the last scene of The > Winter's Tale; I am struck most particularly by > the imaginative richness of its conception and the > simplicity of its execution, by the burnished > spareness of its language, and by such particular > things in the scene as the effect of the statue on > Leontes, by Paulina's stage management of the > situation and her remarkable line recalling to us > the dead Antigonus--"I, an old turtle, / Will wing > me to some withered bough"--before she is integrated > into the comic resolution of the scene, and by the > first and only words Hermione speaks in the > scene: The phrases 'richness of conception' and 'simplicity of execution' need to be explained. Because these are commonplaces of literary criticism it is easy for us to forget the enormous weight of prior assumptions needed to make these phrases intelligible. I suspect that the first phrase means more to Paul than just 'a good idea' but only by a shared experience of literary criticism can I guess at the extra significance that phrase is meant to convey. Likewise 'simplicity of execution' implies that there is something other than the performance text (by which I mean a performance considered as a text, not the script) which the dramatist intended as the 'idea' and of which the performance text is merely the means of transport. These phrases imply a Romantic notion of creativity-private, cerebral, and Platonic in it distinction between the 'idea' and the 'execution'-which has done sterling service in affording English Studies the status of an academic subject worthy to be taught at university. It might not be an appropriate model of the creativity of early modern drama, but it feels so natural because it is deeply embedded in the teaching of English Studies to children. It's a good example of ideology in action. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 11:31:19 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0428 Qs: Sh. as Model; New Variorum; Davenant; weird sisters The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0428. Tuesday, 8 April 1997. [1] From: Bill McRae Date: Monday, 07 Apr 1997 10:22:24 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Shakespeare as Model = [2] From: Gabriel Wasserman" Date: Monday, 07 Apr 1997 16:41:27 -0400 Subj: New Variorum; Davenant; weird sisters [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill McRae Date: Monday, 07 Apr 1997 10:22:24 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Shakespeare as Model What are the book-length studies of Shakespeare's texts as models for subsequent literature? I.e., say from _All for Love_ through _Rosencranz and Guildenstern Are Dead_, as well as non-dramatic reinscriptions of Shakespeare? = [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman" Date: Monday, 07 Apr 1997 16:41:27 -0400 Subject: New Variorum; Davenant; we=EFrd sisters I have a question. What happened to *The New Variorum Shakespeare* after 1955, when *Richard II* was published. In *The Reader's Guide to Shakespeare*, it says that "now" (1966) *Titus Andronicus* and *The Comedy of Errors* were being prepared. I've never seen any volume later than Ric. II. Was Will D'Avenant the son of Will Shakespeare? Tell me about the spelling and pronunciation of "weyward sisters" or "weyard sisters" or "weird sisters" Gabriel Z. Wasserman P.S.: The Chandos portrait ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 11:34:50 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0429 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0429. Tuesday, 8 April 1997. [1] From: Billy Houck Date: Monday, 7 Apr 1997 11:58:55 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0418 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music [2] From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Monday, 07 Apr 97 12:19:00 PDT Subj: Music [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Monday, 7 Apr 1997 11:58:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0418 Re: Shakespeare and Modern Music Elton John's THE KING MUST DIE is about Shakespeare and Hamlet. and I have vivid memories of David Bowie singing to Yorrick's skull when he did CRACKED ACTOR on the DIAMOND DOGS tour. Still wearing platform shoes, Billy Houck [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Monday, 07 Apr 97 12:19:00 PDT Subject: Music Many Thanks!! to all of you who contributed so enthusiastically to the list of Shakespearean references in modern music. I have forwarded your thoughts to Angela Norris, a high school student in Golden, Colorado who wrote us a letter and who, I am sure, will be quite overwhelmed by the response! Georgianna Ziegler ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 11:38:17 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0430 Position Announcement The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0430. Tuesday, 8 April 1997. From: Lars Engle Date: Monday, 7 Apr 1997 13:57:15 -0400 Subject: Replacement position: please post and forward The Department of English at the University of Tulsa seeks a qualified Ph.D. or A.B.D. with broad interests in Early Modern British literature to teach in Fall 1997. Immediate needs are for three courses: a survey course in British literature to 1800 for sophomore English majors, a course in Shakespeare for general education students, and a course in Milton for senior English majors. Relevant teaching experience, publications and interest in women's literature a plus. Please submit a letter, vita, and dossier for full consideration. We will begin screening applications in mid-April and will hope to fill the position by the end of the month. Please direct inquiries or applications to: Professor Lars Engle Department of English The University of Tulsa Tulsa, OK 74104 918-631-2557 lars-engle@utulsa.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 11:44:21 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0431 Re: Speech Prefixes in "Lear"; Teaching with the New Folger The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0431. Tuesday, 8 April 1997. [1] From: Gregory McSweeney Date: Monday, 7 Apr 1997 15:32:08 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Speech Prefixes in "Lear" [2] From: Fran Teague Date: Monday, 07 Apr 97 16:36:12 EDT Subj: Teaching with the New Folger [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gregory McSweeney Date: Monday, 7 Apr 1997 15:32:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Speech Prefixes in "Lear" I enjoyed Robert Marks's discussion of the discrepancies in speech attributions in "Lear" Q and F, especially since it's always bothered me that the Fool drops out the way he does: sans glory, sans thanks, sans any acknowledgment of the crucial palliation he's provided the king's downward spiral. I think the Fool is a better "child" to Lear than Cordelia can bring herself to be; her reticence in the early play to declare her love completely - if not as fulsomely as her sisters do, strikes me as a sort of standing on principle at the expense of the filial relationship. It's a conscious decision on Cordelia's part to showcase her own superior morality over that of her siblings. Her father's emotional needs at this point are excessive and exasperating, to be sure, but Cordelia is unwilling here to humour the old guy, for fear that she might be perceived as sycophantic or greedy. In other words, her opinion of herself must be preserved and published, that her innate nobility may be known to all and sundry - and domestic and political stability be damned. So I've never been very satisfied with the notion that she and the Fool were doubled; that may very well have been the case, but the Fool's support of Lear is manifestly based on ego-less love, where Cordelia's is contingent on her father's learning some mysterious moral lesson of which she is long since the smug graduate. I still think she benefits greatly from not being an only child; if Regan and Goneril weren't such absolute murderous bitches she'd come across as rather self-congratulatory and grandiose in her modesty. Something I've found interesting in the difference in attribution in Q and F, however, is in 1:4, where the king asks, "Does anyone here know me? Does Lear walk thus," etc. The Quarto has Lear asking, "Who is it that can tell me who I am? Lear's shadow?" The Folio indicates that after the king asks who can tell him who he is, the retort "Lear's shadow" is given to the Fool. The implications are hardly earth-shattering; Q would indicate a nascent realization on the king's part of his own deterioration; F is utterly true to the character and honesty of the Fool, in his lack of reluctance to report unflattering truths to his master - and yet in the latter utterance Cordelia's judgmentalism can be clearly heard. It's as though the things she implies through her pretentious silence are ventriloquized through the Fool's less invested voice. Whatever the original attributions, I find it fascinating that some degree of the authenticity of what we codify as definitive text comes to us from transcriptions of performances. It would obviously have been more important to jot down the content than the attributions; some inaccuracy would have been inevitable. But in "Lear" the blurring of the identities of Lear and the Fool, and the Fool and Cordelia seem liberating to me. All three are on an approximate axis in terms of victimization, audience identification, and morality - that others like Edgar and Kent simply aren't - though these latter two are more unproblematically 'good,' nor can their psychologies be considered less developed than those of the first-tier characters. Go figure. Greg McSweeney [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Monday, 07 Apr 97 16:36:12 EDT Subject: Teaching with the New Folger This past winter term I taught using the Folger editions, which my students and I generally liked. Specifically, the students valued the features of facing page notes, frequent illustrations, and top of scene summaries. I did find that my usual class on the text of _Hamlet_ had to be re-thought because the edition gave no indication of the Q1 text for "To be or not to be-ay, there's the point" or of the scene between Horatio and Gertrude before Hamlet's return. Whether these passages are good, bad, or indifferent, they serve as an excellent device to make students think about the way we treat Shakespeare as a secular saint or how the character of Gertrude is developed. I'd like to have those texts available with some explanation so that I may teach with them. I was also baffled to see that the "How all occasions" soliloquy was not marked with the sort of brackets that might indicate it occurs in Q2 alone. I'm sure that there's a good reason for that, but I couldn't figure it out. Speaking of "How all occasions," I'm surprised more of the folks on this list have not complained bitterly about its handling in the recent Branagh _Hamlet_. Though I liked very much the treatment of Fortinbras (and not everyone did, I gather), I was grumpy at the overblown shouting and the clunky background that went with "How all occasions." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 11:46:54 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0432 Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival's Love's Labour's Lost The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0432. Tuesday, 8 April 1997. From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 07 Apr 1997 20:56:31 -0400 Subject: Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival's Love's Labour's Lost Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival's production of Love's Labour's Lost opened at the Aronoff Center in downtown Cincinnati on March 28 and closes April 20. Shows begin at 8:00 PM, and there are Saturday matinees at 2:00. For more information, call 513.559.0642. I saw the show last Saturday afternoon, and the audience loved it. The show was peppered with spontaneous laughter and applause. The audience generally seemed to understand the jokes, though Dull's comment on not understanding a word (5.1.147 Bevington) got the loudest laugh. The stage is shaped like a chevron, and runs diagonally across the auditorium-north and south. On the north end of the stage is a gate made of books, closed with an insubstantial chain, at the south end a flower-decorated swing. In the middle, at either side of the stage, are two benches made of books. The time is vaguely in the 1920s, though I had originally thought "Edwardian." The show begins when the three reprobate lords, William Sweeney (Longaville), Richard Kelly (Dumain), and Nicholas Rose (Berowne), begin to put away their toys and vices. Charles Scheeren (Navarre) enters like a prissy schoolmaster-and the fun begins. Berowne is especially powerful-and the audience loved him. Jim Stump as Dull is the locale sheriff, and Costard (Colby Codding) is a college student who has much to learn-in this production. Chris Reeder, the tallest member of the cast, plays a Don Quixote-like Armado, while Moth is played by Marni Penning-perhaps the shortest member of the cast. They are an excellent team. Kristin Chase is perfect as Jaquenetta-sexy and parodic. (She later doubles as Mercade.) She can do what the girls of France cannot do-leap at whatever man she wants. And in this production she does this literally. The girls of France (Toni Brotons as the Princess, Nicole Franklin-Kern as Maria, Lisa Penning as Katharine, and Regina Cerimele as Rosaline) are dressed as fashionable Parisian beauties should be-and the audience does not have to suspend disbelief when the boys of Navarre fall in love with them immediately. Boyet (Jim Stump again) is the officious man-about-court. Dan Kenny is Holofernes (and provides the music as court musician) and Khris Lewin plays a dottering Nathaniel. They are perfect. This show has really come together. I loved it, and I recommend it to anyone. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 16:39:57 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0433 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0433. Wednesday, 9 April 1997. [1] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 8 Apr 1997 13:30:08 -0400 Subj: Ideology [2] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Tuesday, 8 Apr 1997 20:51:32 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Ideology [3] From: David Schalkwyk Date: Wednesday, 9 Apr 1997 10:33:39 SAS Sub: Re: SHK 8.0427 Re: The Aesthetics of WT [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 8 Apr 1997 13:30:08 -0400 Subject: Ideology That Paul Hawkins is transported AT ALL by the last scene of The Winter's Tale may be a matter of ideology. An eye-witness who saw the play at the Globe in 1611 doesn't even mention it. Terence Hawkes [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Tuesday, 8 Apr 1997 20:51:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Ideology Gabriel Egan offers a hypothesis about the ideological content of my aesthetic response, but leaves untouched the last two of the three questions I had asked (and the questions had been put in order of increasing importance): what is the statement's force or authority, and what its usefulness? These questions translate into something entirely personal: why should I want to acknowledge my responses to literature (and the responses of others) as inescapably ideological? And what is it going to do for me as a reader and as a person (or as a gay white Canadian male, if "person" needs to be explained)? Since I'm relatively simple-minded, when I wrote "imaginative richness of its [the scene's] conception" I didn't consciously intend much more than "it's a good idea"-bringing a statue to life is a neat idea, and Shakespeare pulls it off. Further, by distinguishing between the idea of the scene and its execution as recorded in the printed text of the play, I meant principally to acknowledge that the "idea" was not original to Shakespeare. So rather than implying a "Romantic notion of creativity-private, cerebral, and Platonic" potentially at odds with "the creativity of early modern drama," my informal description seems to coincide with the known facts of Shakespeare's dramaturgy. So to the extent that Gabriel has said something about the "nature" of a claim that my response is ideological, such a claim would seem to be based on a falsification of my experience. But even if I thought and had intended by my description that Shakespeare had had "an idea" of the scene (whether his own or an idea largely derived from one or more of his sources) at some point prior to his "execution" of the scene in drafting his play-such a general sequence of events does not seem improbable-to say that such a hypothesis (which might very likely be correct) is present to a reader simply because of the ideological work done in this century by "English Studies" is surely reductive. I would be happy to agree with other contributors to this discussion (notably Peter Herman and my good friend Greg McSweeney) that an awareness of ideological considerations can "inform" and "illuminate" our responses and our understanding of each other's responses; the problem is that whenever ideological accounts are offered, they seem to reduce, which to me seriously compromises their authority and usefulness. (I don't always mean to participate in making this forum an aggressive exchange in which we constantly seek simply to find holes in the latest opposing post. I am interested in being persuaded that I "should" think in terms of ideology, and that it has "use." So in addition to hearing an answer to the two questions at the top of this post, I would also be interested in how Gabriel would counter the charge that ideological accounts-and specifically his latest one-tend to "reduce"). Paul Hawkins [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Schalkwyk Date: Wednesday, 9 Apr 1997 10:33:39 SAST-2 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0427 Re: The Aesthetics of WT In reply to Paul Hawkins's response to the final act of _The Winter's Tale_: I wrote an analysis of this scene that reads the elements he mentions very differently, certainly in political or ideological terms. To save myself from having to repeat that analysis here could I invite Paul to look at the piece, and perhaps we could take the discussion further? It is: "`A woman's "Verily" is as potent as a lord's': Women, Word and Witchcraft in _The Winter's Tale_", _ELR_ 22.2 (Spring 1992), 242-72. David Schalkwyk English Department University of Cape Town ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 16:45:58 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0434 Re: Ernest Jones; Hamlet and Ophelia The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0434. Wednesday, 9 April 1997. [1] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 8 Apr 1997 13:27:11 -0400 Subj: SHK 8.0409 Re: Sources for Oedipus Theory [2] From: Jayel Wylie Date: Tuesday, 08 Apr 1997 13:28:58 -0500 (EST) Subj: Hamlet and Ophelia [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 8 Apr 1997 13:27:11 -0400 Subject: SHK 8.0409 Re: Sources for Oedipus Theory Syd Kasten is right. Ernest Jones was certainly a Welshman, born in Gowerton and educated initially at the University of Wales in Cardiff. Whether this accounts for his extraordinary percipience in respect of Shakespeare, I am unable to judge. T. Hawkes [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jayel Wylie Date: Tuesday, 08 Apr 1997 13:28:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: Hamlet and Ophelia In defending Hamlet against charges of misogyny, Don Hamersley wrote: >>the turning point in Hamlet's relationship with Ophelia occurs right AFTER he appears to her all disheveled after the ghost's visit. Maybe he went to her to confide in her and then determined that he could not (thinking that she might give his secret away-"Frailty, thy name is woman").<< But is this Ophelia's failure or Hamlet's? How much evidence does he have that his girlfriend can't be trusted-is this something he's learned from bitter experience, or merely an assumption based on . . . . what? At this point in the story, Ophelia has been refusing to allow Hamlet access to her person or her correspondence at her father's orders, which could be construed as justification for mistrust-even if she's not "frail," this behavior could mean she's fickle-and how profound and hurtful this turning away has been for Hamlet depends on how involved we as players, readers, or audience think these two characters have been before it. (Certainly in the action before his meeting with the Ghost, Hamlet seems far more upset about the loss of his father and his mother's betrayal than he is about the loss of Ophelia's company.) Of course, as Mr. Hamersley seems to suggest in his analysis, Hamlet's interpretations of Ophelia's behavior could be a direct reflection of his knowledge of his mother's. But even if Hamlet thinks Ophelia less than steadfast in her affections, either because of her own behavior or his identification of her with Gertrude, he still goes to her after seeing the Ghost. Why, if he's already identified her as unworthy of his confidence? Does the sight of her remind him of her betrayal, her "frailty?" And when we actually hear him speak to her again, his first address is, "Nymph, in thy orisons be all my sins remembered." Would he ask to be "remembered" in the prayers of a traitor? Is this line ironic? Maybe . . . but not necessarily. I've always seen Hamlet's silence in his dishevelment as protective rather than mistrustful. He goes to Ophelia after seeing the Ghost because he does trust her; he believes her to be innocent and pure, a creature of light. Which is why he doesn't tell her anything when he gets there-he can only look on the light; to converse with it, share his darkness with it, would destroy it. (This attitude is every bit as misogynistic as an unreasoning mistrust, of course, but it's "nicer" and more in keeping with the usual treatment of Shakespearean virgins.) So he turns his eye upon it for as long as possible as he silently withdraws-a symbolic pantomime of his own resolve to turn murderous avenger and his doubts about that course. >> Certainly, their relationship goes straight downhill from this point forward...<< Again, not necessarily-if the "in thy orisons" line is not ironic, then Hamlet still trusts Ophelia when next they meet-he still thinks she's on that shining white pedestal of purity with a direct line to God. Only when he hears her lie does that illusion shatter-"where is your father?" "At home." That's where everything falls apart-the creature of light has already been tainted with darkness; all his efforts to protect her were for naught. "Get thee to a nunnery!" becomes a lament as well as a curse, a pathetic/ironic plea for a locking of the barn door after the horse is out. This may well be an overly-romanticized reading of the Ophelia/Hamlet relationship, but I think it works, textually and in performance, just as well as the other. Sorry, DH, if this is too long . . . . Jayel Wylie mlifsey@infoave.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 17:06:43 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0437 Qs: Elizabethan Currency: UK in June; Bird(s) The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0437. Wednesday, 9 April 1997. [1] From: Scott Crozier Date: Wednesday, 9 Apr 1997 11:56:42 +1100 Subj: Elizabethan Currency [2] From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Wednesday, 9 Apr 1997 16:26:58 +1000 Subj: Major Expotitions [3] From: Thomas Berger Date: Wednesday, 09 Apr 1997 10:37:23 EST Subj: Giving us the bird(s) [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Wednesday, 9 Apr 1997 11:56:42 +1100 Subject: Elizabethan Currency Can anyone help? I've misplaced my trusty conversion chart in a recent house move (I hate having to pack books!) which gave a comparative break down of currency values. I need to inform students of the economic cost of going to the theatre etc in Shakepseare's day. Can anybody remind me where I may find the information? Regards, Scott Crozier [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert F. O'Connor Date: Wednesday, 9 Apr 1997 16:26:58 +1000 Subject: Major Expotitions Greetings all. Much to my surprise I have today discovered that I'm off to the UK in June. First time out of Australia in a LONG time! To make it worth my while I'm hoping to line up a few serious-type diversions while there, so if anyone in that part of the world knows of, or is involved in, any conferences etc on matters Elizabethan during July or August, could they please let me know about them (directly, rather than through the group). Ditto for theatre, major events, whatever. Meanwhile I have to get a passport, visas, money etc etc etc Ta in advance Rob O'Connor [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Berger Date: Wednesday, 09 Apr 1997 10:37:23 EST Subject: Giving us the bird(s) I have a colleague in biology who is interested in "introduced species," and I told her about some enthusiast who thought it America's best interests to have every bird mentioned in Shakespeare flying from sea to shining sea. This he introduced, so I recall, every bird in Sh. that was not already resident in America. Thus he introduced, as I recall, the starling, that bird that loves to nest/mate/fly into jet engines, causing no end of trouble to engine, pilots, crew, passengers, and other starlings. Can someone confirm this or something remotely like it? Thanks, Tom Berger ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 16:51:21 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0435 Re: Falstaff; Shakespeare & Modern Music The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0435. Wednesday, 9 April 1997. [1] From: Karen Coley Date: Tuesday, 8 Apr 1997 21:27:31 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Falstaff [2] From: Jayel Wylie Date: Tuesday, 08 Apr 1997 11:59:13 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Shakespeare & Modern Music [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Coley Date: Tuesday, 8 Apr 1997 21:27:31 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Falstaff Recent post about the player who created Falstaff (sorry, I forgot who): "I've always been given the impression that the role was created by Walter Kemp. I was at the RSA this weekend, though, and someone mentioned that he departed the Lord Chamberlain's men mysteriously in 1599. We have, moreover, no really solid evidence that *The Merry Wives of Windsor* was written before late 1601 (it was entered in the Stationers' Register in January 1602 and must have been written by then)." You might take a look at *Shakespeare's Garter Plays* by Giorgio Melchiori which argues for the theory that MWW was based on the 1597 Garter Celebration for the Windsor court. The evidence is circumstantial and textual, but quite convincing. If correct, Kemp may have created the Merry Wives version of Falstaff before morrising out of town. Karen Coley Loyola University, Chicago [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jayel Wylie Date: Tuesday, 08 Apr 1997 11:59:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Shakespeare & Modern Music Mark Mann wrote: >>As I recall, Sting's album The Dream of the Blue Turtles, contains a song with Shakespearean references, though I'm damned if I can remember what it is. It is mentioned in the liner notes, though.<< At the risk of sending Mark to eternal perdition . . . . . The song to which he refers is "Consider Me Gone" which quotes/paraphrases this passage (apologies for punctuation mistakes, etc.; quoting song from memory): Roses have thorns, shining waters mud./Cancer lurks deep in the sweetest bud./ Clouds and eclipses stain the moon and the sun,/And history reeks of the wrongs we have done. Jayel (Jessica) Wylie mlifsey@infoave.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 16:59:16 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0436 Questions with Editor's Notes Attached The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0436. Wednesday, 9 April 1997. [1] From: Michelle Walker <954walker@alpha.nlu.edu> Date: Tuesday, 08 Apr 1997 12:38:47 CST Subj: Winterson [2] From: David Skeele Date: Tuesday, 8 Apr 1997 17:54:55 -0400 Subj: Re: Two Queries [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michelle Walker <954walker@alpha.nlu.edu> Date: Tuesday, 08 Apr 1997 12:38:47 CST Subject: Winterson Thanks to everyone for Othello reading suggestions. They helped greatly. Now I have another journey on which I'm embarking. Does anyone out there know how I can get in touch with Jeanette Winterson, British novelist. I would like to use "Written on the Body" and "Gut Symmetries" as a vessel for Tempest allusions. So far, I've only found three articles on her novels, and at that, One per novel. Thanks, Michelle Walker [Editor's Note: All responses to this query should be sent directly to Michelle Walker at 954walker@alpha.nlu.edu. HMC] [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Tuesday, 8 Apr 1997 17:54:55 -0400 Subject: Re: Two Queries A couple of questions: First, could anyone steer me toward some interesting cultural analyses of Baconianism, Oxfordianism, and any of the other movements bent on proving that others wrote the work attributed to Shakespeare. I am aware of the brief discussion in Gary Taylor's REINVENTING SHAKESPEARE (if I can mention Taylor's name without inspiring any windy theological treatises), but are there others? A student in a colleague's class is writing a paper on the subject and asked me if I knew of any such analyses, and I found I was pretty interested myself. [Editor's NOTE: This is NOT an invitation to open discussion of "authorship" - only "cultural analyses" of the phenomenon will be posted to the membership. HMC] It feels strange to ask the second question, as I've spent the last few years researching and writing about what other people have done with PERICLES, but I find I need some feedback now that I'm mounting my own production of the play. The question is this: what have other directors out there done with Gower when he wasn't speaking? Kept him on stage? Seated him in the audience? Allowed him to wander on and off as he pleased? I am currently leaning toward keeping him in a space next to the audience (sharing their perspective) for much of the play, but allowing him to discretely disappear upon occasion, but I am open to a better suggestion. What are some of the other solutions people have found? Note: I am aware that in some productions he takes various roles throughout the play (i.e., sailors, pirates, etc.) but that will be impossible in this production. Thanks in advance for the help! Sincerely, David Skeele ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 17:14:10 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0438 Re: Folger Ham.; Variorum; Cordelia and the Fool The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0438. Wednesday, 9 April 1997. [1] From: Paul Werstine Date: Wednesday, 9 Apr 97 10:57:24 EDT Subj: Folger Hamlet [2] From: Paul Werstine Date: Wednesday, 9 Apr 97 11:13:22 EDT Subj: Variorum [3] From: Robert G. Marks Date: Wednesday, 09 Apr 1997 23:39:39 -0700 Subj: Speech Prefixes in "Lear" Cordelia, the Fool [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Werstine Date: Wednesday, 9 Apr 97 10:57:24 EDT Subject: Folger Hamlet Many thanks, Fran, for using the New Folger HAMLET. Sorry we couldn't find a way of getting Q1 into the book along with Q2 and F, but the Q1 text is so widely variant from both Q2 and F that our system of brackets just could not accommodate so much variation. I like to use overheads of passages of Q1 in class just to show my students what some of it looks like. My favorite Q1 bit is "O what a dunghill idiot slave am I." Regarding "How all occasions" being marked as appearing only in Q2, not in F: it's not just the soliloquy "How all occasions" that is in Q2 alone; most of the scene is in Q2 alone. What we call 4.4 is only 9 lines long in F, and consists only of dialogue between Fortinbras and his captain; Hamlet does not even appear in F. So the square brackets that in the New Folger identify a passage as Q2-only open before the entrance of Hamlet, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and others ( [p. 201, 6 printed lines from the top of the page] the point where Q2 begins to depart from F) and close after Hamlet exits, having delivered the "How all occasions" soliloquy. Hope this clarification helps. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Werstine Date: Wednesday, 9 Apr 97 11:13:22 EDT Subject: Variorum Recent volumes in the New Variorum Shakespeare are Richard Knowles's AS YOU LIKE IT (1973), Mark Eccles' MEASURE FOR MEASURE (1980) and Marvin Spevack's ANTONY AND CLEOPTRA (1990); the next one, THE WINTER'S TALE, will shortly be published. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert G. Marks Date: Wednesday, 09 Apr 1997 23:39:39 -0700 Subject: Speech Prefixes in "Lear" Cordelia, the Fool. I was delighted to read Greg McSweeney's response to my earlier post on variations in the Q and F for _Lear_. I particularly liked his description of how the Fool drops out of the play "sans glory, sans thanks, sans any acknowledgment of the crucial palliation he's provided the king's downward spiral." I liked it because, as I believe that the Fool was really Cordelia in disguise, for me these words apply to her, and our failure to acknowledge her service to her father. I believe that she was the Fool and that the original audience, King James I, would have seen her going to heaven, at her death, to receive her Heavenly Father's reward in fulfillment of Matthew 6:1-4, which says in part, when thou doest almes, let not thy left hand know, what they right doeth: That thine almes may be in secret: And thy father which seeth in secret, himself shall reward thee openly. That this principle was highly valued by James I can be seen from this excerpt from his _Basilikon Doron_: To conclude then, both this purpose of conscience and the first part of this booke; Keepe God more sparingly in your mouth, but aboundantly in your heart: be precise in effect, but sociall in shew: kythe [make known] more by your deeds then by your words the loue of vertue and hatred of vice: and delight more to be godlie and vertuous in deede then to be thought and called so; expecting more for your praise and reward in heauen then heere: and apply to all your outward actions Christes commaunde, to pray and giue your almes secretly: so shall ye on the one part be inwardly garnished with true Christian humility, not outwardly (with the proud Pharisie) glorying in your godlines: but saying, as Christ commandeth vs all, when we haue done all that we can, Inutiles serui sumus. And on the other part, ye shall eschew outwardly before the world the suspition of filthie proud hypocrisie and deceitfull dissimulation." The difference between Cordelia's (as Fool) and Kent's service to Lear is just that Kent (who like Malvolio is a kind of a Puritanical Pharisee) blows his own trumpet while Cordelia says nothing of what she intended nor of what she did. She left it to Lear to make known what she had done with his "And my poor Fool is hanged....", though, of course, she had no way of knowing that he would make it known. Greg's objection to Cordelia's refusal to go along with her sisters in their aged father's little game is not a new objection. But it ignores the fact that James I was also very interested in the problem of flattery. James wrote to his son that in choosing servants he should be careful to choose those who were "speciallie free of that filthy vice of Flattery, the pest of all Princes, and wracke of Republickes". We cannot overlook the attitude of Cordella expressed in the 1605 _Leir_ "O, how I do abhorre this flattery!" Nor should we turn a blind eye to her response to Gonorill's claim "I love my father better then thou canst", namely, "Cor. The prayse were great, spoke from anothers mouth: But it should seeme your neighbours dwell far off". Cordelia's repeated "nothing" is a refusal to participate to a greater degree even than her sisters in something that was abhorant to herself and to King James I. She's no flatterer. She will "love and be silent" - love and not say anything about it. Now that is love! She is not just refusing to play along with her siblings and father. I too find 1:4 interesting. The audience knew who Lear was, and who Goneril was, but they didn't have a name for the Fool. About the same time I think it was Dekker who had a play (the name escapes me at the moment) which had a Fool named Shadow. If the members of the public for whom, I believe F was designed, had thought of Dekker's Fool when the words "Lear's shadow" were spoken by the Fool, then the Fool could have been thought of by some, at least for a moment, as thinking about his / her own identity. This focusing on the identity of Lear followed Lear's meeting Goneril's accusation, that he is encouraging riots among his followers, with the question, "Are you our daughter?" But this followed immediately upon the Fool's words about the cuckoo. Lear, of course, is addressing Goneril, but the juxtaposition of the speeches could cause members of the audience to suspect that the Fool is a daughter - Cordelia. After the bit about the shadow Lear questions Goneril's identity with the words, "Your name fair gentlewoman?" But this question, like his earlier one "Are you our daughter?" is juxtaposed with a statement by the Fool - "Which they [Goneril and Regan] will make an obedient father" in Q, and "Lear's shadow" in F. Following Goneril's further protest Lear determines to go to Regan with the words, "Yet have I left a daughter." Now the audience knows her heart already, both from the sources and Lear to this point, and they know Cordelia's intention also from the sources and from her earlier claims in this play, and could have seen her here in the Fool. Greg McSweeney wrote of the differences between Q and F arising out of transcription of performances. The theory of memorial reconstruction is often blamed for the differences. But I don't believe it necessary to postulate this theory. I believe the differences are largely calculated, and probably come from Shakespeare's own hand. Consider, for example, the following: It is evident from the text that no one else in Lear's world came to identify the Fool as having been Cordelia. She received no acknowledgment. Cordelia had said at the love test (1.1.224) that she would do what she intended doing without speaking about it, "that you [Lear] _may_ know" (Q), or "that you [Lear] _make_ known" (F) that her reply to Lear in the contest didn't come with the evil connotation that he had placed on it. In Q at the end of the "my poor fool" speech, Lear can only manage "O,o,o,o,o." He makes the connection himself, he "may" know himself, but he does not "make" it known to the people of his world nor the audience - King James I and his court no doubt had made the identification long before and seen the beauty of Cordelia's service and the "Puritanism" of Kent. In F version, the version for the public, if any members of the audience had not seen Cordelia in the Fool, they would hear Lear "make" it known to them at the end when he says "And my poor fool is hanged!....Do you see this? Looke on her? Looke her lips, Looke there, looke there". These five short questions and statements correspond in number with Q's "O,o,o,o,o". This difference between Q and F is not caused by Q's being a "memorial reconstruction" by audience or actors, but a deliberate revision, no doubt by Shakespeare himself. If you would like to read a full treatment of this, send for my book _Cordelia, King Lear and His Fool._ Email me for more details or send order to: Bob Marks ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 17:16:26 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0439 Announcement: Washington Shakespeare Co. Summer Programs The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0439. Wednesday, 9 April 1997. From: Kila Burton Date: Wednesday, 09 Apr 1997 12:52:01 -0400 Subject: Announcement: Washington Shakespeare Co. Summer Programs Washington Shakespeare Co (Arlington, VA): Bard On Wheels Summer Institutes (BOWSI) The out-reach program of WSC - Bard On Wheels - will run for the third year its two-week summer intensive for grades 4 through 6. Students will take classes in acting, voice, improv, as well as specialized half-day workshops taught by area theater professionals. The program is run by Outreach Director and WSC company member Kila Burton. New this year is TEEN BOWSI, which will be open to ages 13-18. TEEN BOWSI will be held at WSC's home the Clark St. Playhouse. Dates and fees are below. BOWSI at Janney Elementary - D.C. (June 30 - July 12): $425 TEEN BOWSI at the Clark St. Playhouse (Aug. 11 - Aug.22):$250 Both locations are metro accessible. For more information on this and other upcoming events, please contact: Kila Burton Director of Outreach Washington Shakespeare Co. 601 S. Clark St Arlington, VA 22202 phone: (703) 418-4804 e-mail: dcl@lanlaw.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:17:51 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0440 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0440. Thursday, 10 April 1997. [1] From: Ben R. Schneider Date: Wednesday, 09 Apr 1997 16:20:00 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Aesthetic Response [2] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 00:47:22 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0433 Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [3] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Wednesday, 9 Apr 1997 23:12:17 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0433 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [4] From: C. David Frankel Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 00:59:18 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0433 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [5] From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 18:21:12 +1000 (EST) Subj: Re: Ideology/Winters Tale [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben R. Schneider Date: Wednesday, 09 Apr 1997 16:20:00 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Aesthetic Response Speaking of the last scene of Winter's Tale, Paul Hawkins praises "the imaginative richness of its conception and the simplicity of its execution, the burnished spareness of its language." Several object that this language is vague. But things like richness, simplicity, and spareness (maybe not "*burnished* spareness") can be proved by new critical techniques, developed in the school of Coleridge, Shelley, Eliot, and Brooks and Warren. That's what new criticism was all about. But the theorists have taken the text away from us, claiming that it simply delivers one's ideology. Ironically it is *only* the text that can deliver us *from* ideology. Ideally, under the surveillance of peer review, actual or virtual, weak readings are winnowed out in the give and take of academic dialog until only the most probable and likely ones remain. This filtering process cannot take place, however, if there is no text by which to settle arguments. Postmodern theory, with its insistence on the power of ideology to mask a text, effectively removes the text from the dialog, and we are reduced to name calling. The reason you think Caliban is an indigenous person oppressed by an imperialist is that you are a left-wing bigot. Your interpretation of the text proves it. The reason I think Caliban deserves what he gets is that I am a right-wing bigot. My interpretation of the text proves it. There can be no appeal to what the text actually says as long as it is not allowed to speak. New Criticism proved, to my satisfaction at least, that there are ways in which it does speak. New Criticism's arbitrary exclusion of historical context was incredibly stupid, but its attentiveness to the text was salutary. The refusal to allow Paul Hawkins's appeal to the text reminds me of a Broadway character of Damon Runyon's named Harry the Horse, who could knock down a milk truck horse at 5 AM with one blow to the head. He used to appear at crap games and throw the dice into his hat. "I make my point," he would say, and pick up the money. (Once a little voice asked "Do you make it the hard way?") The entry of theory into literary interpretation is exactly like the entry of Harry the Horse into a crap game. Meaning is now decided by the interpreter's power. Before Harry the Horse,--that is, theory-entered the crap game, the dice-that is, the text-decided the issue of who picked up the money-the interpretation with the best fit in the opinion of all those present. You can see why those of us who remember the old days feel as if we are being cheated: our articles not accepted, our books not published, and our presence not required at meetings. One can't win against Harry the Horse. Instead of worrying about Paul Hawkins's theoretical errors, we should be arguing about whether or not the last scene of Winter's Tale is rich, simple, and spare, but I fear we have forgotten how. BEN SCHNEIDER [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 00:47:22 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0433 Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT Paul Hawkins wants straight answers to these questions about the statement that aesthetic response is ideological: > >what is the statement's force or authority[?] and what its usefulness?<< The "force or authority" depends on how convincing one finds it. If my account doesn't persuade it is weak and lacking in authority. Outside of Marxist cultural analysis its "usefulness" is nil. The idea that the means by which we make sense of the world are largely unexamined but not unexaminable is, of itself, not radical. That modes of economic production have concomitant systems of unexamined ideas is rather more so. Someone who doesn't believe that economics is primary is unlikely to accept this proposition. > >why should I want to acknowledge my responses to literature (and the responses of others) as inescapably ideological? And what is it going to do for me as a reader and as a person (or as a gay white Canadian male, if "person" needs to be explained)?<< It may well be that convincing someone that economics is primary is a prerequisite for convincing them that ideology is inescapable. However, as for practical benefits one could cite the wonderful insights which Marxism gives into, for example, the oppression of gays and lesbians. As a reader it is terrifically liberating to find out why, in capitalist countries, roads are collectively owned but factories generally aren't. The idea that flesh may not be traded but labour can be underlies capitalist economic activity, but the part played by The Merchant of Venice in the transmission of that idea is, I'm given to understand, seldom taught in economics classes. > >Further, by distinguishing between the idea of the scene and its execution as recorded in the printed text of the play, I meant principally to acknowledge that the "idea" was not original to Shakespeare. << That I didn't know. I thought having a player pretend to be a statue and then surprise the audience by breaking the convention WAS new to this play. Is there an earlier example? (I know of some later ones). > >So in addition to hearing an answer to the two questions at the top of this post, I would also be interested in how Gabriel would counter the charge that ideological accounts-and specifically his latest one-tend to "reduce").<< I didn't see any argument, only the assertion that ideological accounts are reductive. That I am not yet convincing is sufficient to silence me on the subject. Gabriel Egan [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Wednesday, 9 Apr 1997 23:12:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0433 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT To Terence Hawkes: It's also possible, isn't it, that Simon Forman doesn't mention the statue scene because it wasn't part of the play he saw? To David Schalkwyk: Thank you for referring me to your essay. But perhaps I should clarify: I'm not disputing that the elements in the scene can be read in political and ideological terms; the question is, can they be read in any other way? Paul Hawkins [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 00:59:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0433 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT I'm probably offering an idea that's been covered before, but may be worth repeating: ideology is a word. As a word it has reference to other words, and as a word it signifies differently within different contexts. Sometimes I think the people who discuss ideology do so at cross-purposes for these (and undoubtedly other) reasons. For some the word is so dyslogistically loaded that they can only respond by denying the presence of ideology in their own point of view. Sometimes people wave the word like a flag (or use it as a club) in a call to arms. Some people appear to use it to mean the conscious ideas (especially overtly political ones) that people either have or accuse others of having. But sometimes people use the term in a much wider sense, but a sense that gets obscured because of the words own baggage. Instead of using ideology for this very wide sense, perhaps one of the terms that Kenneth Burke uses might serve better (in some cases) because they can pretend (at least for a while) to have a neutrality that ideology clearly lacks. I'm thinking primarily of his term "orientation." For Burke an orientation includes all the social, cultural, biological, psychological, etc. frames and materials that condition an individual's perspective on the world. Let me append two brief passages from his _Grammar of Motives_ (1945, rev. 1969): We take it for granted that, insofar as men cannot themselves create the universe, there must remain something essentially enigmatic about the problem of motives, and that this underlying enigma will manifest itself in inevitable ambiguities and inconsistencies among the terms for motives. Accordingly, what we want is *not terms that avoid ambiguity,* but *terms that clearly reveal the strategic spots at which ambiguities necessarily arise.* (original emphasis) As a general rule, when a term is singled out for such harsh treatment, if you look closer you will find that it happens to be associated with some cultural or political trend from which the writer would dissociate himself; hence there is a certain notable ambiguity in this very charge of ambiguity, since he presumably feels purged and strengthened by bringing to bear upon this particular term a kind of attack that could, with as much justice, be brought to bear upon any other term. . . including of course the alternative term. . . that the writer would swear by. (both p. xviii) cdf [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 18:21:12 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: Ideology/Winters Tale Paul Sorry, but you're describing the ending of a story in which we see a character representing a male person-a heterosexual, Sicilian father, husband, and King, who (without any prompting from Iago) develops an irrational and violent jealousy about his wife to the point where a family is torn apart and several lives are destroyed. At least two people actually die in consequence of this jealous, proprietorial, royal, patriarchal and erroneous access of passion. Then at the end, as if by magic, a third supposedly dead person in the form of the jealous man's wife comes back to life and forgives him unreservedly. And you ask why, when you find this ending moving, you should want to acknowledge your responses to theatre as inescapably ideological rather than aesthetic? If I were to suggest (for the sake of argument) that I find this kind of sentimental heterosexual male fantasy of forgiveness disturbing and potentially nauseating, you would no doubt (rightly) attribute my response to ideology. But unless you are of the "I am right, you have an opinion, s/he is ideological" school, surely you have to concede that if it's ideological for me, it must be for you too, even though in the opposite direction. (In fact this is a very stark and one-sided account of my response to the ending, which is in reality much more complex. I too am partly sucked in by the cultural signals which tell me I am supposed to approve and be happy at the conclusion. But I could easily understand and sympathise with any reader-a female student who had suffered directly from domestic violence for example-who felt only negative towards the play's ending.) As for what the recognition (if you agree to recognise it) of the ideological underpinning of your emotional and aesthetic response is going to do for you as a reader and as a person-that is for you to decide. On the other point about the reductiveness of ideological accounts, can you give me any response, aesthetic or of any kind, to any significant moment in any play you like to choose which "accounts" for the full plenitude of what that moment might offer, to you and me and everyone else? Adrian Kiernander ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:22:02 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0441 Re: Hamlet and Ophelia The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0441. Thursday, 10 April 1997. [1] From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 9 Apr 1997 17:53:08 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0434 Re: Hamlet and Ophelia [2] From: Susan Keegan Date: Wednesday, 9 Apr 1997 17:35:49 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0434 Re: Hamlet and Ophelia [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 9 Apr 1997 17:53:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0434 Re: Hamlet and Ophelia I've never thought deeply about motivations in Hamlet, but I had thought that Hamlet went to Ophelia to begin his madness thing in a way that was sure to be reported. Was it more than that? Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Keegan Date: Wednesday, 9 Apr 1997 17:35:49 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0434 Re: Hamlet and Ophelia I think everyone is missing the boat on Ophelia. Consider the phrase, "Frailty, they name is woman." We have already seen Ophelia bow to pressure from both her brother and father, including handing over her mail to Polonius. Perhaps what makes women frail in this context is not their natures, but their subservient position in life, which meant that they were literally unable to keep their own confidences. In this light, had Hamlet entrusted Ophelia with his secret, it would follow automatically that Polonius would be told. It is not a measure of her fickleness, but of her powerlessness, which is also what makes her spurn Hamlet's words and letters. She is acting under strict command in a world where women were given no choice but to obey. Thus, her frailty is no sin of character. Neither is the next frailty with which Hamlet taxes Ophelia-that she may breed more children. In a play obsessed with death we obviously would have to deal with women's role in bringing life into being, and thus setting all humankind on a path that can only end in death. Hamlet is so beside himself at this point in the play that the thought of anyone else being made to suffer throught life as he has is too much. Hence, no more breeding. Hamlet is not making an accusation against Ophelia, but against life itself. Neither of these incidents, to my mind, either indicts Ophelia as corrupt or convicts Hamlet of misogyny. Ophelia is a captive of her age and culture. She is entirely innocent - indeed the imagery of the play demands this, or her death would not presage the end of all that is good and natural in Elsinore. Hamlet can love her, can know she loves him, and still understand that she is powerless to keep his confidences. If he was unsure, his question, "where's your father" makes it perfectly clear. He can even sympathize with her plight as an unmarried woman, knowing that he, too, is powerless to help her. And he can still look into her eyes and find absolution. Susan Keegan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:25:26 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0442 Qs: Subtext; Religious Biases The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0442. Thursday, 10 April 1997. [1] From: Mike Field Date: Wednesday, 9 Apr 1997 17:31:27 -0400 Subj: Subtext [2] From: Hilary Zunin Date: Wednesday, 9 Apr 1997 17:04:48 -0700 Subj: Religious Biases [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Field Date: Wednesday, 9 Apr 1997 17:31:27 -0400 Subject: Subtext Last night, watching the "As You Like It" segment of "Approaching Literature" offered through The Open University, I heard host and presenter Fiona Shaw declare "There is no subtext in Shakespeare" and then go on to explain that, for instance, "if someone asks a question it really is just that-a question." I have heard this no subtext declaration before, and it strikes me as rather pat. Am I to understand there is no subtext to "Madam, how like you this play?" I find this particularly confusing because Shaw then works with acting students on exercises that, to me at least, seem designed to highlight the subtext in particular scenes of AYLI. Or perhaps I'm just misconstruing. I would be most interested in hearing from others, especially the actors and directors among us, as to whether there is or is not subtext in Shakespeare. Thanks. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hilary Zunin Date: Wednesday, 9 Apr 1997 17:04:48 -0700 Subject: Religious Biases Am interested in better understanding Shakespeare's religious biases. For example, I've long assumed that Elizabethan audiences would have perceived Shylock's forced conversion, so repugnant to many modern audiences, as a boon. True? Dead wrong? I am particularly interested in these belief systems re: *Merchant* and *Hamlet*, but suggestions for general resources on Catholic and/or Church of England beliefs during Shakespeare's time would be appreciated. Many thanks. In seladore, Hilary Zunin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:27:22 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0443 Re: Pericles The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0443. Thursday, 10 April 1997. From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 9 Apr 1997 17:48:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Pericles When we did Pericles in 1987, I both directed and performed Gower. Our set was a gilded picture frame, decorated with vaguely recognizable shapes a la Tanguy, fronted by a large black & white tiled floor. Gower had a little platform to SR of this configuration. The play began with its "fairy tale" opening behind the frame, but immediately began to spill out onto the floor, and each scene came further out into the space, leaving props and stuff behind when it was finished: flotsam and jetsam, if you will. As Gower, I simply came out and narrated, sticking to my platform at first, but as the show became more "diffuse," I too came out onto the floor. Simple set pieces sufficed, obviously: the banquet table became the platform for the bier; the coffin became the tomb and the couch, etc., etc. And my penultimate speech was given from center stage, while the rest of the characters silently came out and removed all the detritus from the stage, clearing away the past for the final recognition scene. I left the stage when I wasn't on. I doubled a pirate, as I recall, but that was necessity, not thematic. Incidentally, I tracked down a copy of Wilkins' novelization and used it to flesh out the Lysimachus/Marina encounter. It worked a *lot* better than what must be a corrupt script section. I hope you have as wonderful a time with the play as we did. It's one of those shows that confound the textual critics; our audiences ate it up, despite its "glaring weaknesses." Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 06:14:43 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0444 Re: Subtext The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0444. Friday, 11 April 1997. [1] From: Tiffany Rasovic Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 10:05:34 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0442 Qs: Subtext [2] From: C. David Frankel Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 12:32:17 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0442 Qs: Subtext [3] From: Eric Armstrong Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 14:02:13 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0442 Re: Subtext [4] From: Moray McConnachie Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 00:34:39 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0442 Qs: Subtext [5] From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 19:49:01 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0442 Subtext [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tiffany Rasovic Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 10:05:34 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0442 Qs: Subtext There is a book called Conformity and Conflict which contains an essay called "Shakespeare in the Bush" by a Laura Bohanan. While living in Africa, she reads Hamlet and attempts to tell the story to the tribe--the clash of cultural taboo/belief systems is hilarious and illuminating, especially because it points out our own irrationality. For example: it is normal and desirable for the brother to marry his deceased brother's wife; they do not believe that ghosts can appear to a person, and so on. Yours TR [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 12:32:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0442 Qs: Subtext When Fiona Shaw, and others, claim that "There is no subtext" in Shakespeare, I think what they are really saying is that the best way to approach these plays is not as if you were in a 1950s Acting Class with Lee Strasberg (and all the mental baggage that that image may cull up). As Mike Field notes in his comment about Hamlet's question, characters attempt to *do* things with language; they use language instrumentally. And when they do so, the thing that they are attempting may not have much to do with the the literal or surface meaning of the words. cdf [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 14:02:13 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0442 Re: Subtext Mike Fields asks of actors and directors "is there subtext in Shakespeare" or something like it... The long answer: As an actor, I say yes, especially when you aren't the lead! Maybe I am reading subtext wrong... but I think of it as any acting that I do where I don't SAY what I am thinking or doing. Playing Antigonus in WT last summer, I found that I had to have tons of subtext as I spoke my few and sparse lines (except for my big speech before being gobbled up). React react react (and almost no words). That said, I think the "there is no subtext" in Shakespeare really refers to the fact that actors find that they must act ON the language, and not between the language (otherwise Hamlet would be 8 hours long, not 4)... In other words, the line is "To be or not to be that is the question" NOT "To be..... or not to be......That...... is the question". Is there subtext? Well, there are certainly many layers to what is meant by those words... Many times subtext means saying one thing while thinking another, and subtext is the thinking. Hmmm... it seems to me that we must think more than what we say if we are to allow for the many layers of the text to be revealed in what we say. Those of the "you can only do one thing at a time" school of acting might not approve here, but I must admit that I don't have much patience for that kind of teaching so I will ignore it. I've been chewing gum and walking for far too long to have that argument. "Madam, how like you this play" allows you to play with what you are implying by each word of importance. If there were only one possible meaning to the words "Madam", "like" and "play", English would have many more words in it, and it would be so boring! But with an English that requires us to imply and infer meaning from a number of possibilities, we have the great pleasure of being able to fight for the meaning that means most to us. (ah, I think I've just found the birth of criticism!)I imagine that those who would argue that there is only one possible meaning to that sentence (or any sentence) have never used an innuendo , exaggeration, hyperbole nor spoken sarcastically or facetiously... The short answer: Madam, how like you THIS subtext? Madam, how LIKE you this subtext? Madam , HOW like you this subtext? Madam, how like you this SUBtext? If you can say those as if they made sense, you can play it. If you want it. But sometimes as cigar (or a sentence) is just a cigar... don't over do it . Eric [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Moray McConnachie Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 00:34:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0442 Qs: Subtext Surely the "no subtext" point is that all the meaning a play-text can generate is by definition part of the text, not of a mythical entity which might be called the subtext. I too have heard this before, and it seems to me rather uninteresting and something of a quibble. If one perhaps talked about surface interpretation that might make things easier. Yours, Moray McConnachie [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 19:49:01 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0442 Subtext I too have heard that there is no subtext in Shakespeare, everybody always says what they mean, except sometimes there's that wink-nudge sort of subtext that happens when someone who knows what we know is talking to someone who doesn't know what we know, but that doesn't count. Also, characters in Shakespeare are not psychologically complicated, they are more sensitive than we are to their emotional state, they understand it, are unashamed of it, and can and will describe it completely and articulately. When they speak in soliloquy they always tell the truth. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 07:50:42 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0445 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0445. Friday, 11 April 1997. [1] From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 10:08:45 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0440 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [2] From: Dale Lyles Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 13:54:38 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0440 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [3] From: David Maruyama Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 17:57:33 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Ideology [4] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 19:19:43 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [5] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 00:51:34 GMT Subj: Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 10:08:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0440 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT >> Sorry, but you're describing the ending of a story in which we see a character representing a male person-a heterosexual, Sicilian father, husband, and King, who (without any prompting from Iago) develops an irrational and violent jealousy about his wife to the point where a family is torn apart and several lives are destroyed. At least two people actually die in consequence of this jealous, proprietorial, royal, patriarchal and erroneous access of passion. Then at the end, as if by magic, a third supposedly dead person in the form of the jealous man's wife comes back to life and forgives him unreservedly.<< >> And you ask why, when you find this ending moving, you should want to acknowledge your responses to theatre as inescapably ideological rather than aesthetic?<< >> If I were to suggest (for the sake of argument) that I find this kind of sentimental heterosexual male fantasy of forgiveness disturbing and potentially nauseating, you would no doubt (rightly) attribute my response to ideology. But unless you are of the "I am right, you have an opinion, s/he is ideological" school, surely you have to concede that if it's ideological for me, it must be for you too, even though in the opposite direction.<< Bravo, Adrian Kiernander, for your response to those who insist upon draining the gender conflicts which characterize the dramatic action of *WT* from the text-all in the name of "aesthetics." Perhaps the major problem with traditional liberal humanists, new critics, and "aestheticists" -- whether in print, in the classroom, in curriculum battles, in theatrical productions-is their inability or their refusal to own up to the fact that their own positions are ideologically informed. The juvenile name-calling to which this ideology discussion sometimes descends ("You're ideological; I'm not") is based upon a false binary opposition. We are all ideologically informed: some us own up to this fact; some of us don't. Why is it that readings which perpetuate patriarchal, white, heterosexual, Christian, elitist values often get constructed as the "norm," or "ideologically neutral," while everything else gets constructed as "deviant," or "ideologically loaded"? Feminist Shakespeareans and others have been raising questions such as this regarding the universalizing of patriarchal values (for example) for so long-more than two decades-that it is embarrassing to have to point them out to readers of this list in 1997. Evelyn Gajowski [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 13:54:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0440 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT I'm always in over my head when we start talking ideology, but having struggled with the ending of Winter's Tale in performance, I have some comments about our topic. Is it possible that the description of our ideological reaction to a text/performance might be descriptive rather than prescriptive? Adrian Kiernander and I have been talking about the heterosexual white male undercurrents in MND, and they were of course far stronger in that final scene of WT. As the actual father of the child who played Mamillius, I had an immediate insight into the bizarre cruelty of the last scene: he killed his son. However, it became equally important to realize that the scene is about completion and forgiveness, the total grace which is so rarely possible for us humans. Hermione simply forgives her husband. We are not given any great theological justification, she simply does it. I realize right away that this is equally an ideological interpretation of the scene. And I know that our audience, who had no reservations about the scene, that their reaction is ideological. We are all "victims" of our HWM heritage. Here's my point: we can permit our audience (and indeed ourselves) to be "sucked in" by this inexplicable scene, recognizing that it is their HWM ideology that causes this, we can permit this without overmuch "tut-tut"ing or "shame, shame"ing. Descriptive rather than prescriptive. That's the way we are; some of us may be desirous of changing our prison, but in the meantime, we're allowed to play within the walls. Dale Lyles<---not nearly as reactionary as he sounds Newnan Community Theatre Company [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Maruyama Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 17:57:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Ideology After observing all the discourse on ideology, and the premises that either one should look at text in isolation (New Critics) versus one should look at the ideology behind the text (Post-Modernist/Structuralist/New Historicism/etc), I can not help think that everything is driven by an ideology. The New Critics are not exactly separated from ideologies, even though many consider the idea of studying the well-wrought urn to be in total isolation of ideology. Selection of texts to be studied under this regime is often ideologically based. The Post-Modernists are running under the same ghosts. All of this stuff about ideology does not make the texts really accessible to the general public. The general public will watch a performance or a film of Shakespeare, but they will not bother reading a critical article in a journal. There is a ton of poetry being written on the East Coast under the guise of Language poetry, which is heavily driven by ideology, but it is totally inaccessible to the average reader. In other words, it is an elitist adventure targeted towards a small elitist audience. That might be fine. I just hate reading it. It bores me. Consider also why this discussion exists. I find Shakespeare to be interesting because of the wide variations of interpretations possible. A new performance of a play can change one's reading of the text. This is the gift of the Shakespeare. Ideologies are temporal things. They wax and wane continuously. How many schools of thought have existed since the beginnings of academic literary criticism? Has any really dominated the field continuously since the beginning? No. A new school of interpretation will become the vogue after this new school ends its cycle of domination. In the end, the only thing that remains is Shakespeare's tomes. That is how it should be. Just my 3 centavos, D. Maruyama [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 19:19:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT Dear Adrian, You do an excellent job of outlining some reasons that I might find my response to theatre ideological rather than aesthetic. However, I remain unconvinced. Am I only quibbling if I remind you that it's a play, and that to write "at least two people actually die" suggests a basic confusion on that point, a confusion which has often seemed to me to be at the root of some ideological (as opposed to aesthetic) responses? I most definitely do not subscribe to the "I am right, you have an opinion, s/he is ideological" school. So I wouldn't necessarily have said that your finding the play's ending nauseating was "ideological" unless you had said so. And whether yours is ideological or not and mine isn't, or mine is but in a different way, I wouldn't dream of saying that your reaction or anyone's is wrong or inadmissible. Are you saying it of mine? Or that my response is immoral? Does my response make me indifferent to domestic abuse and the deaths of innocents? Are we now incapable of holding that there is no such thing as a moral or an immoral play, that plays are either well-written or badly written? Is it too late in the day to say that all art (and all aesthetic response) is quite useless? I am appalled to hear the ending of *The Winter's Tale* called a "sentimental heterosexual male fantasy"-but I'll get over it. There are certainly grounds for viewing it so, and like you I can fully appreciate that any student who had suffered domestic abuse might feel "only negative towards the play's ending." I won't assume, however, that this would be (much less should be) that student's response. Further, I am struck by your characterization of Leontes and of the play as "heterosexual" (of the things you say about Leontes, it's the one that we probably really can't say) particularly in the light of the review that Montreal's Le Devoir gave a recent, very fine production of the play at the Centaur Theatre: the reviewer damned the production for overlooking the most obvious "fact" about the play-that Leontes's "jealousy" is sparked by his desire for Polixenes. When you write "I too am partly sucked in by the cultural signals which tell me I am supposed to approve and be happy at the conclusion," you presume too much about my response: I am blown away by the aesthetic power of the scene (which I think is a matter largely of form, structure, use of language, relation to tradition), and I would suggest that this may be what partly moves you, too. Certainly, what recognizing my response as ideological can do for me is a matter for me to decide. But I still don't know what I'm being asked to recognize. That I'm moved because a straight fuck who's abused his wife has a happy ending? Because the play is telling me wife abuse is OK since magically everything works out for the best? Neither the play nor my response can be reduced to such imputed messages, to say the least. Every account, every reading of the play will reduce the text and the response. That's why I don't claim that "all is aesthetic"-much less an absurdity such as that my aesthetic response or anyone else's arrives at any "full plenitude" of meaning-nor do I claim that there can be no ideological readings. A few days ago, Gabriel Egan spoke about "what Paul Hawkins calls an aesthetic response." The aesthetic response in question was "being moved." I had thought that even if an aesthetic response is reducible to ideology, at least no one is going to deny that people *have* aesthetic responses, that "aesthetic effect" is one of the things art achieves. But I guess not. So what does Gabriel call it, if not an aesthetic response, I wonder? Warmest regards, Paul [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 00:51:34 GMT Subject: Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT Adrian Kiernander's contribution on the ideological aesthetics of the last scene on The Winter's Tale is, as usual, right on target. Concerning Leontes's jealousy Kiernander writes: > At least two people actually die in consequence of > this jealous, proprietorial, royal, patriarchal and > erroneous access of passion. Then at the end, as if by > magic, a third supposedly dead person in the form of > the jealous man's wife comes back to life and forgives > him unreservedly. Imaginatively identifying with responses of something other than rapture, Kiernander goes on: > But I could easily understand and sympathise with an > reader--a female student who had suffered directly from > domestic violence for example--who felt only negative > towards the play's ending. Resistive reading may seem perverse from within the cultural norms of the text. If one is male, white, heterosexual, and able-bodied then rapture at the final reconciliation might seem the only reasonable response. As Kiernander reminds us, from outside those norms the text might be experienced in very different ways. The different responses are not conditioned by aesthetics (the language might still seem "burnished", whatever that means) but by lived experience of power relations. However, in hypothetical defense of the mad patriarch... Does anyone else find convincing the argument of B J Sokol (_Art and Illusion in the Winter's Tale_, Manchester UP, 1995) that Leontes is suffering from couvade syndrome? This, you might recall, is a peculiar malady which affects expectant fathers and causes symptoms ranging from mild neurosis to raging paranoid delusions. If one finds the final scene to be sugar-coated sentimentality, identifying Leontes's sickness might make it less nauseating. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 07:56:20 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0446 Re: Hamlet/Ophelia; Plea for Advice on Hamlet The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0446. Friday, 11 April 1997. [1] From: Nick Clary Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 11:27:33 -0400 Subj: Hamlet/Ophelia [2] From: Harry Teplitz Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 09:26:01 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Plea for Advice on Hamlet [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Clary Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 11:27:33 -0400 Subject: Hamlet/Ophelia Susan Keegan writes, "I think everyone is missing the boat on Ophelia. Consider the phrase, 'Frailty, they name is woman.' We have already seen Ophelia bow to pressure from both her brother and father, including handing over her mail to Polonius." Does it matter that Hamlet's remark is made in 1.2, before we have seen the bowings to pressure that you mention? Nick Clary [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Teplitz Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 09:26:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Plea for Advice on Hamlet This is yet another plea for advice on an upcoming production. Starting in a June, I will be directing Hamlet. I was hoping that with all the interest recently in Polonius and Ophelia, people might like to offer advice (other than "just say no"....), warnings, suggestions, etc. I've read a number of books discussing famous productions, including the very entertaining _Hamlet: A User's Guide_, which I highly recommend. The production will be a sort of community theater project. Most of the actors are recent graduates from UCLA, with varying amounts of experience. The theater will be small, the lights simple (or at least inexpensive), and the set minimal. My "concept" (although I've never been fond of that term) for the show is leaning towards a pretty activist Hamlet. I'm going to focus on his relationship to Claudius and his father more than Ophelia and Gertrude. I'm hoping to cut the play to no more than 2.5 hours, but to keep most of the characters (including Fortinbras). If anyone is interested in the details of my idea, please check out http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~teplitz/hamlet_concept.html. The document is a little long, so I thought it was better not to post the whole thing here. Thanks in advance for any thoughts you might have, either in email or posted here. -- Harry Teplitz ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 15:19:59 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0447 Re: Religious Biases; Currency; Pericles; Monkeys The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0447. Friday, 11 April 1997. [1] From: Kathryn M. Moncrief Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 17:06:42 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Religious Biases [2] From: James Marino Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 11:38:56 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0437 Qs: Elizabethan Currency [3] From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 14:55:00 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0436 Questions with Editor's Notes Attached [4] From: Pervez Rizvi Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 09:41:39 +0100 Subj: Monkeys [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathryn M. Moncrief Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 17:06:42 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Religious Biases In reply to Hilary Zunin's question about Shakespeare and religion, I urge you to check out Huston Diehl's terrific new book *Staging Reform, Reforming the Stage: Protestantism and Popular Theater in Early Modern England* that is just available from Cornell UP. Diehl analyzes tragedies by Kyd, Marlowe, Middleton, Webster, and Shakespeare and argues that Elizabethan and Jacobean drama is "both a product of the Protestant Reformation-a reformed drama-and a producer of Protestant habits of thought-a reforming drama." I especially like her careful examination of the religious controversies and what relationship they have to the stage. She makes clear the differences, conflicts and ruptures within Protestantism; how the dramas appropriate the rhetoric of Protestantism; and how they rehearse the stresses and changes wrought by the Reformation. You mentioned a particular interest in *Hamlet*: Check out chapter 5, "Censoring the Imaginary: The Wittenberg Tragedies." Kathryn M. Moncrief Dept. of English U of Iowa [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Marino Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 11:38:56 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0437 Qs: Elizabethan Currency Alfred Harbage, Shakespeare's Audience, contains a conversion table on p. 59. if that's not near to hand, Andrew Gurr supplies some equivalents on pp. 197-199 of the handy text The Shakespearean Stage, 1574-1642. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 14:55:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0436 Questions with Editor's Notes Attached I saw a production of Pericles in London which did exactly what you are proposing; kept Glower "onstage" but in the first row of the audience. Thus his later comments seemed to emerge from the spectators themselves. I recall it as being very effective (however, it was a very intimate theater). Annalisa Castaldo Temple University [4]---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pervez Rizvi Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 09:41:39 +0100 Subject: Monkeys I'd like to share the following observation, attributed to Prof. Robert Wilensky of the University of California at Berkeley: "We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 15:27:41 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0448 Qs: Prospero; Summer Festivals The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0448. Friday, 11 April 1997. [1] From: Ron Dwelle Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 12:58:45 -0400 Subj: Tempest query... [2] From: Jimmy Jung Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 10:21 -0500 Subj: Summer Festivals; especially New York and San Diego [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Dwelle Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 12:58:45 -0400 Subject: Tempest query... Can a date be identified at which the "autobiographical" view (Prospero as Shakespeare) was first expressed? Or has this view always been common? [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jimmy Jung Date: Thursday, 10 Apr 1997 10:21 -0500 Subject: Summer Festivals; especially New York and San Diego Does anyone know what plays are being planned for the Globe in San Diego, or in New York this summer? My boss is wanting me to travel, and I thought I might try and schedule to my advantage. jimmy For that matter, wasn't there a summer Shakespeare summary that used to be shown on this list or some web site? PPS In DC, the Shakespeare Theater will be doing Henry V from June 8th to the 22nd, outdoors at Carter Baron (for free). [Editor's Note: My list of Summer Festivals should be out in a few days in the most recent issue of *The Shakespeare Newsletter*. After publication, I'll post the list to the membership. HMC] ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 07:33:05 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0449 Re: Subtext The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0449. Saturday, 12 April 1997. [1] From: Harry Hill Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 07:43:58 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0444 Re: Subtext [2] From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 12:02:36 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0442 Qs: Subtext [3] From: Kila Burton Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 09:51:13 -0400 Subj: Subtext [4] From: Harry Teplitz Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 16:39:23 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Subtext [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 07:43:58 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0444 Re: Subtext Eric Armstrong seems to me to be talking sense, but there is of course subtext to what he writes as we only have the written words before us. I too do not use Strasbergian role-research methods but rely on the text, and I am still aware than as an actor I'm kidding myself. "Subtext" is created whenever one opens one mouth and makes an utterance that is inflected; the only "surface" reading would be the monotone of a machine, which in itself would of course provide a meaning that announces "I am a machine." "Madam how like you this?" is given a "subtext" whenever it is spoken. Taking this brief discussion to another part of the forest, I might add that subtext=inflection=interpretation and that it is this that causes the conflict of page and stage. I myself would rather read the plays than see them, as "my" Cleopatra is not realizable unless I direct it myself and not even then as I would have to act it. And not even then unless it were on film rather than renewing itself by alteration, augmentation eight times a week and dragged up off the floor on the Tuesdays after the dark Mondays. Where "subtext" is perilous, I'd say, is when characterization and the playing of moments rely on the performer's personal psychological apparatus rather than on the phonetic texture of the words, the perception of which of course is also subjective although less so. Thomas Heywood was probably right when he wrote some centuries ago that appropriate typecasting was more than half of the secret of successful performance of the text. Not only physical appearance but vocal makeup too. One of students in a Shakespeare class this year is blind. He joined me and some of the rest of the class at a recent production of *The Winter's Tale*, and was unable to feel Leontes' jealousy in any aural way at all as the actor had insufficient vocal equipment and gift; the sighted students could *see* it while finding something indefinably "wrong with his voice". The actor's father had died on day of the first dress rehearsal and was naturally bringing his filial rage and grief to his role; this had become part of his subtext, inaudible and largely invisible. He was even less able to respond to the physical demands of the particular words. In another Shakespeare production a year ago a fellow actor could not, as Octavius Caesar, make one of his entrances until he could "feel his motivation"; this Strasbergian flaw could only be remedied homeopathically by my talking to him in the wings as Lepidus and asking him often what was the content of the letter he had just received about Antony so that he could be propelled onstage in an infuriated informative mood and mode. Subtext and motivation sleep in the same incestuous sheets. Harry Hill [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 12:02:36 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0442 Qs: Subtext It's some combination of the work of writers and readers, in the case of a play the author(s), director(s), actor(s) and audience(s), who create the (appearance of a) subtext. So there's no definitive answer to the question of whether or not there IS a subtext in Shakespeare. I've seen Shakespeare productions where there seemed to be an attempt to explore subtext, and have acted in and observed rehearsals of productions where I know there was. Just as I've seen and worked on productions that avoided subtextual thinking like the plague. It partly comes down to working methods. If a director or whoever wants the production to work through subtexts then it's possible to create (or reveal) them. If not, you can deal with everything up front. (But I suppose an audience member accustomed to viewing in those terms can always read in subtexts, even where none have been deliberately or consciously explored within a production.) Ariane Mnouchkine is one notable director who chooses to deny the usefulness of thinking in terms of subtexts in Shakespeare. Subtext is the death of theatre, and diverts the actor from "acting". (She also says there is no psychology in Shakespeare, and in her vocabulary "psychologism" is one of the most pejorative insults available.) According to her, the meaning of the text lies on the surface; and in the rhetorical, delamatory style in which she directed her Shakespeare cycle it would be almost impossible to do irony. The Shakespeare productions which she mounted in the early 1980s are in part a consequence of that way of approaching/thinking about theatre. Adrian Kiernander [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kila Burton Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 09:51:13 -0400 Subject: Subtext I've always understood that there was no opposing subtext, i.e. if someone says .."thou speakest well of fools", this would not be an example of irony, or sarcasm, but truth. The theory was that in his time, there was little use of irony among Shakespeare's characters. This is a contemporary spin. Same with rhetorical questions-when a character asks "how like you this play?" the character expect an anser and genuinely wants to know. The subtext lies in the motivations behind the need to know. Kila Burton dcl@lanlaw.com [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Teplitz Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 16:39:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Subtext Here's another interpretation of the "no subtext" issue. I've always understood that no subtext meant that characters in Shakespeare plays have lines that are closely related to what they feel. This does not mean that these lines do not have multiple interpretations (by stressing different words, for example, as one poster noted). But it does mean that they don't tend to talk about the weather when they really want to talk about the death of their mother. A modern play will often have a line like "would you like some tea", where the actor is required to convey the full depth of her feelings about another character with no other opportunity to express them. These feelings may not even be discussed explicitly anywhere in the play. It is the actor's and director's job to make the audience understand what is really going on beneath the text-the subtext. In a Shakespeare play there may be moments of forced civility, but there is rarely (never?) an example of characters with strong feelings who do not express them to either each other or to the audience; certainly, not strong feelings on which events in the play are later to hinge. A modern play does not necessarily ever give characters the chance to express their feelings, but Shakespeare always does. Also, no subtext is similar to characters never keeping a secret from or lying to the audience, but not exactly the same. A character could easily be very obvious in their emotional relationships, while still not warning the audience of their devious plan. This would be someone with no subtext, but who lied to the audience. I do agree, though, that part of what a lack of subtext implies is that actors must act "ON the lines". And more than that, they must "act the lines". I don't think this means one can't have an overall psychological point of view for a character, but I think it is very risky to play any substantial amount of text to mean something other than what it says. Well, I'm sure I've rambled on enough for now.... -- Harry Teplitz UCLA Shakespeare Reading and Performance Group ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 07:52:16 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0450 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0450. Saturday, 12 April 1997. [1] From: Harry Hill Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 08:59:33 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0445 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [2] From: Lee Gibson Date: Friday, 11 Apr 97 07:47 CDT Subj: Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [3] From: Mark Mann Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 12:26:40 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0445 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [4] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 12:33:29 -0400 (EDT) Subj: ideology: the aesthetics of wt [5] From: Derek Wood Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 13:45:25 -0900 (PDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0445 Re: Winter's Tale [6] From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 19:46:06 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Leontes' Ailment (Re: SHK 8.0445) [7] From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 01:21:17 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0445 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 08:59:33 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0445 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT Ideology: Othello & Sister Mary Ignatius This week I read an essay by a Roman Catholic student who works part-time for nuns of Order of St.Anne. She objects to Chrstopher Durang's *Sister Mary Ignatiuus Explains It All For You* on the grounds that nuns don't kill, and further that Durang has little right to take away from the joys and satisfactions of this religion. She was unable to comment on the play qua play, of course. I told SHAKSPER two years ago about another student who, upon hearing the possibly apocryphal story about the theatregoer who was so carried away by the naturalism of Johnston Forbes-Roberton's acting of Othello as he came to murder his wife that he lept onstage to take the actor/man by the nightie and declare "Leave her alone, you big black brute!", cautioned me, who was RELATING the tale as an illustration of Arthur Kostler's definition of `appropriate artistic response', to remember that {to quote her) "Not all black men are brutes." I myself refused, some years ago, to remain in a satirical revue if a sketch in which homosexuals were derided were not excised. Yet I can, because although I am a member of human family I am a Gentile, listen to the Ride of the Walkuere without accessing the image of the gates of the dreadful concentration camp that played the piece, read *The Road Not Taken* without remembering that Frost may well have been the unpleasant man is reputed to have been. In other words, I choose only sometimes to tell the dancer from the dance, depending upon my personal closeness to stances taken. It impossible for me to exercise the cosmic charity shown by Adrian Kieranander who appears in his latest contribution to worry about women in a *Winter's Tale* audience who have suffered abuse from their husbands. After the death of my father, for a few months, nay not so much, I could not bring myself to go to a movie that had anything explicitly to do with dying, but freely acknowledged others' desire and right to do so. Am I perhaps then not the elitist aesthete I think I am? Is it especially gracious of me to absorb the work of Picasso although he was a heterosexual ladykiller and to read my own kind of fleshly love in the love poems of, say, Donne? Is it homosexual of me to find the love of Lear's Fool moving? Is it capitalist white patriarchal of me find the quandaries of a Danish blueblood relevant to this descendant of Border sheepstealers? Hardly: Sarah Bernhardt as Hamlet and Fiona Shaw as Richard, both born without rank and title, could show me "his" problems and his mind without frontally bulging tights. I would have to play Othello with dark makeup to make my pale Scots face appropriate for a stage rendering; as I am I can play almost any older woman of almost any ethnic kind, to meet with objection from some members of an audience who are, as most are, unable to leave all baggage in the cloakroom provided. Harry Hill [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lee Gibson Date: Friday, 11 Apr 97 07:47 CDT Subject: Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT A recent contributor writes: "The juvenile name-calling to which this ideology discussion sometimes descends ("You're ideological; I'm not") is based upon a false binary opposition. We are all ideologically informed: some us own up to this fact; some of us don't." And the statement that "we are all ideologically informed" is a simple categorical assertion. This is to make life too easy for oneself. Lee Gibson Department of English Southern Methodist University [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Mann Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 12:26:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0445 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT I find it significant in WT's final scene, that at no time does Hermione speak to Leontes. Indeed, her only speech begins as an invocation to the gods, and then she speaks directly to Perdita, saying how she "preserved" herself to see the completion of the Oracle's prophecy. In the 1993 production I directed for Actor's Theatre in Columbus ( a Shakes. in the Park), our Hermione ( Mary Ann Best, the finest Hermione I have ever seen), extended her hand to Leontes, he took it rather tentatively, then helped her from the pedestal, but before they embraced, there was a long look between them which made it clear that a 16 year gulf still existed between them, and Leontes in his shame, knelt before her. The ending of the play is not a happy one, in the classic sense of "the queen is back and all is forgiven". She forgives, but cannot forget-it becomes instead, at least for our production's purposes, merely the completion of a series of events, and the older generation simply fulfills their part of a grand scheme. Even Paulina recognizes her part is finished-and we understand that it is to Perdita and Florizel that this world now belongs. Bittersweet, sad, romantic in a way that tells us " You must awaken your faith." I believe that it merely strengthens Shakespeare's conception of Hermione as the perfect woman, indeed the perfect human-who held fast to her beliefs, both religious and otherwise, who loved beyond the limits of most. Unreal? Perhaps, but perfect for a Winter's TALE.............cheers, Mark Mann [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 12:33:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ideology: the aesthetics of wt To Evelyn Gajowski: I am fully prepared to accept my response as ideological, as I said in a recent post, and what mostly interests me is the "authority" and "use" of an ideological description of my (or anyone's) aesthetic response, as I said at the beginning of the thread. The problem is that none of the ideological accounts offered describes my experience, as I have tried to say. What's the matter? Are you not used to academic discussions with people who don't already agree with you? Paul [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Derek Wood Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 13:45:25 -0900 (PDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0445 Re: Winter's Tale > If one finds the final scene to be sugar-coated sentimentality, > identifying Leontes's sickness might make it less nauseating. > > Gabriel Egan That comment prompts me to dare to ask a naive question that falls infinitely short of the subtlety of the ideological debate. Does Hermione forgive Leontes? I know she "embraces" him, as Paulina prompts the motions of reconciliation, and in the eyes of Camillo she "hangs about his neck." Goodnatured, warmhearted, charitable, reconciling Camillo: that is how he sees the embrace. But Hermione has words only for her daughter. "Our Perdita is found" makes her speak. She blesses her daughter, overwhelms her with a rush of urgent questions and seems to have lived only in the hope of once again seeing her daughter ("preserv'd Myself to see the issue." She has no words for her husband. Is this only a token forgiveness? Remember Prospero's forgiveness of his "unnatural" brother:"For you, most wicked sir, whom to call brother / Would even infect my mouth, I do forgive / Thy rankest fault...." I wonder if this is such "sugar coated sentimentality"? Derek Wood, St. Francis Xavier University. [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 19:46:06 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Leontes' Ailment (Re: SHK 8.0445) I've been staying well away from the stench of the ideology arguments (What does it all matter? Why argue about it?), but Gabriel Egan makes the interesting comments: > >Does anyone else find convincing the argument of B J Sokol (_Art and Illusion in the Winter's Tale_, Manchester UP, 1995) that Leontes is suffering from couvade syndrome...? If one finds the final scene to be sugar-coated sentimentality, identifying Leontes's sickness might make it less nauseating.<< In the Houston production of TWT (at Rice's Baker College) which I recently directed, the actors playing Leontes and Hermione found most useful a simple discussion of the two as extrovert vs. introvert in the context of Myers-Briggs personality profiles. I.ii shows an obvious verbal (and, perhaps, social) facility on the part of Hermione-and, indeed, Polixenes-which Leontes is almost totally lacking. We played Polixenes' visit as the first since their marriages or coronations (take your pick) (Camillo mentions gifts and embassages, but never a previous face-to-face), and the tension of this first meeting in decades, coupled with Leontes' adult awareness of his "disability", engendered the jealousy. My Assistant Director mentioned that Myers-Briggs INT's (Introverted iNtuitive Thinkers) are apparently wont to get over-involved in analysis to the point at which they perceive feelings and motivations on the part of others which are not there. So Leontes' jealousy seems to be able to proceed quite naturally from the "history" and situation of the play and characters, without needing to graps for couvade syndrome or the previous generation's favorite claim of schizophrenia (which one blue-haired patron of our performance insisted was the true key to it all). And, oddly enough, our homosexual thoughts tended more towards a Camillo-Polixenes pairing... (we didn't play it, but it would have made Leonte's jealousy all the more unreasonable!) As to the ending? The script makes clear from every pore of its being that Hermione is little less than a saint. I find those moving in almost any context, dramatic or realistic, no matter what the gender, ethnicity, or sexual preference of their consorts. To me, V.iii is as much about Hermione as Leontes, and we played it as such. (A comment to Paulina to justify her extensive catalog of lines calling Hermione down off the platform-"What if Hermione's not ready yet? What if she decided not to go along with it? What if she thinks you're jumping the gun?") My thought about Shakespearean plays which I find ethically dubious is that I just haven't found the right way to "see" the staging or the characterization. I've had trouble, but come to artistic/theatrical grips with many of the comedies and romances that way. Now if only I can find a way to enjoy The Two Gentlemen.... [7]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 01:21:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0445 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT It occurs to me that the question of "ideology" playing a role in the CONSTRUCTION of Leontes' jealous (or, better, possessive and suspicious) character is actually addressed IN "the play itself"-in the scene in which Autolycus is peddling his ballads to the clown and the two women he's either wooing or being wooed by..."COME TO THE PEDDLER, MONEY'S A MEDDLER"- A close reading of this scene provides a miscrocosmic commentary on the ideology that informs Leontes' attitudes and behaviors towards women and towards his subjects.... and I believe this is its function. I don't know if anyone else has done any work on this "analogical scene" (to borrow Joan Hartwig's term) in this play, but I think it is important to see this use of indirect commentary and critique on the "forgiven" "wife abuser" is IN the play, and challenges the simple "miraculous" ending-even as it clears the way for it and lets us be "taken in" as if such a need is basic, essentially human, or what-have-you. Of course, we must "awaken our faith" to believe that not only Hermione but also Leontes IS actually alive, and LARGER THAN LIFE, unlike the "reductive" or "realistic" clown Autolycus is peddling his misogynistic (or at least oversuspicious) wares to..... And, has it occured to anyone else, that Leontes' last lines'--- "HASTILY lead away...." may be INTENDED to indicate that he has returned to his earlier haste, and inability to "lve in uncertainties without irritably groping" etc? --Chris Stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 07:56:57 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0451 Re: Hamlet and Ophelia The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0451. Saturday, 12 April 1997. [1] From: Jacqueline Strax Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 11:20:37 +0000 Subj: Hamlet/Ophelia.... and Gertrude (long) [2] From: James Marino Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 08:23:14 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0434 Re: Hamlet and Ophelia [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacqueline Strax Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 11:20:37 +0000 Subject: Hamlet/Ophelia.... and Gertrude (long) Susan Keegan writes: " I think everyone is missing the boat on Ophelia. Consider the phrase, 'Frailty, they name is woman.' We have already seen Ophelia bow to pressure from both her brother and father, including handing over her mail to Polonius." Nick Clary responds: "Does it matter that Hamlet's remark is made in 1.2, before we have seen the bowings to pressure that you mention?" Yes, it does. And it connects with recent threads on Oedipus and Hamlet's telling his mother not to do as he tells her to do-let Claudius tempt her into bed. Regarding this ("Not this, by no means, that I bid you do") I'd recall how, commonly, grownups say"Do what I say, not what I do." Hamlet, frail son lecturing frail mother, won't acknowledge that he himself has done *this.* In 1.2. Hamlet uses _frailty_ in a specific sense in which bowing to pressure arises out of weakness of what St. Paul calls the flesh. In 1.2 Hamlet hasn't seen Ophelia bowing to pressure from brother and father (nor, I would argue, does Ophelia cave totally in the scenes in question-in her way she is resistant. In IV.v, in her madness-"Say you? Nay, pray you mark"-she asserts unyielded bits of her opinion, judgment, and conscience). Focusing on "frailty": if from the start Hamlet has made love with Ophelia, or desired it, then his generalization "Frailty thy name is woman" covers and is sparked by her as well as Gertrude. His views of Ophelia and Gertrude are mutually reinforcing. Well. Oughtn't his blame of Gertrude for falling for Claudius differ in quality (not just degree) from any he directs toward Ophelia for falling (perhaps into bed) for/with him? If not, how can he blame/loathe Claudius so vehemently? Claudius is a incestuous murderer. Yet concerning frailty, generalization won't stop at women. And if Hamlet seems trapped in a misogynism whereby women's flesh is frail because of Eve, in actuality, he loathes not just his uncle's but his no less his own flesh. Whence his conviction of superiority to Claudius? This line can be pursued to a Freudian endpoint. Hamlet can't forgive his kinship with Claudius because he envies Claudius just as (unconsciously) he envied his father. Further-a Freudian reading might benefit from how "Frailty thy name is woman" applies as much to Gertrude's passion for Hamlet's father as for Claudius: "Why, she would hang on him / As if increase of appetite had grown / By what it fed on; and yet within a month-" (I.2.143-145). The Ghost talks of how "lust" will "sate itself in a celestial bed" (I.v.55). Put material flesh, a body, on the Ghost's image of the male partner as radiant angel, and Gertrude's satiation with her first husband is a sweaty as in those later, incestuous sheets. Indeed, the earlier sheets probably got stained with the "dew" of ejaculation (if Hamlet was conceived there). Shakespeare was as much a worried Calvinist as a premature Freudian. Hamlet lets himself be seduced (rather than reasoned) into dissolving kinship between his flesh and Claudius's. The corrosive compound, a contradictory ideology of election. Salvation as princely due. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Marino Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 08:23:14 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0434 Re: Hamlet and Ophelia Susan Keegan's reading of "Frailty, thy name is woman" receives support from Viola's view at 2.2.30 of TN: "Alas, our frailty is the cause, not we,/For such as we are made of such we be." And it demonstrates the distance between that psychology and ours. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 08:01:14 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0452 Re: Summer Festivals; The Diviners The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0452. Saturday, 12 April 1997. [1] From: Skip Nicholson Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 14:08:19 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0448 Qs: Prospero; Summer Festivals [2] From: Mark Mann Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 19:45:33 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0448 Qs: Prospero; Summer Festivals [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Nicholson Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 14:08:19 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0448 Qs: Prospero; Summer Festivals The next issue of Shakespeare Magazine will also have information on summer festivals. For information about the Old Globe in San Diego, try their web site at http://www.virtually.com/oldglobe/home.html Cheers, Skip Nicholson [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Mann Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 19:45:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0448 Qs: Prospero; Summer Festivals The Arden Shakespeare Company, in Columbus, Ohio, is preparing to open its next production-Jim Leonard, Jr.'s The Diviners, preview performance is Thursday, April 17 at 7:30, then it runs 3 weekends afterwards, all curtain times 8:00 pm except for a Sunday matinee April 27 at 2:00 pm. Performances are held at Columbus State Community College's Nestor Auditorium, 550 E. Spring St. in downtown Columbus. Call (614)274-8807 for info. ....cheers, Mark Mann...Art. Dir. Arden Shakes. Co ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 08:04:01 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0453 Early Modern Studies Conference at Harvard The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0453. Saturday, 12 April 1997. From: Ian Munro Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 20:46:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Early Modern Studies Conference at Harvard, April 26-27, 1997 Dear SHAKSPERians, The following conference announcement may be of interest: PSYCHOANALYSIS & HISTORICISM IN EARLY MODERN STUDIES Saturday, April 26 and Sunday, April 27, 1997 Boylston Auditorium Harvard University Free and Open to the Public PARTICIPANTS INCLUDE: Elizabeth Bellamy, Tom Conley, Lynn Enterline, Marjorie Garber, David Hillman, Ann Rosalind Jones, Jeffrey Masten, Carla Mazzio, Ian Munro, Karen Newman, Katharine Park, Susan Phillips, James R. Siemon, Kathryn Schwarz, Peter Stallybrass, Valerie Traub, Douglas Trevor, Nancy Vickers, Eric Wilson and Abby Zanger. THE TENTATIVE SCHEDULE IS AS FOLLOWS: SATURDAY > Morning Coffee 8:45 I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 9:15 Carla Mazzio, Douglas Trevor, and Eric Wilson II. HISTORY AND THE FETISH 9:45-10:45 Panel Chair: Jeffrey Masten (Harvard University) "Fetishisms and Renaissances," Ann Rosalind Jones (Smith College) and Peter Stallybrass (University of Pennsylvania) "Abel Drugger's Sign," Eric Wilson (Harvard University) III. CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION 11:00-12:00 Panel Chair: Susan Phillips (Harvard University) "Montaigne Among the Cannibals," Elizabeth Bellamy (University of New Hampshire) "Cannibals in Ilium," David Hillman (Harvard University) > > Lunch Break 12:00-2:00 IV. RHETORICAL QUESTIONS 2:00- 3:30 Panel Chair: Marjorie Garber (Harvard University) "'The Interpretation of Dreams' c.1659," Jeffrey Masten (Harvard University) "Ovid and the Erotics of Elizabethan Pedagogy," Lynn Enterline (Yale University) "The Oral Stage," Carla Mazzio (Harvard University) V. MIRRORING DESIRE 3:45-4:45 Panel Chair: Katharine Park (Wellesley College) "Identifying Lesbians," Valerie Traub (University of Michigan) "Breaking the Mirror Stage," Kathryn Schwarz (Vanderbilt University) Reception, Ticknor Lounge, Boylston Hall 5:00-6:00 SUNDAY Morning Coffee 9:00 VI. PLACES AND DISPLACEMENTS 9:30-10:30 Panel Chair: Abby Zanger (Harvard University) > "Towards an Imaginary Topography," Karen Newman (Brown University) > "The Graphic City," Tom Conley (Harvard University) "Dream of Fields," James R. Siemon (Boston University) > > VII. LEGACIES 11:15-12:15 > Panel Chair: Ian Munro (Harvard University) "Montaigne's Dead Letters," Douglas Trevor (Harvard University) > "Second-Best Bed," Marjorie Garber (Harvard University) > > Concluding Remarks/Discussion 12:30-1:30 > Nancy J. Vickers This conference is sponsored by the Center for Literary and Cultural Studies at Harvard University. For any program changes, visit the Web Site on or after April 15th: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~psyconf ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 08:10:35 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0454 Survey Of Undergraduate Teaching Of Shakespeare The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0454. Saturday, 12 April 1997. From: Bill Griffin Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 16:45:56 -0400 Subject: Survey Of Undergraduate Teaching Of Shakespeare Dear Colleagues: In an attempt to find out how Shakespeare is taught to undergraduates, I surveyed the members of the Shakespeare Association of America in the fall of 1995 on their undergraduate teaching. Results of this survey will be published this spring in the spring issue of Shakespeare and the Classroom, published at Ohio Northern University, Ada, Ohio, 45810. Now I'd like to ask members of the SHAKSPER list to respond to the same survey. The questions may look more complicated than they are, mostly because I spend some time putting them into context. I've numbered the actual questions. Please respond to them in the length you feel appropriate and feel free to insert responses directly after questions. If you would be interested in receiving a copy of the outcome of this study, let me know and I'll be happy to send you one. Please let me know, too, whether you would be willing to be interviewed at some later time about your teaching. Thank you in advance for responding to this survey. If possible, I'd like to have your responses by the middle of May. Send them to: bgriffin@saturn.vcu.edu Bill Griffin English Department Virginia Commonwealth University PO 842005 Richmond, VA 23284 ---------------------- DEMOGRAPHICS: 1) Name: 2) Institution: 3) When and where did you receive your graduate training? 4) How long have you been teaching undergraduate Shakespeare courses? GOALS/PURPOSE: Articles in recent teaching issues of Shakespeare Quarterly reveal a range of goals or emphases for Shakespeare classes: In some classes, students learn to examine critically ideological frameworks they encounter in their study, in others to read and interpret the plays, in others to develop their own answers to disturbing questions raised by the plays, and in still others to understand and enjoy Shakespeare in the theatre. 5) What are the goals or purposes of your undergraduate Shakespeare course? APPROACHES TO TEACHING: In Teaching Shakespeare Today, Ed. James E. Davis and Ronald E. Salomone, Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1993, Robert F. Willson, Jr., describes how he encourages students to make connections (among situations, types of characters, themes) as they analyze Shakespeare's growth as a dramatist (48-57), while Ronald Strickland tells how he juxtaposes texts (e.g., a high school and college text of Romeo and Juliet) in order to examine the institutional assumptions and conceptual frames that have shaped Shakespeare as a body of knowledge (168-79). My own approach has evolved from one that worked from the outside in, beginning with a thesis about a thematic or structural pattern which I then tried to lead students to see, to one that operates from the inside out: Beginning with questions about particular moments (what is this speaker feeling, how is this character reacting, etc.), we gradually work our way outward to larger shapes and patterns. 6) What is your approach to teaching Shakespeare in undergraduate courses? CRITICAL APPROACHES: In his introduction to the Summer 1990 teaching issue of SQ, Ralph Alan Cohen notes that current political and critical perspectives have "problematized" the teaching of Shakespeare. 7) How has your current teaching of undergraduates been influenced by some of the more recently developed critical approaches such as semiotics, deconstruction, feminism, object relations psychology, new historicism, cultural materialism, etc.? METHODS: 8) What methods and/or combination of methods are most congenial to your style of teaching Shakespeare to undergraduates? A) Lecture: When do you lecture and why? Do you, for example, lecture on theatrical and cultural contexts for the plays; do you give introductory lectures to the plays being studied? B) Discussion: How do you make use of class discussion? Is your purpose in a discussion more to lead students to see a point or more just to stimulate them to raise questions? C) Performance: What performance strategies (if any) do you use in teaching the plays? What are you able to accomplish by using in-class performance? D) Film: Do you use film to teach Shakespeare? If so, how and when do you use it? E) Computers: Do you use computers in teaching? If so, how? F) Writing Assignments: What kinds of papers do you generally assign and what do you expect students to be able to do in these papers? VALUE/IMPORTANCE: Here are three statements about the value or importance of studying Shakespeare: "Perhaps the most important lesson we learn, if we can, is what it feels like to be someone else." Harry Levin ". . . to increase what we know so as to heighten our sense of excitement and awe before what we know we can never know." Homer Swander "The importance of Shakespeare's plays for me . . . is that they allow us, in 'a local habitation,' to understand more fully, to feel more deeply, questions that, in other habitations, touch us all. . . ." Michael J. Collins 9) What is your sense of the value or importance of Shakespeare in an undergraduate curriculum? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 08:15:10 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0455 Re: The Fool; Pericles; Thanks The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0455. Saturday, 12 April 1997. [1] From: David Evett Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 15:39 ET Subj: SHK 8.0438 Re: Folger Ham.; Var [2] From: Kila Burton Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 09:31:57 -0400 Subj: Pericles - Gower [3] From: Frank Whigham Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 07:32:39 -0500 Subj: Thanks [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 15:39 ET Subject: SHK 8.0438 Re: Folger Ham.; Var Robert Marks' use of the Fool's unacknowledged disappearance from the text as an argument for his identification of the Fool with Cordelia ignores the fact that this disappearance is not unique. Two other Shakespearean servants who have demonstrated extraordinary fidelity to their masters, in forms contrary to their own self-interest, likewise disappear without further notice once the service has been rendered. Pisanio in *Cym* is presumably still on stage at the end of the play, but despite his material contributions to Innogen's escape from the plots of the Queen, Cloten, and Iachimo, once his purely expository duties in Act 5 are finished he speaks no more, and is never formally thanked or rewarded. Adam in *AYL* is even more relevant; having left his home of 80 years and turned over his retirement savings to Orlando, then followed the youngster into the wild woods to the point of exhaustion, he's dropped without a word. On the evidence, we are not obliged to suppose that the Fool is not, in fact, still around: it could be quite striking and moving for him to come running on at the very end, having finally caught up, to confront the tragic loading of the stage, especially if cast young. Servilely, David Evett [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kila Burton Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 09:31:57 -0400 Subject: Pericles - Gower I've been involved in 3 productions of Pericles, twice as director, and in all three Gower was on stage for most of the play, either as observer only, or as an active mover of the action. In one production, Gower was a blind seer, narrating the story and offering insight. In this same production, I did also take on the role of the Bawd, as well, or rather, Gower became the Bawd, but you don't have that option. However, that point was the only time Gower left the stage, and only to don the Bawd's costume-the costume was removed before the eyes of the audience. In a second production, composed of 4th & 5th graders. Gower was divided between three people, who in concert, created all the physical circumstances. In this production, Gower didn't simply tell the story as it played out, but wrote and even seeming to re-write as time went on. Kila Burton dcl@lanlaw.com [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frank Whigham Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 07:32:39 -0500 Subject: Thanks Thanks to everyone who provided help with my suicide query. Frank ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 08:17:07 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0456 Teaching AWW The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0456. Saturday, 12 April 1997. From: Julie Bleha Date: Friday, 11 Apr 1997 09:13:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: All's Well.. I am going to be teaching a summer course on Shakes. Comedy to 16- and 17-year olds this summer, and will be using 3 plays: Much Ado, MND, and for the third, was thinking of All's Well. A professor of mine suggested this latter choice might be interesting, because it's *supposed* to be a comedy, but in fact, the main story of the play is not a particularly joyous one. (Of course, we could mention Hero and Claudio in Much Ado, but since they are thankfully overshadowed by the B & B scenario, the mood of the play in general needn't be read as particularly down - though I have heard of such interpretations given in some productions). Therefore, we'd use the play to discuss how comedy is supposed to function (kind of like looking at a blueprint of comedy, or to use the language of the photographic process, a 'negative' image of comedy), and we'd try to figure out how AW differs from its approach to and use of the comedic form, in relation to the other two plays. My question to the list is this: has anybody taught All's Well to a younger group of students, and if so, what was your experience? I originally was thinking of LLL, but found that too daunting a prospect to consider..... Thanks in advance, Julie Bleha jb246@columbia.edu========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:12:11 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0457 Re: Subtext The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0457. Monday, 14 April 1997. [1] From: Hilary Zunin Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 10:17:41 -0700 Subj: Subtext [2] From: Norm Holland Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 97 14:16:21 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0449 Re: Subtext [3] From: Stephan B. Paragon Date: Sunday, 13 Apr 1997 05:41:26 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0444 Re: Subtext [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hilary Zunin Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 10:17:41 -0700 Subject: Subtext A subtext anecdote: After taking students to see a professional production of The Taming of the Shrew, several actors come out to respond to audience questions. One young woman asked Kate what she was thinking during her final speech and what she was trying to get across. The response? Pardon my paraphrase: "Our job isn't to interpret; it's to give you the lines as Shakespeare gave them to us. We don't want to propagandize. We want you to discover the meaning." "Bull----!" mumbled the student. This, from a fifteen year old. During the ride home she and her peers berated the actor for copping out. In their minds every choice, from decisions regarding the performing of each line, to costumes, to music, to blocking, all informed the subtext. Oh, the joys of so-called "naive" audiences! [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 97 14:16:21 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0449 Re: Subtext To this reader-response critic, the very term "subtext" introduces the confusions usual when one attributes to a text (sheets of paper) things that are really the activities of readers, audience, or, in this case, actors. That is, a given reader or audience member may interpret a passage (say, Polonius' advice to Laertes) "straight" or as the babblings of an old fool or the advice of a worldly and corrupt courtier. WS's words remain the same, the meaning differs, and then a critic comes along and attributes this new meaning (from somebody's reading) to a "subtext." The actor's position is a little different. He (if Polonius) uses facial expression, tone of voice, gesture, body articulation, and all the rest to facilitate one interpretation of the speech and make others less available. In doing so, he does exactly what all of us do when we speak to someone in everyday life. I use my smile, my tone, my hands to try to make sure my hearers "get" what I want them to get. This is not always successful, of course, and a gesture I might make meaning OK to an American are insulting to a Brazilian. So the actor needs to be sure he or she is using the codes of the culture in customary ways. Where is "subtext" in all this? Always a good question, as I was taught in philosophy. I know where "text" is, but where is "subtext"? In somebody's mind, I take it. I read the "sub" as a confusing metaphor of location. Some kinds of meanings are "under" others. Hmmmm. Reminds me of my students' complaints about "deep meanings." Or perhaps I could construe "sub" as the trace of a verb-past participle: submerged or subsumed. In that case, who or what did the submerging or subsuming? The main text? WS? The actor? All such confusions vanish like the great globe itself if we simply remember that it is we who construe not texts that do things or hide things or reveal things to us. Texts are inanimate things, all our glamorizing metaphors to the contrary notwithstanding. --Best, Norm Holland [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephan B. Paragon Date: Sunday, 13 Apr 1997 05:41:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0444 Re: Subtext Ghost's are not always spirits. But may be our own conscience fighting back. Proving once again that truth may be more powerful than fiction. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:37:54 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0458 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0458. Monday, 14 April 1997. [1] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 08:44:26 -0400 Subj: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [2] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 08:45:42 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [3] From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 08:49:42 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0450 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [4] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 12:51:46 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0450 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [5] From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Sunday, 13 Apr 1997 12:22:50 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0450 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [6] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Sunday, 13 Apr 1997 16:16:28 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [7] From: Thomas Bishop Date: Sunday, 13 Apr 1997 17:43:11 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0450 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 08:44:26 -0400 Subject: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT It remains the case, whatever Paul Hawkins's squirm-making 'love' of Shakespeare urges, that an eye-witness account of a performance of The Winter's Tale at the Globe Theatre in London, on Wednesday, the 15th May, 1611, reports an experience quite different from anything a modern theatre-goer might envisage. It is sentimentality of a high degree to reply that the production so meticulously recorded must therefore somehow have omitted the scenes we allegedly treasure most. A sterner prospect is that -for reasons which have a great deal to do with ideology- the eye-witness didn't find them particularly striking. The central point was made long ago. The past is another country. They do things differently there. Terence Hawkes [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 08:45:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT Gabriel Egan suggests that to identify Leontes's sickness might make the play's ending less nauseating. A little imagination might do the job as well. Paul [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 08:49:42 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0450 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT Multiple responses here. Hopefully I can quote selectively while still writing intelligibly.... Mark Mann comments on his blocking of V.iii for a 1993 Columbus OH WT: > >Our Hermione... extended her hand to Leontes, he took it rather tentatively, then helped her from the pedestal, but before they embraced... a long look between them made it clear that a 16 year gulf still existed....<< I agree with the still-extant gulf: our Houston Leontes made the rather touching comment that, after the play (if the fierce literary critics on the list will let me get away with mentioning such a time!), Leontes and Hermione might end up as "just two people who happen to live together in the same castle." Interestingly enough, we had the touch ("Oh, she's warm!") instigated by Leontes, drawing from Paulina's "Nay, present your hand," etc., as Hermione descended towards him from the pedestal under her own power. The touch of hands led fairly fluidly into an embrace, here begun by Hermione... but the nice thing about a tight clinch in this case is that it keeps the characters from having to look at one another. We held that embrace for a long time, only breaking for Perdita's introduction, when Hermione's attention had an obvious new point to shift to. Derek Wood follows further along in the scene, with the question: > >Does Hermione forgive Leontes? I know she "embraces" him... but Hermione has words only for her daughter. "Our Perdita is found" makes her speak.... She has no words for her husband. Is this only a token forgiveness?<< One aspect of V.iii that I haven't seen mentioned is that our reaction to Leontes and his crime, and the likelihood (indeed, desirability!) of Hermione's forgiveness, ought very much to depend on how his sixteen years "alone" (sans wife, sans son, sans trusted and worthy courtiers Camillo and Antigonus-Cleomenes and Dion are mighty pale replacements) in Sicily are portrayed. On the one hand, you could view Paulina's maintenance of the charade (and continual reminders of Leontes' crimes, too often to my mind played for comedy rather than grief) as extraordinarily cruel: what kind of woman is she, to go "twice or thrice a day to that removed house" where Hermione lives in exile, and as often to bop back to court to torment the suffering monarch? Who is Paulina to spend so long so close to Leontes, a vulture pecking continuously at his suffering Prometheus? Note that I do not claim she's a heartless harridan: just that there are two sides to this "ideological" debate over who is most monstrous. To me, the question of why Hermione waits for so long amidst Leontes over-evident and abject sorrow is at least as interesting as the more famous one of whence springs his jealousy in the first place. Certainly, it has to do with the dictates of the plot (!). Our Hermione, Paulina, and I conceived of the delay as springing from several sources: an over-rapid decision by our rash Paulina (the presentation of infant Perdita was none too clever, in timing or logic!) to claim Hermione's death in order to free her of Leontes' wrath; the obvious difficulty and embarassment in admitting to said false death even when the king's sorrow was most clear; the shock of the accusations, premature birth, trial, and Mamillius' death "breaking" Hermione into an introverted state in sharp contrast to her previous extroversion.... A host of character-oriented explanations to help the actresses play their roles more convincingly. Both Hermione and Leontes are wounded people, in their own ways, and V.iii hardly repairs all. Derek Wood again: >> Remember Prospero's forgiveness of his "unnatural" brother:"For you, most wicked sir, whom to call brother / Would even infect my mouth, I do forgive / Thy rankest fault...." I wonder if this is such "sugar coated sentimentality"?<< Another excellent point. I played Prospero's "unnatural" Antonio for RSC member Geoffrey Church in a 1991 Rice U. production. He was a bit spineless in my portrayal: he'd never gotten free of the military occupation Alonzo imposed to help him usurp Milan. And to be thus faced with being thrust again into insignificance, into his brother's shadow.... At the end of the play, he took one of his first ever totally independent steps. I hung back near the rear of the group going to the happy reconciliation inside Prospero's cave, and when Prospero made yet another gesture of inclusion, turned on my heel and stalked out of the theatre down the aisle. Oh, perhaps he just sulked on the beach and then headed back to Milan with the rest. Or perhaps he and Caliban got along famously, or maybe the exile could help create for Antonio some of the spiritual growth and development that his elder brother seems to have achieved. But it certainly made the audience think about whether that relationship was capable of, or even warranted, repair, and whether the ending could be quite so pat. That said, I think The Tempest will bear such a reversal of expectations, while The Winter's Tale will not. Leontes and Hermione need not be rendered again an ultimately happy couple, innocent and uncaring of their former deeds and griefs-but the forgiveness must happen, or the play fails. Not ideologically, perhaps, but dramatically, I fear. To do otherwise perverts the plot and, if I may wax Constitutional for a moment, the "original intent" of the "framer", in the service of uncreative and inflexible, indeed in this case unhopeful, ideology. [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 12:51:46 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0450 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT >> And the statement that "we are all ideologically informed" is a simple categorical assertion. This is to make life too easy for oneself.<< I just wanted to agree with Lee Gibson's statement above, and add that, as a categorical assertion, it's on par with a lot of others, like saying that we are all ultimately motivated by a recollection of the form of the good, or by the love of God, or by unconscious sexual desire. These sorts of totalizing epistemological statements are, in turn, at least analogous to totalizing ontological statements (i.e., everything is Being, or God, or Ideology, or Water). (Though, of course, I don't mean to confuse epistemology with ontology). Efforts, like Gabriel's, to show that the positions of opponents are themselves ideologically motivated are likewise no more convincing than Platonic efforts to show that everything is ultimately the forms, Christian efforts to show that all religions are merely approximations of Christianity, or Zeno's efforts to show that nothing ever really changes. The mere fact that anyone can carry out such a reduction of his or her opponent's position to his or her own militates against taking any such effort as the last word. More than one can play at this sophomoric game of ad hominems. In fact, such a rhetoric only shows ideology attempting to become totalizing, to rule out all other approaches to the world ahead of time. Rather than making ideology seem convincing, such approaches only make it seem all the more insidious, a sort of intellectual imperialism, refusing to recognize the otherness of other arguments and to respect it. In so doing, it also robs art of the possibility of any true subversion, of calling into question our enlightenment tendency to treat all effects as products of strings of effective causation, to call into question our rather naive materialism, or to question our way of being in the world. Cheers, Sean. [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Sunday, 13 Apr 1997 12:22:50 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0450 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT Dear Paul The major point I'm trying to argue is that my response to the ending of _WT_ is influenced by ideological beliefs and understandings, based in my reading of people like Monique Wittig for example, and my intense reaction to domestic violence. I would then argue that your different response is equally ideological in its approval of the forgiveness of Leontes under the circumstances. I would argue that a modification to your ideological position on this issue might modify your response to the ending of this play. If we can agree on that point then you will have acknowledged that a focus on ideology is of significant interest in analysing reactions to the statue scene, in that different ideologies can potentially make audience members swoon in rapture, turn away in disgust, or something else. I am not arguing that my (hypothetical) reading is right and yours wrong, or whether yours is immoral. These are irrelevant questions to my immediate concern, which is simply that both accepting and denying the nature and importance of gender politics in the play are ideological moves, and that your reaction, which I think you have claimed to be ideologically neutral and purely aesthetic, is in fact inextricably bound up with your ideological positioning. (I am not trying to make assumptions about what that positioning is, but it seems to me plausible that your sympathy for the figure of Leontes and your evident emotion when both Hermione and the narrative of the play forgive him at the end is not inconsistent with your decision to describe yourself as gay rather than queer. I can't speak for Canada, but in Australia this decision would be politically charged and might well suggest a greater willingness to sympathise and collaborate with patriarchal het power structures.) And please explain why neither the play nor your response can be reduced to imputed messages such as, "That I'm moved because a straight fuck who's abused his wife has a happy ending? Because the play is telling me wife abuse is OK since magically everything works out for the best?" You may be able to persuade me on this point but you haven't even tried yet. I believe you are quibbling, or worse, when you charge me with confusion when I say that "at least two people actually die" in the play. I assume you're referring to the all-too-common confusion between fictitious characters and living human beings. On this occasion there is no confusion in my mind: *within the fiction* there are two characters who "actually" die, as opposed to one who "apparently" dies but doesn't really. The confusion between character and human being is one I attempt to avoid scrupulously, because it leads into silly attempts to psychoanalyse characters which have no psyches, to create life-histories for representations which have no lives and no histories outside the text, and to speculate fruitlessly about whether characters "really" faint, or how many children they have, or whether Leontes is "really" homosexual. I think the confusion is on the other foot here. (Of course a production or actor could choose to play Leontes as in love with Polixenes, but there's nothing in the text which requires that reading, and any theatre critic who claims that a production MUST play him as other than heterosexual and homosocial should have his/her knuckles rapped severely. Leontes's "desire for Polixenes" is by no means a "fact about the play". In any case I'm far from comfortable with the assumption that a character who is confused and ruins the lives of everyone around him has to be homosexual. Haven't we seen enough of this stereotype?) Finally, I'm now totally confused by your comments on reductive criticism. I thought that one of your main accusations against ideologically explicit approaches was that they reduced the text. But if you agree that all accounts reduce the text, I'm not sure where this leaves your argument. Or perhaps you want to start quantifying the reduction-ideological approaches give you a 50% loss on the full meaning whereas with aesthetic approaches there's only a 10% wastage? Adrian [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Sunday, 13 Apr 1997 16:16:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT While Adrian Kiernander, Gabriel Egan, Eve Gajowksi, and doubtless others find the last scene of *WT* nauseating, Joseph Lockett wishes to avoid "the stench" of the ideology discussion altogether, asking "what does it all matter?" I don't think any debate in literary studies matters more than this one (that may just be me). There is an enormous evil in our profession's blithe, perhaps blind, certainly now unthinking acceptance of the phrase "all is ideology." The idea that "all is ideology," and that where the constitution of the human subject is concerned, "it's culture all the way down" (in the words of Richard Rorty), may have some claim on our attention. And it may very well be wrong. The theories and experimental evidence of much cognitive science and evolutionary psychology (as I understand them) would seem to go some way towards proving claims like "all is ideology" wrong. These things are summarized in chapter 13 of Stephen Pinker's marvelous *The Language Instinct* (Pinker is a graduate of Dawson College, the CEGEP in Montreal where I teach). But whether right or wrong, whole truth or partial truth, "all is ideology" holds sway (or at least seems to at conferences and in journals); it is the dogma that frames and enables all questions, and it can't itself be questioned. Most dogmas have pernicious effects when held by a majority. (I wish that once and for all I could clear away from this debate the straw human of the dogmatic aesthete, insisting that his response is "right" and absolute, that opponents continually introduce into this debate; the blather about an aesthetic approach absolutely endorsing certain cultural and moral values against all others; the inanity of the aesthete dozing off in vague contemplation of "the eternal verities." But such cliches provide some comfort, I know. Doubtless my cliches similarly comfort me.) In this discussion, the principle "effect" has been to reduce, to pigeon-hole, and to judge categorically and in advance *any* aesthetic response to art as *necessarily* bound up with (for example) the maintenance of heterosexual patriarchy and capitalism. Perhaps I overstate, but it seems to me that all I had to do was mention "aesthetic response" and instantly in the minds of the all-is-ideologues I am unproblematically allied with the ruling order, whatever the nature of the response (whatever the nature of me), whatever its meaning, evidence and sense be dammed. The starkness of the issues is focused in a recent comment by Gabriel Egan: "The different responses are not conditioned by aesthetics . . .but by a lived experience of power relations." Our disagreement could not be plainer. I think what conditions our responses most is the breadth of our imagination. Ironically, I think a lived experience of oppression can make acts of the imagination by which we transcend ourselves easier rather than more difficult, as long as one's oppression has enabled one to develop strengths to counter-balance the bitterness and the resentment. It may be arrogant to say it, but I think being gay has made me a better reader of the aesthetic than I would otherwise have been. When I read and was blown away by the magnificent book, *The Western Canon,* I just assumed-unimaginatively-that its author was gay. I didn't think a straight man in our society and culture could possibly have such love of great literature. Adrian Kiernander introduced into the discussion the reducing of aesthetic response to a lived experience of oppression by saying he can perfectly well understand and sympathize with a female student who has suffered domestic abuse and who might find the ending of *WT* only nauseating (since then, nausea has been catching). I agreed that I could understand and sympathize, too, but also said that I won't assume that would be or should be the student's response. In fact, I can imagine a student-male or female- whose suffering might be eased by the play's end and by the play. I can even imagine someone being healed by it, by re-readings of it over a lifetime. I'm not saying it would happen. But some art can have healing power. Harold Bloom writes of the healing power of Whitman. I hope I may quote him at some length: "I remember one summer, in crisis, being at Nantucket with a friend who was absorbed in fishing, while I read aloud to both of us from Whitman and recovered myself again. When I am alone and read aloud to myself, it is almost always Whitman, sometimes when I desperately need to assuage grief. Whether you read aloud to someone else or in solitude, there is a peculiar appropriateness in chanting Whitman. He is the poet of our climate, never to be replaced, unlikely ever to be matched. Only a few poets in the language have surpassed `When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd': Shakespeare, Milton, perhaps one or two others. Whether even Shakespeare and Milton have achieved a more poignant pathos and a darker eloquence than Whitman's `Lilacs,' I am not always certain. The great scene between the mad Lear and the blind Gloucester; the speeches of Satan after he has rallied his fallen legions-these epitomize the agonistic Sublime. And so does this, but with preternatural quietness: In the dooryard fronting an old farm-house near the white- wash'd palings Stands the lilac-bush tall-growing with heart-shaped leaves of rich green, With many a pointed blossom rising delicate, with the perfume strong I love, With Every leaf a miracle-and from this bush in the dooryard, With delicate-color'd blossoms and heart-shaped leaves of rich green, A sprig with its flower I break." (289-290) While not as good as Whitman's `Lilacs', so too do some lines of Leontes, Paulina, and Hermione. (Gabriel Egan recently praised "resistive reading": where do we find a better resistive reading of Leontes than in the speeches of Hermione in her trial, and in Paulina's extraordinary denunciations of him? The resistive reading that Gabriel needs to believe has been pushed to the margins is actually at the centre of the play-and at the centre of its aesthetic power) "All is ideology" in the hands of the present all-is-ideologues would deny the imagination by which we can identify beyond ourselves and against ourselves. It's interesting that Adrian Kiernander acknowledges the power of the end of *WT* to make him feel, but also makes clear that that power must be resisted. Why this need to resist the power of art, its tyrannical power perhaps, as if it were a real-life tyrant? It asks to exercise our imagination, and neither imposes on us nor precludes any moral value, any political position, any ideological or ontological confinement. It blasts open any containment in those areas. I can imagine many an academic standing in front of Michelangelo's *Pieta* unable to be moved, since God has never been alive, to see him dead. Paul Hawkins [7]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Sunday, 13 Apr 1997 17:43:11 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0450 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT I would like to thank all those people who took the time to show Paul Hawkins how utterly objectionable his pleasure in the final scene of the Winter's Tale is. It's nice to see some good old-fashioned moral criticism throwing its hat back in the ring after so long. As these commentators so clearly believe, art is highly moral and any art that might offend those with whom we are in ethical solidarity must be rigorously exposed, along with its defenders. This is just the sort of thing that objectionable artist Andres Serrano was doing a few years back. And that other Mapplethorpe bloke to boot. This Shakespeare fella has got to go. I am writing to Senator Helms right now to have his NEA grant revoked. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:50:21 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0459 Hamlet: A Question and Other Responses The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0459. Monday, 14 April 1997. [1] From: Deborah Dale Date: Sunday, 13 Apr 1997 14:38:24 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: Shakespearean Actress [2] From: Laurie E. Osborne Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 08:28:56 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0451 Re: Hamlet and Frailty [3] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 13:59:48 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Advice on Hamlet [4] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 14:54:13 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Hamlet, Oedipus & Ophelia (long, sorry) [5] From: John Boni Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 14:31:59 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0446 Re: Hamlet/Ophelia; Plea for Advice on Hamlet [6] From: Norm Holland Date: Sun, 13 Apr 97 14:33 :03 Subj: Hamlet in New York [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Deborah Dale Date: Sunday, 13 Apr 1997 14:38:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Shakespearean Actress This is a question perhaps for theatrical historians: I'm seeking references regarding first hand accounts by people who may have seen Mary Robinson's portrayal of Ophelia in the late 18th c at the Drury-lane theater, then under David Garrick (others are welcome-- she was most famous for her role as Perdita, though she also played Cordelia and Rosiland, and Lady Macbeth I believe). Accounts, such as, for example, Wallace Stevens' informative perception of Sarah Bernhardt as a female Hamlet. Private responses would be preferable. Thank you. Deborah Dale University of Washington [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laurie E. Osborne Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 08:28:56 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0451 Re: Hamlet and Frailty Hello, all, > James Marino wrote: >> Susan Keegan's reading of "Frailty, thy name is woman" receives support from Viola's view at 2.2.30 of TN: "Alas, our frailty is the cause, not we,/For such as we are made of such we be." And it demonstrates the distance between that psychology and ours.<< This is all well and good except that the lines do NOT read that way in the Folio text. This version is the product of 18th century editing; the original Folio text reads: Alas, O frailty is the cause not we, For such as we are made, if such we be. My forthcoming essay, "Editing Frailty in Twelfth Night: 'Where lies your Text?" argues that the identification of frailty as definitively female in this speech was an 18th ideological choice, especially since frailty is more often identified as a first a masculine trait throughout the Folio. See Measure for Measure and especially Emilia's speech in Othello. The comments exchanged between Jaqueline Strax and Susan Keegan shed foreground the frailty of the flesh which I noticed throughout the Folio as identified with men as much as (or even more) than women. Cheers, Laurie Osborne leosborn@colby.edu [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 13:59:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Advice on Hamlet Having directed Hamlet twice within the past two years out in Illinois, and being by all my friends' accounts obsessed with the bloody play, I'd of course be more than willing to put in my two cents on the 'activist' approach to Hamlet someone has proposed here. I believe it was Granville-Barker who revived the notion that "to be or not to be" was a contemplation of action, not a contemplation of suicide; the 'enterprises of great pith and moment' he refers to involve taking revenge for his father, very likely, an act which would certainly involve risking his own life in the process. To which I can only add that the last word of this famous speech is "action", not "death" or "suicide". Have your Hamlet begin the scene as written, 'reading a book', and show the audience a thoughtful man, reading out loud and commenting on what he reads. It's up to the actor to decide what's read and what's his own commentary, but I find this approach to be far more fruitful an exercise than the set-piece, mirror-gazing, cliffs-contemplating stuff that has been regarded as de rigeur (sic) for so many years. The prince thinks out loud, he doesn't whine or moan out loud, that's the key I think to discovering the activist in the Dane. As for Ophelia, well, I'll simply ask if there is anyone on this list who has insights similar to those recently offered on Desdemona. I have offered my Ophelias my own ideas, but would much rather hear from some others before I jump in again. Andy White Arlington, VA [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 14:54:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Hamlet, Oedipus & Ophelia (long, sorry) Ms. Straxx's comments have drawn me out, on the Ophelia and Oedipus question. I must confess right here that Freud's appropriation of Greek myth to explain a certain dysfynction he may have seen in one or two patients (more likely, read into the rantings of his patients) does not move me, either as an actor or director. As far as I am concerned the only legitimate Oedipal Hamlet was John Barrymore, for the simple reason that he was seduced by his own stepmother (admittedly, just a few years his senior) when he was a teenager. After sleeping with your father's wife, jumping Gertrude on stage while fully clothed must seem a bit dull ... If Hamlet has, as Ophelia says, courted her "in honorable fashion", and if we see Ophelia-like Hamlet-to be a fundamentally honest character, then we cannot attribute a sexual relationship to them. If she in fact lies to her father, and has had a fling or two, her death by accident/suicide (remember, the bough breaks, she just doesn't sense it) has precious little dramatic impact. A lying teenage girl who sleeps with guys who say they love her-what's to sympathize with? What's so poignant about a girl who has been around the bend, and who suffers from her own little lies and intrigues? If we assume the sexual relationship, we assume she is far less honest and deserving of sympathy than Shakespeare apparently would like. As for Hamlet's advice to his mother-he clearly can't stand the thought of his mother with any man other than his father, much less a worthless creep like his Uncle. This is not proto-Oedipalism, this is human nature which any number of children with step-parents male or female can readily attest to. In the Saxo Grammaticus version of the story, he lights into his mother with all the grotesque barnyard imagery he can muster-Shakespeare lets her off easy by comparison. She is unfaithful to her husband's memory by marrying a lesser man, and particularly by marrying less than two months after his death. Again, these are things which many human beings can relate to quite easily, and Freud's bizarre attempts to make simple human nature into a negative, predatory sexual dysfunction leave me cold. Freud was born 300 years after the author we discuss here, and he didn't understand people very well. His misuse of Greek myth is bad enough, his abuse of Hamlet, which has plagued the stage for over 4-score years, is ten times worse. Saying it's subconscious doesn't cut it. Saying it's not there, this Oedipal complex, comes closer to the mark. Andy White Arlington, VA [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 14:31:59 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0446 Re: Hamlet/Ophelia; Plea for Advice on Hamlet Nick Clary's rhetorical question in response to Susan Keegan asks if if matters that Hamlet's generalization on women's frailty matters if it is prior to Ophelia's bowings. To me, it matters in that it helps construct Hamalet's frame of mind-given to generalization, impressionable-in a word, youthful. Thus, the generalization on women uttered earlier provides an interpretative frame or (if you wish, is confirmed by) for Ophelias' behavior. John Boni [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Sun, 13 Apr 97 14:33:03 EDT Subject: Hamlet in New York SHAKSPERians might be amused by this item in "Metropolitan Diary" in the New York Times, Regional Edition, 4/13/97: Dear Diary: Overheard between two 30-something women as they were leaving a matinee of the new film version of "Hamlet": Woman No. 1: So what did you think? Woman No. 2: Everytime he opened his mouth he made a speech. Woman No. 1: That's Shakespeare for you. Michael Stinchcombe One might add, that's New York for you. Luvvit. --Best, Norm ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 21:09:13 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0460 Re: Summer Festivals The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0460. Monday, 14 April 1997. [1] From: Nancy N. Doherty Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 08:17:31 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0448 Summer Festivals [2] From: Clark Bowlen Date: Monday, 14 Apr 1997 10:54:04 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0448 Qs: Summer Festivals [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nancy N. Doherty Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 08:17:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0448 Summer Festivals Could you please add to your list Shakespeare in the Park, Buffalo NY is presenting Much Ado About Nothing Opens June 26, then runs Tues - Sun until July 20 Richard II Opens July 31, then runs Tues - Sun until August 24 Performances are at 7:30pm, Greenshow at 6:30pm - all performances are Free. For additional information contact this address - [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Bowlen Date: Monday, 14 Apr 1997 10:54:04 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0448 Qs: Summer Festivals American Theatre magazine publishes a summer theatre festival schedule. It should be out soon. Clark Bowlen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 21:20:17 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0461 Re: The Fool; Cordelia The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0461. Monday, 14 April 1997. [1] From: Brian Turner Date: Sunday, 13 Apr 1997 11:09:34 +1200 Subj: Re: The Fool [2] From: Derek Wood Date: Monday, 14 Apr 1997 13:32:17 -0900 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0431 Re:"Lear" (Cordelia); [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Turner Date: Sunday, 13 Apr 1997 11:09:34 +1200 Subject: Re: The Fool There are perfectly good dramatic reasons to explain the disappearance of The Fool. To quote Kenneth Muir in his introduction to the Arden edition: "He fades from the picture when he is no longer needed, since Lear can act as his own fool." [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Derek Wood Date: Monday, 14 Apr 1997 13:32:17 -0900 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0431 Re:"Lear" (Cordelia); >>....I think the Fool is a better "child" to Lear than Cordelia can bring herself to be; her reticence in the early play to declare her love completely - if not as fulsomely as her sisters do, strikes me as a sort of standing on principle at the expense of the filial relationship. It's a conscious decision on Cordelia's part to showcase her own superior morality over that of her siblings. Her father's emotional needs at this point are excessive and exasperating, to be sure, but Cordelia is unwilling here to humour the old guy, for fear that she might be perceived as sycophantic or greedy....<< Yes, I too have had trouble dealing with Cordelia's stubbornness, as uncompromising as her father's, though to be fair, he is different in that he does not hear what she says or listen to her words, demanding to be offered up a verbal incense of loving cliche's, a pre-set bunch of tired, formulaic flattery. But why does she not humour the old fool: few people know better than she what he needs. It would take thirty seconds of playing the old man's game: not long to hold your nose. If the tragedy comes about because Lear uses power perversely and then abdicates power irresponsibly, Cordelia is equally guilty. What makes me hesitate about going further on this road is the presence of France and Burgundy. They've been sniffing her over for about two months. Soon she must leave her father's home for ever with a man she hardly knows. It must be terrifying. What love means, how it can be located, tested, verified, that's "the entire point." No doubt Burgundy was a charming man, a gracious, refined courtier. He clearly had been satisfied with the dowry offered by Lear ("I crave no more") so all he awaited was Cordelia's decision. For France, "She is herself a dowry." Cordelia's stubbornness, "Which often leaves the history unspoke That it intends to do," actually does the job. Her unspoken question is answered: Burgundy is anatomised and revealed to her. "Since that respect and fortunes are his love, I shall not be his wife." The same stressed, anxious, self-punishing precision ("What shall Cordelia speak?"), which so disastrously infuriates her father, delivers her a husband who comes through the ordeal so splendidly, more romantically than any golddigging Bassanio, with only love and respect for the "unpriz'd precious maid." Is there a case for Cordelia? Best wishes, Derek Wood, St. Francis Xavier University. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 21:32:40 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0463 Re: Religious Biases; Currency; Pericles The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0463. Monday, 14 April 1997. [1] From: Ron Ward Date: Sunday, 13 Apr 1997 14:27:33 +1200 (NZST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0442 Qs: Religious Biases [2] From: Derek Wood Date: Monday, 14 Apr 1997 14:06:45 -0900 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0437 Qs: Elizabethan Currency [3] From: Mary Ann Bushman Date: Monday, 14 Apr 1997 11:23:58 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Pericles [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Ward Date: Sunday, 13 Apr 1997 14:27:33 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0442 Qs: Religious Biases Though there is a good deal of value in a study of Elizabethan religious conventions, as that was part of S audience. But there may be a lot more to it than that. A lecture by the Lutenist Anthony Rooley pointed out that there is evidence that S was a part of a group that transcended those limitations. Certainly the wisdom he weaves into his stories is far from conventional. The cult of the Melancholic was one such possible group, led by a dark lady. But that is only one of the possibilities and may not have been an exclusive connection upon which S drew. Cymbeline is a case where the Celtic mysteries can be descerned with a great deal of detail. This is the case presented by Theatre Set-Up in Britain. Their 1989 production programme gives considerable detail of the symbolism parallels with the Celtic initiation rites. The recent studies Published by William Anderson (alas now dead) in his book "The Green Man", shows how the Celtic undercurrent in terms demonstrated by the prevalence of the Green Men in churches and traditions would have been just beneath the surface of Elizabethan England. "The History of British Kings" by Geoffrey of Monmouth with it's strange chapter Prophecies of Merlin was certainly known to S. This chapter's enigmatic nature points to a coded record of the initiation rites according to at least one Celtic scholar, R. J. Stewart. This sort of thing (hiding one's unconventional beliefs) is not unusual among artists. Mozart's "Magic Flute" being a case in point. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Derek Wood Date: Monday, 14 Apr 1997 14:06:45 -0900 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0437 Qs: Elizabethan Currency: There must be many more recent sources but I still find convenient Muriel St. Clare Byrne's _Elizabethan Life in Town and Country_ Appendix 3. Among the many contemporary prices she gives: children's shoes 7d. a pair shirt with cutwork band 1s. a pig 6d. 400 oranges 3s.10d. 420 eggs 5s.10d. barrel of small beer 4s.4d. cleaning boots 4d. Grafton's Chronicle 21s.2d. Sidney's Arcadia 9s. "shaving robert's head" 1s.4d. a falcon 60s. a new coach L38 23s.2d. I read somewhere else that a decent meal in London would cost about the same as a trip across the river and a reasonable spot to watch a play at the Globe. Best wishes, Derek Wood, St. Francis Xavier University [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Ann Bushman Date: Monday, 14 Apr 1997 11:23:58 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Pericles Several years ago I reviewed a performance of PERICLES which cast an actor who was deaf and mute for the lead. Gower became the interpreter of Pericles' reactions and signs on stage, translating the signing for the audience as well as speaking his own lines. Since Gower was played by a woman, the production subverted all kinds of expectations. It was one of the most moving productions I've seen-and unsettling as well. Mary Ann Bushman English Department Illinois Wesleyan University ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 21:25:59 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0462 Re: Teaching AWW The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0462. Monday, 14 April 1997. [1] From: Susan Mather Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 13:13:35 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0456 Teaching AWW [2] From: Ed Peschko Date: Sunday, 13 Apr 1997 10:50:07 -0600 (MDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0456 Teaching AWW [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Saturday, 12 Apr 1997 13:13:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0456 Teaching AWW To Julie Bleha-- Just a question-Are you thinking about framing your discussion of Comedy around Aristotle? One of my former professors, Dr. Paskoff, did that and was quite successful. I haven't forgotten how "tragic" comedy can be. The storyline for most comedies could easily be tragedies. I wish you luck. It sounds like you're going to have a good time! Take Care, Susan Mather [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Peschko Date: Sunday, 13 Apr 1997 10:50:07 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0456 Teaching AWW Well... from my experience as a 17 year old, in English (8 years ago), I remember that (of the two plays) Much Ado About Nothing resounded a *lot* better than a Midsummer's Night Dream or As You Like It. I don't know... I just think that it takes a much more mature outlook to enjoy these two plays. > >My question to the list is this: has anybody taught All's Well to a younger group of students, and if so, what was your experience? I originally was thinking of LLL, but found that too daunting a prospect to consider.....<< How about Twelfth Night? There's a wonderful BBC production I loved when I first saw it at 19... It seems to grow with age, too. Just my 2 pence... heed or ignore at will. Ed ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:33:21 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0464 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0464. Tuesday, 15 April 1997. [1] From: Wes Folkerth Date: Monday, 14 Apr 1997 19:48:47 -0400 Subj: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [2] From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Tuesday, 15 Apr 1997 10:57:57 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0458 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [3] From: Ed Gieskes Date: Tuesday, 15 Apr 1997 12:52:44 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0458 Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wes Folkerth Date: Monday, 14 Apr 1997 19:48:47 -0400 Subject: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT Do we really know just how representative Simon Forman's reaction to WT was, especially if his is the only extant account from the period? I'm thinking of Kurosawa's film "RashoMonday," and Al Braunmuller's recent article on John Holles seeing "A Game at Chess." Maybe Forman was, in his own way, the Paul Hawkins of his time! Wes Folkerth tfolke@po-box.mcgill.ca [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Tuesday, 15 Apr 1997 10:57:57 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0458 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT Why does Tom Bishop introduce the topic of censorship? The fact that I may find the implications of Paul Hawkins's reaction to the end of _WT_ disturbing doesn't mean I want to ban the play, and I don't recall any other suggestions that this should happen. On the contrary I'm growing more and more interested in the idea of directing it, and I'm thinking about some ideas for the final scene which might problematise on stage the questions which have been discussed here recently-though I suspect my staging might well nauseate Paul. Oh well, you can't win them all. In Tom's reaction I can't help being reminded of comments by the current Australian Prime Minister John Howard, for whom it seems that free speech (which he claims to advocate) consists of allowing racists to express their views openly, while attempting to prevent criticism of these views by anyone else. By some process of logic which I can't quite work out, making racist comments is free speech, but criticising or even just pointing out instances of racism is not. Tom's implication that rigorously exposing "any art that might offend those with whom we are in ethical solidarity" is a form of censorship seems to me almost Howardian. There is nothing in my posting which advocates the view of art as moral or immoral, or the banning of any work, or that this Shakespeare fella has got to go, but I claim the right (and indeed the responsibility) to comment on our ideological-emotional-aesthetic reactions to any discursive act or event, and I don't see how this puts any of us in the company of Jesse Helms. To anticipate something that Paul might be about to write, I was not in my last posting attempting to pigeonhole him-merely wondering. And I certainly didn't, and wouldn't, claim that any power I may feel in the final scene "must be resisted". In fact I've deliberately chosen not to describe or discuss in any detail my own reactions to this scene (I've merely pointed out some possible reactions which differ from the one Paul suggested) in the hope that it might prevent this discussion turning into a "My interpretation is better than your interpretation" competition. Adrian [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Gieskes Date: Tuesday, 15 Apr 1997 12:52:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0458 Ideology Paul Hawkins writes: >The starkness of the issues is focused in a recent comment by Gabriel >Egan: >"The different responses are not conditioned by aesthetics . . .but by a >lived experience of power relations." >Our disagreement could not be plainer. I think what conditions our >responses most is the breadth of our imagination. Ironically, I think a >lived experience of oppression can make acts of the imagination by which >we transcend ourselves easier rather than more difficult, as long as >one's oppression has enabled one to develop strengths to counter-balance >the bitterness and the resentment. It may be arrogant to say it, but I >think being gay has made me a better reader of the aesthetic than I >would otherwise have been. When I read and was blown away by the >magnificent book, *The Western Canon,* I just >assumed-unimaginatively-that its author was gay. I didn't think a >straight man in our society and culture could possibly have such love of >great literature. Isn't the assertion that one is a "better reader of the aesthetic" because one is gay a particular example of the idea that an agent's response to art is structured by that agent's culture (which is not restricted, I think, to power relations)? Doesn't such a statement have everything to do with lived experience? To say, as Gabriel Egan does, that the response to art is conditioned (not determined) by lived experience is not necessarily the same as reducing art to ideology; instead, it acknowledges that both the production and reception of art happen in history and are affected (again, not determined) by historical conditions at both the time of production and that of reception. Your statement about how your gayness makes you a better reader of the aesthetic, however, goes much further in that direction than anything Gabriel Egan has written. >"All is ideology" in the hands of the present all-is-ideologues would >deny the imagination by which we can identify beyond ourselves and >against ourselves. It's interesting that Adrian Kiernander acknowledges >the power of the end of *WT* to make him feel, but also makes clear that >that power must be resisted. Why this need to resist the power of art, >its tyrannical power perhaps, as if it were a real-life tyrant? It asks >to exercise our imagination, and neither imposes on us nor precludes any >moral value, any political position, any ideological or ontological >confinement. It blasts open any containment in those areas. Forgive me, but this sounds to me like the stereotypically myopic response of the aesthete to any suggestion that art is not simply art, but also may have social or political components. What is wrong with acknowledging that the "power of the end of *WT* to make [one] feel" is, at least potentially, troubling? No one denies that art has power to move its audience-that would be foolish-but that power is not unambiguously wondrous and positive, as you seem to suggest. I don't think, as you seem to, that an ideologically informed reading of a text (or a statue or a painting) necessarily means that one can't say that it's beautiful as well. And I don't think that many people do. The terms of this "debate" are far less opposed than your polemic allows. If I can be allowed to suggest some relevant reading that might resolve a few of these so-called problems, you might want to take a look at Pierre Bourdieu's work-particularly _Distinction_ but also the recently-translated _Rules of Art_. You might be surprised at how fuzzy the opposition you are so deeply invested in becomes. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:36:24 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0465 Summer Fellowships The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0465. Tuesday, 15 April 1997. From: Date: Monday, 14 Apr 1997 23:02:46 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Summer Fellowships -- Please Forward (fwd) [This announcement originally appeared on FICINO Discussion - Renaissance and Reformation Studies. HMC] Please forward the following announcement to any other lists where it is likely to be seen by graduate students, especially those living or studying in the southeastern U.S. Thanks! MELLON SUMMER SEMINARS IN CRITICAL PLURALISM Graduate students in English and in other related humanities disciplines (such as English education, history, comparative literature, philosophy, cultural studies, etc.) are hereby invited to apply to participate in a special seminar to be offered during the summers of 1997 and 1998 at Auburn University at Montgomery (Alabama). The seminars, funded by a generous grant from the A.W. Mellon Foundation, are designed to assist students who are in the midst of working on extended writing projects, especially those (such as dissertations) required for completion of graduate degrees. Graduate students (including adjunct faculty) at colleges or universities in Alabama and in adjacent states are especially encouraged to apply. Funding from the Mellon Foundation will cover the costs of in-state tuition and will assist with costs of transportation and some other expenses. The amount of each student's grant will be determined mainly by proximity and need. The Mellon seminars at AUM are particularly designed to give graduate students an opportunity to study and discuss the variety of interpretive approaches now available to persons working in the humanities. Many of these approaches strongly conflict with one another and therefore pose genuine challenges to anyone presently attempting to write on topics in the humanities. "Critical pluralism" is an approach that emphasizes the potential usefulness of a variety of interpretive theories without giving exclusive emphasis to any single point of view. It encourages mutual understanding and dialogue rather than hostile conflict between adherents of different theories. At the same time, it encourages the proponents of various theories to approach their own viewpoints with skepticism and rigorous analysis. Professor Robert C. Evans of AUM's Department of English and Philosophy will lead the seminar. Graduate students interested in applying to participate as Fellows are encouraged to contact him as soon as possible by phone (334-244-3376), by e-mail (bobevans@strudel.aum.edu), by regular mail (English, AUM, Montgomery, AL 36117), or by fax (334-244-3740). The seminar will meet for four hours once a week on Saturday afternoons during the ten-week summer quarter, which begins in early June. Participants will receive regular academic credit. Additional information about AUM is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.aum.edu. Please apply ASAP for fullest consideration for the 1997 seminar. Applications received by May 10 will have the best chance of being funded this year. Enrollment is limited to encourage vigorous discussion. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:40:38 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0466 Re: Subtext; Summer Festivals The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0466. Tuesday, 15 April 1997. [1] From: Billy Houck Date: Tuesday, 15 Apr 1997 11:47:16 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0457 Re: Subtext & Christianity [2] From: Curt L. Tofteland Date: Tuesday, 15 Apr 1997 07:46:13 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0460 Re: Summer Festivals [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Tuesday, 15 Apr 1997 11:47:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0457 Re: Subtext & Christianity If there is "no subtext" then we really have no need for actors. The experience of reading a play would be the same as seeing a play, or all plays would be like "Meet Mr. Lincoln" at Disneyland. Perhaps what Ms. Shaw meant was that there was no one correct subtext. This would leave the horizon wide open for interpretation and would insure career opportunity for thespians through the next millennium. Sorry to be so late in responding- I got all wrapped up teaching high school students how to find their subtext in The Pirates of Penzance (April 17-20 in Arroyo Grande California. call (805)473-4250 for directions) And Hillary- the key to understanding the forced conversion of Shylock is that Merchant of Venice is a comedy. In Shakespeare's day church attendance was compulsory...just like paying taxes. In some ways, it was exactly like paying taxes, as tithing was also compulsory. Wouldn't modern audiences cheer if some scofflaw who had avoided paying his taxes was forced to cough up just like everyone else? Say, Leona Helmsley? Maybe not. Maybe I shouldn't be posting this on April 15. Tarantara! Billy Houck [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Curt L. Tofteland Date: Tuesday, 15 Apr 1997 07:46:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0460 Re: Summer Festivals KENTUCKY SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL 1114 South Third Streeyt Louisville. KY 40203 502/583-8738 kyshakes@kyshakes.org THE TEMPEST Directed by Curt L. Tofteland June 11 - July 6, 1997 Tues - Sun @ 8:00pm PANTALONE RIDES AGAIN (Commedia del 'Arte) Directed by Brandi J. Smith June 19 - July 6, 1997 Tues, Wed, Thurs, Sun @ 7:00pm Fri, Sat @ 10:30pm ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:30:03 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0467 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0467. Wednesday, 16 April 1997. [1] From: Ben Schneider Date: Tuesday, 15 Apr 1997 17:16:32 +0000 Subj: WT Ending [2] From: David Evett Date: Tuesday, 15 Apr 1997 16:52 ET Subj: SHK 8.0458 Re: Ideology: The Ae [3] From: Thomas Bishop Date: Tuesday, 15 Apr 1997 15:56:41 -0500 Subj: Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben Schneider Date: Tuesday, 15 Apr 1997 17:16:32 +0000 Subject: WT Ending Dear Adrian Kiernander, Terence Hawkes says, "The past is another country. They do things differently there." You say "My response to the ending of _WT_ is influenced . . . by my intense reaction to domestic violence." If Terence Hawkes is right, and I think he is, what has your "intense reaction" against the ending got to do with it? Whose play is it, anyhow? Yours or Shakespeare's? What if the wife's forgiveness was originally the whole point of the play? The past is another country. How do you justify applying (post)modern attitudes to early modern plays? Maybe you are an essentialist after all. I really am puzzled by these apparent contradictions. They seem symptomatic of our discipline, and I think we need to resolve them. Yours ever, BEN SCHNEIDER [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Tuesday, 15 Apr 1997 16:52 ET Subject: SHK 8.0458 Re: Ideology: The Ae Terence Hawkes assures us that Simon Forman's notes on *WT* "report an experience" very different from any we Western postmoderns are likely to have. But Forman doesn't report an experience, he makes notes in his commonplace book "for Common Pollicie," which I and divers other scholars take to mean as possible guidelines for future conduct-a purpose underlined by the end of the entry, on Autolycus: "Beware of trustinge feined beggars or fawning fellous." Something as marvellously _un_common as the statue scene in *WT* may just not offer useful guidelines. It's worth noting that other marvels are omitted from Forman's summaries-his treatment of *Macbeth* notes the first appearance of "3 women feiries or "Nymphes" and of Banquo's ghost but not the revelation of Banquo's line or the approach of Birnam wood; that of *Cym* says nothing about the appearance of Jupiter or the reconciliation of Posthumus (never named) and Innogen; that of *WT* mentions the oracle but not the shipwreck or Antigonus' meeting with the bear. Another way to look at this is to observe that Forman "reports" almost nothing not directly available from the text as well-an interesting contrast with the nearly contemporary account by Henry Wotton of the burning of the Globe during *H8*, "set forth with many extraordinary circumstances of Pomp and Majesty, even to the matting on the stage; the Knights of the order, with their Georges and Garter, the Guards with the embroidered Coats, and the like: sufficient in truth within a while to make greatness very familiar, if not ridiculous. . . That is, material particulars of a specific production, very much more a "report of an experience" than anything in Forman. Jacobean ideology certainly did not prevent Shakespeare and the King's Men from producing *WT* and putting the statue scene at that traditionally emphatic place, the end. Indeed, as Tom Bishop has shown (*Shakespeare's Theatre of Wonder,* whose long last chapter treats this play), there was a very fully developed tradition of the theatrical wonderful grounding this scene, within which Simon Forman might perfectly well have situated himself in "reporting" his experience at the Globe under some other heading than "for Common Pollicie," and giving an extensive and appreciative account of just how the actors stood and moved as they did a magic as lawful as eating. Wonderfully, David Evett P.S. Quotations from the new Norton Shakespeare, 3336-39. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Tuesday, 15 Apr 1997 15:56:41 -0500 Subject: Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT What concerns me in the posts attacking Paul Hawkins is the foreclosing vehemence with which they are inclined to assert that the imagined responses of any particular figure in the audience could -without question-trump the value of anyone else's. Though not always directly stated, Paul's failure of moral solidarity is the clear import of the rhetoric which has greeted him. It seems to me dubious to claim that any single interpretive posture, least of all one claimed in someone else's name, can definitively release the meaning of the text, and the rage that greeted Paul smacked for me a little too much of that claim. The argument is similar to one recurrently used by the right wing here to close down artistic activity of which they disapprove. I caught more than a hint of an assertion that Paul was morally culpable to think and feel in the way that he did. In a forum like this, such rhetoric seems to me very close to a gesture of silencing. Witness you silent readers whether this is true. If it were a matter of "wondering" what such an imaginary audience member might think or feel, then fair enough. But the tendency of these responses to convert the action of the play into an occasion of real moral outrage, and to respond as if to real acts and "two people actually dead" rather than to the complexity of a theatrical image of events seems to me indicative of a hasty fervency. I'm by no means convinced that the possibility of eventually overcoming even deep trauma is something the representation of which isnt to be welcomed rather than decried, perhaps most of all by someone who is suffering or has suffered something similar. The Winter's Tale is very interested in the complex uses people make of the stories they tell and the aesthetic objects they make and present for and to one another. Several times in the play, the dangers of mistaking a real for a fictive or imaginary object (and vice versa) are canvassed. The costs for all concerned of treating another human as an occasion for one's own fantasies are devastatingly displayed. Nor is the difficulty of unlearning that temptation presented either glibly or self-righteously. Leontes is not less conscious than others of the disastrous results of his misprision, and the play insists that -nothing he can do- can rectify matters. This doesn't look to me like getting off lightly, or like a "sugar-coated fantasy" as has been claimed. I welcome explorations, on stage or in print, of the detailed workings of the play, in terms of exactly how it imagines fictions of trauma, mental cruelty, repentance, recompense, recovery, restitution and even perhaps forgiveness. Competing versions of the narrative(s) of trauma will certainly need to be compared to one another. But not, if the conversation is to get anywhere, in the manner of hot denunciations that give satisfaction to one side only. That is just Leontes' mistake. The discussion so far doesn't seem to me to lend itself to such an exploration. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:36:44 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0468 Re: Cordelia The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0468. Wednesday, 16 April 1997. From: Susan Mather Date: Tuesday, 15 Apr 1997 23:24:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0461 Re: The Fool; Cordelia I think it was in Mark Taylor's book that I read this-Cordelia speaks appropriately since she's about to be married. He says that "if she [tells] Lear what he wants to hear, she would then implicitly have to contradict herself or else appear indifferent to her suitors" (54). Diane Dreher in her book argues similarly that as she is "soon to be married, Cordelia will not prostitute the ritual" as her sisters have done (67). I personally cannot say that I read those lines as Cordelia's stubbornness and as someone else pointed out to me recently, Goneril and Regan really say absolutely nothing to their father. Goneril says, "Sir, I love you more than word can wield the matter,.... A love that makes breath poor and speech unable." (I. i. 50, 55) & then Regan says, "In my true heart I find she names my very deed of love"(I. i. 65-66) Well then why are they still talking? Sounds strange to me. What I always find ironic is that critics who write about the stubborn, frigid, cold, unfeeling Cordelia I keep reading about in articles are so very much like Lear in their judgment of her. Take Care, Susan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:43:18 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0469 SNL Summer Festivals List from Winter Issue The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0469. Wednesday, 16 April 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, April 16, 1997 Subject: SNL Summer Festivals List from Winter Issue Below is the Summer Festivals list I submitted to *The Shakespeare Newsletter*. The editors decided to publish the list earlier than in previous years and to include an update in the spring issue. If you work with a festival that is not included, please contact me for the format for an entry, and I'll include it in the next issue. ************************************************************************ Shakespeare Summer Festivals 1997 as submitted to the Winter issue of *The Shakespeare Newsletter* Compiled by Hardy M. Cook Bowie State University ALABAMA SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, 1 Festival Drive, Montgomery, AL 36117-4605. (800) 841-4273 or (334) 271-5353. 26th Season. Kent Thompson, Artistic Director. March 4-Aug. 31. In repertory Mac. (Kent Thompson) March 11-July 26; LLL (Jacques Cartier) April 8-July 27; MV (Kent Thompson) June 3-July 26. In stock: Cym. (Kent Thompson) Aug. 1-9. AMERICAN PLAYERS THEATRE, P.O. Box 819, Spring Green, WI 53588. (608) 588-2361. 18th Season. June 12-Oct. 5. David Frank, Artistic Director. In repertory: R3 (opens June 28); Err. (opens Aug. 16). CARMEL SHAKE-SPEARE FESTIVAL, P.O. Box 222035, Carmel, CA 93922. (408) 622-0100. 14th Season. Stephen Moorer, Artistic Director. Aug. 1-Oct. 12. The Complete Works of Wllm Shkspr (abridged). Aug. 1-October 11; Rom. Sept. 6-Oct. 12; Cor. Sept. 26-Oct. 12. COLORADO SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, University of Colorado - Boulder, P.O. Box 460, Boulder, CO 80309-0460. (303) 492-0554. 40th Season. Richard M. Devin, Producing Artistic Director. June 27-Aug. 17. In repertory: Rom. (Henry Godinez); Ado (Robin Mckee); Tro. (Tom Markus). GEORGIA SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, 4484 Peachtree Rd., N.E., Atlanta, GA 30319. (404) 264-0020. 12th Season. Richard Garner, Producing Director. June 20-Aug. 17 In repertory: Tmp., Oth., Inaugural season in a new 510-seat theater at Oglethrope University. IDAHO SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, P.O. Box 9365, Boise, ID 83707. (208) 336-9700. 21st Season. Charles Fee, Artistic Director. June 12-Sept. 20. MV (Bart Sher) June 26-Aug. 30; Shr. (Sari Ketter) July 10-Sept. 20; Mac. (Charles Fee) July 31-Aug. 31. Festival performs in an outdoor amphitheater, picnicking encourages. ILLINOIS SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, Campus Box 5700, Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61790. (309) 438-2535. 20th Season. Calvin MacLean, Artistic Director. June 19-Aug. 9. In repertory: AWW (Karen Kessler); Ham. (Doug Finlayson); Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (Calvin MacLean). theatre@oratmail.cfa.ilstu.edu or KENTUCKY SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, 1114 South Third St., Louisville, KY 40203. (502) 583-8738. Curt L. Tofteland, Producing Director. June 12-July 6. Tmp. (Curt L. Tofteland); Pantalone Rides Again (Brandi J. Smith). First Annual Taste of Shakespeare June 6. NASHVILLE SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL: Shakespeare in the Park, 2814 12th Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37204. (615) 292-2273. 10th Season. Denice Hicks, Artistic Director. Aug. 1-31. Shr. NEW JERSEY SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, Drew University, 36 Madison Ave., Madison, NJ 07940 (201) 408-3278. 35th Season. Bonnie J. Monte, Artistic Director. June 13-Aug. 24. MND (Bonnie J. Monte) June 13-29; Ado (Joe Drischer) June 25-July 26; H5 (Scott Wentworth) July 15-Aug. 10. Annual Shakespeare Colloquium July 19-20. OLD GLOBE THEATRE. LOWELL DAVIES FESTIVAL THEATRE. P.O. Box 2171, San Diego, CA 92112. (619) 239-2255. Jack O'Brien, Artistic Director. June 29-Oct. 4. Oth. (Jack O'Brien) June 29-Aug. 9; Err. (John Rando) Aug. 24-Oct. 4. OKLAHOMA SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL. P.O. Box 1074, Durant, OK 74702. (405) 924-0121 (extension 2385). 18th Season. Molly Risso, Artistic Director. June 27-July 27. Ant. (Molly Risso) July 18, 22, 26; The Compleat Wks of Wllm Shkspr (Adbrided) (Patrick Benton) July 20, 21. Hosted by Southeastern Oklahoma State University. OREGON SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, P.O. Box 158, Ashland, OR 97520. (541) 482-4331. 62nd Year. Libby Appel, Artistic Director. Feb. 21-Nov. 2. Angus Bowmer Theatre: Lr. (Libby Appel) Feb. 21-Nov. 2. The Elizabethan Theatre: AYL (Tazewell Thompson) June 10-Oct.12; Tim. (Penny Metropulos) June 11-Oct. 10; TGV (Ken Albers) June 12-Oct. 11. Plus seven non-Shakespearean productions. Backstage tours, lectures, concerts, play readings, and more. Write or call for detailed brochure, or visit Web at http://www.mind.net/osf/. PENNSYLVANIA SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL AT ALLENTOWN COLLEGE, 2755 Station Ave., Center Valley, PA 18034. (610) 282-9455. Gerard J. Schubert, O.S.F.S., Producing Artistic Director. June 18-Aug. 9. JC (Gerard J. Schubert, OSFS) June 18-July 12; Err. (Russell Treyz) July 23-Aug. 9. THE PUBLICK THEATRE, 11 Ridgemont St., Boston, MA 02134. (617) 782-5425. Spiro Veloudos, Artistic Director. June 5-Aug. 31. LLL July 10-27; AYL Aug. 19, 25, 26. SHAKESPEARE & COMPANY - THE MOUNT, 2 Plunket St., P.O. Box 865, Lenox, MA 01240. (413) 637-3353. 20th Season. Tina Packer, Artistic Director. May 23-Nov. 1. Mainstage Theatre: 1H4 July 25-Aug. 31. Other plays in repertory include WT, MND, TN, and more. SHAKSPEARE AT THE RUINS, The Four County Players, P.O. Box 1, Barboursville, VA 22923. (540) 832-5355 25th Season. Randall Herndon, President. First three weekends in August. Rom. (Lydia Underwood Horan). Performed on grounds of the Barboursville Vineyards, using the ruins of a Thomas Jefferson-designed home as part of the set. SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL OF DALLAS, Sammons Center for the Arts, 3630 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas, TX 75219. (214) 559-2778. 26th Season. Cliff Redd, Executive Producer. June 17-July 27. In repertory: Mac. (Raphael Parry); TN (Sheriden Thomas). Performances in Samuell-Grand Park. Free. SHAKESPEARE IN THE PARK, 3113 South University, Fort Worth, TX 76109. (817) 923-6698. 20th Season. Robert A. Fass, Executive Director. June 11-July 6. Shr. (Kenn Stilton) Trinity Park Playhouse. SHAKESPEARE ON THE SASKATCHEWAN FESTIVAL, P.O. Box 1646, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7K 3R8. 1-306-6523-2300. Henry Woolf, Artistic Director. 13th Season. July 2-Aug. 17. In repetory: Tmp., JC, and Shakespeare's Follies Revue! Revue! SHAKESPEARE THEATRE FREE FOR ALL, 301 East Capitol Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003. (202) 393-2700. 7th Season. Michael Kahn, Artistic Director. June 8-22. H5 (Michael Kahn). Featuring Harry Hamlin. At the Carter Barron Amphitheatre in Rock Creek Park STERLING RENAISSANCE FESTIVAL, 15431 Farden Road, Sterling, NY 13156. 1-800-879-4446. 21th Season. June 28-Aug. 10. Gary Izzo, Artistic Director. Shr., MWW, MND, Comedia dell'arte show. STRATFORD FESTIVAL THEATRE, Box 520, Stratford, Ontario, Canada N5A 6V2. (519) 273-1600 or 1-800-567-1600. 45th Season. May 13-Nov. 9. Richard Monette, Artistic Director. Rom. (Diane Leblanc) May 13-Nov. 8; R3 (John Wood) June 12-Sept. 20. TEXAS SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, Kilgore College, 1100 Broadway, Kilgore, TX 75662. (903) 983-8117. Raymond Caldwell, Artistic Director. May 18-July 29. In rotating repertory. TN (Kathy Barber); H5 (Eve Adamson); and more. http://www.under.org/tsf. THE THEATER AT MONMOUTH: The Shakespeare Theater Of Maine, P.O. Box 385, Monmouth, ME 04259-0385. (207) 933-9999. 28th Season. Michael O'Brien, Artistic Director. July 2-Aug. 30. MND (Michael O'Brien) opens July 10; Ham. (Chris Weinstein) opens July 20. Plays are performed in rotating repertory at Cumston Hall - a national historic landmark building erected in 1900. THEATREWORKS SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, Colorado Springs, CO 80933. (719) 593-3240. Murray Ross, Artistic Director. 15th Season. July 18-Aug. 10. MND. Live music, art, food. UTAH SHAKESPEAREAN FESTIVAL, 351 W. Center St., Cedar City, UT 84720. (801) 586-7878. 36th Season. Fred C. Adams, Founder and Executive Director; Douglas N. Cook and Cameron Harvey, Producing Artistic Directors; R. Scott Phillips, Managing Director. June 23-Aug. 30. In repertory: Per. (Michael Addison); H5 (Paul Barnes); Ham. (Howard Jensen); TN (Bruce K. Sevy). VIRGINIA SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, College of William & Mary, P.O. Box 8795, Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795. (757) 221-2660. 19th Season. Jerry H. Bledsoe, Executive Director. July 11-Aug. 3. In repertory: Shr. opens July 11; Cor. opens July 18. WASHINGTON SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, P.O. Box 1501, Olympia, WA 98507. (360) 943-9492. 12th Season. Aug. 7-Aug. 30. In repertory Tmp., Err., Oth., and The Compleat Works of Wllm Shkspr (Adbrided). WISCONSIN SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL, Center for the Arts, U of W, Platteville, WI 53818-3099. (608) 342-1298. 21th Season. Thomas P. Collins, Artistic Director. July 9-Aug. 9. In repertory: TNGV opens July 9; WT opens July 10; Tro. opens July 11. "Talk-backs" (Tuesday evenings) and Backstage tours (Saturday mornings). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 15:26:24 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0470 Re: Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0470. Thursday, 17 April 1997. [1] From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Wednesday, 16 Apr 1997 09:15:11 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0458 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [2] From: Lysbeth Benkert-Rasmussen Date: Wednesday, 16 Apr 97 10:38:00 CDT Subj: RE: SHK 8.0467 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [3] From: Robin D. H. Wells Date: Tuesday, 15 Apr 1997 15:51:20 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0458 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Wednesday, 16 Apr 1997 09:15:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0458 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT This will probably sound like a rhetorical question, but it isn't. Is there anyone out there who has changed his/her mind as a result of the "ideology" thread? [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lysbeth Benkert-Rasmussen Date: Wednesday, 16 Apr 97 10:38:00 CDT Subject: RE: SHK 8.0467 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT To return to Paul Hawkins question of a while back: what do ideological readings (which to him appear to always be reductive) add to aesthetic ones? In order to have an aesthetic response, a reader/audience member/student must be able to place a play within some sort of context. To many of my students, early modern England is utterly foreign-so much so that the differences initially preclude their having an aesthetic response at all. By studying culture (which is nothing if not saturated with ideology), I can supply my students with a context in which to place the works, and an approach to analyze the different ways one might see things even from within that single culture. This also enables me to help them place the plays within their own culture-giving them a second way to contextualize the works, and the tools with which to explore alternative interpretations from within that culture. In this way, cultural study (which is in many ways ideological study) adds layers to their understanding of the plays. They come to see them as complex texts that offer a variety of interpretations. This, of course, runs up against the poster who complains that a post-modern reaction to a play is somehow not as valid as a historically based one, asking "whose plays are these, anyway, yours or Shakespeare's. (Pardon me but I can't remember who said this). This is a point well taken, and I think that it is an important part of the process to come to an understanding of the original contexts of the plays, but I also think that to insist only on historical readings dooms these texts to be relics of the literature department. A play-going audience cannot take a history course every time they go to the theater. As the director and actors make decisions about the production of the play, they make links with the culture of the audience (even if that link is as small as using a proscenium stage, or as large as dressing Titania in a clown suit). These decisions draw on the multiply layered understanding of the play arrived at by the director based on her understanding both of her own world and the world of Shakespeare. The layering of ideologies only adds to the complexity of our understanding of the plays. Just as an analysis of those ideologies adds further layers to the ways in which we understand our reactions to the plays. Even if we "do" cultural studies, our departments are still filed under "humanities." Lysbeth Em Benkert [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robin D. H. Wells Date: Tuesday, 15 Apr 1997 15:51:20 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0458 Re: Ideology: The Aesthetics of WT Dear Terry, I enjoyed our chat on the bus in Washington (and share your views on the dreadful Tories and the only slightly less egregious Blair). But I'm genuinely puzzled that it should make you squirm when people say they love Shakespeare. Richard Barnfield talks about the fact that his friend "Maister RL" loves Dowland, while he himself prefers Spenser ("thou lov'st the one, and I the other"). He goes on: "Dowland to thee is deare; whose heavenly tuch / Upon the Lute, doeth ravish humaine sense: / Spenser to mee; whose deepe Conceit is such, / As passing all Conceit, needs no defence". I can't pretend actually to love Spenser, though I'm quite happy to admit, with no affectation at all, that I share Barnfield's love of Dowland, and was also ravished when I was lucky enough to attend a private recital of his songs recently in a 15th-century monastery in Seville (compliment to you Rafael if you're listening). I know that Kay Stanton has similar feelings about listening to Shakespeare. Why does that make you squirm? You're not tone deaf are you? PS: the invitation to write for Renaissance Forum is still open. Best wishes, Robin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 15:34:19 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0471 Re: Cordelia The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0471. Thursday, 17 April 1997. [1] From: Jacqueline Strax Date: Wednesday, 16 Apr 1997 09:43:54 +0000 Subj: SHK 8.0461 Re: The Fool; Cordelia [2] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Wednesday, 16 Apr 1997 21:08:39 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0468 Re: Cordelia [3] From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Thursday, 17 Apr 1997 07:37:38 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0468 Re: Cordelia [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacqueline Strax Date: Wednesday, 16 Apr 1997 09:43:54 +0000 Subject: SHK 8.0461 Re: The Fool; Cordelia Susan: I like your post this morning on Cordelia: >I personally cannot say that I read those lines as Cordelia's >stubbornness and as someone else pointed out to me recently, >Goneril and Regan really say absolutely nothing to their father. >Goneril says, "Sir, I love you more than word can wield the >matter,.... A love that makes breath poor and speech unable." >(I. i. 50, 55) & then Regan says, "In my true heart I find she >names my very deed of love"(I. i. 65-66) Well then why are they >still talking? Sounds strange to me. What I always find ironic >is that critics who write about the stubborn, frigid, cold, >unfeeling Cordelia I keep reading about in articles are so very >much like Lear in their judgment of her. I guess Regan and Goneril talk for display and in order to contend with one another for dominance (or what some political analysts call hegemony). Although their rhetoric betrays this, Lear fails to catch it. Perhaps because he's too busy putting on his own rhetorical display including maps. It's as though Lear is trolling his daughters (and those powerful husbands of theirs) into sharing the burdens of his kingdom whilst propping up his conceit and his claims to perks and the dignity of age. Might see Lear's display as partly a tactic to make sure Cordelia gets her man so there'll be three reliable males to rule over the daughters once the deal is done and the land split. However, Lear, increasingly as his wracking advances, uses words not merely for display and hegemony etc. but more like Cordelia does. This is a bond between them. Perhaps that's why as the play opens Goneril and Regan already have husbands (whom they don't love) while Cordelia's not yet found quite found the right man to whom she can transfer and with whom she can trust her affections-the love which till this point she has devoted to her stubborn father. Jacqueline Strax [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Wednesday, 16 Apr 1997 21:08:39 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0468 Re: Cordelia Cordelia's reaction to her father's request for a public expression of her love is stubborn and wrongheaded. She knows her sisters and knows that their expressions of love are lies; yet they have given her an avenue for her response which will top theirs and still be true: the first sister has said that she loves Lear more than anything; the second, that she loves nothing else but him. Cordelia could say - would be expected to say - that she loves everything else because of him. Not only would this be true, it is the last step in the development of any true love (the sisters have given the first two steps). Someone in these responses has said that Cordelia should humour the old man and simply lie. She shouldn't and needn't. What does she do instead? She "cannot heave her heart into her mouth", she says; but then she does. And when she does, she measures out her love, just as Lear is foolishly measuring love and dividing the country according to that measure. But the curious fact about love is that the more it is expressed and felt in one direction the more it grows in all directions - a young woman in love with her lover loves her father (and everything lovable) the more for that. But Cordelia? She will take "half her love" to her husband! Cordelia is another Lear, but of a younger, other sex. In his hotheadedness, Kent is yet another Lear. The three of them dance the story along to its disaster and their deaths. L. Swilley Houston [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Thursday, 17 Apr 1997 07:37:38 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0468 Re: Cordelia This is the sense I get from Cordelia's response as well. She goes on to say in 1.1.97, "Why have my sisters husbands if they say/They love you all?" Unfortunately, when I brought this up to my professor, I was told that I was getting to psychological, but it seems to be quite clear and appropriate for the age, if you ask me. JoAnna ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 15:37:23 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0472 Distressed by *Lear* The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0472. Thursday, 17 April 1997. From: Harry Hill Date: Thursday, 17 Apr 1997 08:18:31 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Distressed by *Lear* An extraordinarily bright student in my Shakespeare class wrote me this letter the day before yesterday; I have asked him to give me the essay he describes. But he would appreciate close and specific answers to his take on *King Lear*. "Professor Hill: [....snip....] So, to dispense with any further art, the matter is that I am in the midst of reading *King Lear* (for the fourth time in a year) and have yet to grasp-or even remotely discern-those themes which are often attributed to it. I fail to see how, for instance, the Fool subsumes Lear's character: he is characterized largely by frivolity and flaccid humor, his wisdom is overrated, and, if anything, *Lear* is the one who subsumes *him*, for the King gradually takes over the role of purveyor of preposterous prattle until the Fool falls silent in Act III Scene 6 and is never heard from again. And what are these claims about Lear having abandoned his masculinity, his nobility, his pride, and whatnot? Stuff and nonsense, I say. Look at the text: it's dark, it's cold, and it's raining. No wonder the King, once pampered and protected from the elements, is somewhat miffed. But to say that he has all sorts of apocalyptic revelations in the tempest, when all this doddering old fool does is bemoan the loss of his cherished retinue and then beat his breast for having lamented said loss of royal trappings in the first place (talk about sour grapes), seems to me a spurious proposition. What is this-I'm some sort of insensitive American rube? Am I missing something here? Or do you mind if I stray somewhat from the prescribed essay topics and devote my two thousand words simply to telling you what I found interesting in King Lear? These are not rhetorical questions. I am beginning to wonder whether I am cut out for the literary-analytical trade after all. Michael Laszlo ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 09:47:00 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0473 Re: Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0473. Friday, 18 April 1997. [1] From: Thomas Bishop Date: Thursday, 17 Apr 19 97 1 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0470 Re: Ideology [2] From: Ron Ward Date: Friday, 18 Apr 1997 09:43:12 +1200 (NZST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0470 Re: Ideology [3] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Thursday, 17 Apr 1997 19:10:47 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0470 Re: Ideology [4] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Thursday, 17 Apr 1997 19:35:13 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0470 Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Thursday, 17 Apr 1997 16:11:57 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0470 Re: Ideology Phyllis Rackin asks, non-rhetorically: >Is there anyone out there who has changed his/her mind as a result of the >"ideology" thread? I'd have to say that I've been made to think very carefully about things I hadn't considered, and that I'd now put some things quite differently from how I might have before. I've also been prompted to go and do some extra reading, which I think has been a good thing. So it has been, for me, a genuinely instructive debate, at least some of the time. "Changed" by the discussion, yes, though not "converted" to a very different view. It's a good question though. One thing I might also say. I don't know that this forum, which promises so much in the way of discussion, always lends itself to it in the end. The need to keep postings brief, and the tendency to "take positions" doesn't always facilitate nuance (I have been guilty of this too). Hardy is probably better positioned than most to speak to this. Would he be willing to share with us an account of the proceedings in the recent SAA seminar on the topic? [Editor's Note: To retrieve my essay, send the command "GET SAA1997 SHAKSPER" to listserv@ws.BowieState.edu. HMC] [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Ward Date: Friday, 18 Apr 1997 09:43:12 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0470 Re: Ideology >Lysbeth Em Benkert says >In order to have an aesthetic response, a reader/audience member/student >must be able to place a play within some sort of context. To many of my >students, early modern England is utterly foreign-so much so that the >differences initially preclude their having an aesthetic response at >all. The difficulty students may have in relating to a different culture is an interesting one. It seems that this is something they desperately need (though may not want initially) to do. The point is that culture is not just subject to temporal variations. If we live solely within the culture we have grown up with we are in a sort of self imposed prison. Much like those people who have a great fear of moving outside their front door. Education is really about realising that we have other choices and that only by taking steps into the unknown will we understand the full potential of the human mind. Apart from our own well being it is also of great importance that members of societies are willing to learn both old and new ways of understanding things as if we do not know the past we can not plan the future. Neither are we in a good position to understand our neighbouring cultures. This sort of understanding is needed by our legislators and if our population at large does not appreciate it we will elect people of poor understanding. The question then is how is the best way of getting students to take the first step. I am not sure that converting everything into terms they can immediately relate to is all that much of a good idea. It may be impossible anyway. I suggest we should begin with the play rather than the language. Then we may catch the conscience of the king within our student who would otherwise poison our ears with small mindedness. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Thursday, 17 Apr 1997 19:10:47 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0470 Re: Ideology > This will probably sound like a rhetorical question, but it isn't. Is > there anyone out there who has changed his/her mind as a result of the > "ideology" thread? Actually, I'd say that I have. I haven't, as it were, joined the other camp, but I think that I've worked more on my own ideas with this thread as a spur. Cheers, Sean [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Thursday, 17 Apr 1997 19:35:13 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0470 Re: Ideology Hi, Lysbeth. I enjoyed your posting, and agree that historical background is vital to any understanding of the text. I think you miss the 'strong' point of Paul's argument, however. To begin with, while you can say that "history is largely ideological", or words to that effect, there's nothing to say that it is. I'm reading _Peace Print and Protestantism_ at the moment, by C. S. L. Davies, who underlines the importance of accidents and individual personalities in forming history. I'm inclined to agree with this argument at times. Moreover, the word 'ideology' is itself loaded: what is to say that, for instance, a belief in the divine right of kings is not rather 'theological' or 'political scientific' or even 'superstitious'? Making 'ideology' embrace all these things is merely to beg the question of which is prior: a theological _a priori_ which posits the play of ideological constructs in the absence of God? a polisci decision that certain ideologies are better at maintaining national cohesion? We could, after all, reverse the prioritizing of ideology in all cases: all ideology is fundamentally theological, or political science, or even aesthetics. I think the strength of Paul's case lies not in denying the interplay between history and art, but querying first the ideological nature of history, and the priority of history over art. To prioritize ideology in a totalizing way is not only reductionist (not in the sense that it reduces all interpretation to a formula-in the sense that it reduces the field of possible interpretations to those consonant with the presupposed importance of ideology), but also displaces art into a different field. It is similar, in a sense, to saying that "all history is economics," which robs history of its status as an independent discipline, at least in principle. In its more extreme forms, it would rob history of its ability to make us query our favourite economic models. Similarly, saying that "all literature is ideology" is to rob literature of its ability to make us question our ideological commitments. I understand that Hitler banned _Othello_. Would he have done so if it were not capable of questioning the ideology to which the German nation had committed itself? If literature is read entirely *through* ideology, then he would have nothing to fear, since _Othello_ would (in a Nazi context) be invariably read as a morality tale about the dangers of racially impure marriages, untermenschen in positions of command, and so forth. In anything but this case, literature is questioning ideology. It still participates within ideology, of course, but it can call certain basic ideological assumptions into question. But perhaps the preeminence of ideological readings may one day succeed in making art less dangerous. I enjoyed your post immensely, by the way, and admire your teaching methods. Do you usually present historical background in lectures, or assign critical readings which themselves utilize historical background? I did the latter in my first Shakespeare course, last term, but with somewhat limited success. Cheers, Sean ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 09:49:16 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0474 Q: Two Noble Kinsmen The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0474. Friday, 18 April 1997. From: Eric Armstrong Date: Thursday, 17 Apr 1997 15:56:44 -0400 Subject: Q: Two Noble Kinsmen The Company of actors I worked with last summer have decided to do Two Noble Kinsmen this year as a change of pace. Though I have begun to read the play, I know little about its history or what scholars feel about it. I must say I really enjoy it so far... and the Jailor's Daughter seems like one of the most interesting women I've met in Shakespeare. All those soliloquies! Anyway, my question is this: As a company that specializes in the late plays of Shakespeare, is this joint-effort really considered "sub-standard" by Shakespeareans? Or just different. What are it's greatest assets and biggest downfalls? And for those of you who have directed, designed or acted in it, how was it to work on? How was it received? Sincerely, Eric Armstrong ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 10:54:05 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0475 Re: Lear; Cordelia The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0475. Friday, 18 April 1997. [1] From: Framji Minwalla Date: Thursday, 17 Apr 1997 17:40:43 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0472 Distressed by *Lear* [2] From: Ben Schneider Date: Thursday, 17 Apr 1997 17:39:56 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Cordelia [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Framji Minwalla Date: Thursday, 17 Apr 1997 17:40:43 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0472 Distressed by *Lear* To Harry Hill: Your student is exactly right, I think, that Lear subsumes the Fool's role, rather than the other way around. And even more right about the apocalyptic revelations Lear supposedly has during the storm (these, I think, come much later (on the heath with Gloucester)). What he's missing, though, is Lear's suffering. Here's a short quote taken from a talk I recently gave: "Do we pity Lear? Possibly, yes. We see him, at the end of the play, as 'more sinned against than sinning', as Caroline Spurgeon puts it [Shakespeare's Iterative Imagery], 'a human body in anguished movement-tugged, wrenched, beaten, pierced, stung, scourged, dislocated, flayed, gashed, scalded, tortured, and finally broken on the rack.' "Once Lear's wits turn, he finally begins to lay his insides out, to inspect more honestly than ever before the world he helped make. But it's not that Lear changes or grows wise; rather, he becomes more aware. Barbara Everett ("The New King Lear") captures this nicely: 'Lear commands attention continually by the degree to which the simplest discoveries become, through him, a matter of immediate physical experience, felt both intensely and comprehensively.' "King Lear is a play about power and property, but also about love and healing. Lear's tragedy lies in his inability to see how his political being subsumes and corrupts his personal relations, both with his daughters and his subjects. The play does not, finally, justify or condemn his behavior, even though we might, but rather examines the ways in which individuals respond to, and behave with, each other. We have shifted far from the rationales of [Nahum]Tate and [Samuel]Johnson here, but far also, I think, from critical readings which take as their text Gloucester's cynicism. Humans are not puppets manipulated by omnipresent gods, but rather free individuals whose cruelties and kindnesses bear human fruit. If Lear learns anything, it is this: 'They told me I was everything; `tis a lie, I am not ague-proof.'" The apocalyptic Lear is a fabrication we've inherited from Romantic imaginations which, like Keats's, conjure a Lear far beyond the character Shakespeare wrote, and who prefer to reread the play rather than see it performed. Framji Minwalla framji.minwalla@harpercollins.com [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben Schneider Date: Thursday, 17 Apr 1997 17:39:56 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Cordelia Cordelia's "reticence in the early play to declare her love completely" strikes Greg McSweeney (7 Apr) as "standing on principle at the expense of the filial relationship." According to him, she deliberately "showcased her own superior morality over that of her siblings. . . . In other words, her opinion of herself must be preserved and published, that her innate nobility may be known to all and sundry - and domestic and political stability be damned." In other contexts Greg speaks of Cordelia's "judgmentalism" and "her pretentious silence." Derek Woods agrees but, thinking of France's high opinion of Cordelia, wonders (14 Apr), "Is there a case for Cordelia?" I agree with his second opinion: France is right. But what did he see in her? Apparently something that neither Greg nor Derek did, though Derek tried to. We too readily try to explain Shakespeare's characters as if we were they. What would I do, we say, if I were in that situation? In the first place, as Derek Woods suspects, the character is defined by the play, and we should let the play finish before interrupting with our precious opinions. Beside France's vote of confidence for Cordelia, we have Kent's; as soon as Goneril wants Lear to "disquantity his train," we have his recognition that her fault was too small to trigger such a large reaction; at the end, we have him asking Cordelia for forgiveness. The whole play falls apart if we think he is asking forgiveness of a judgmental prig. Those who think that "humoring the old fool" would have ended the trouble must consider how formidably evil these bad sisters are. That's probably what Cordelia was trying to get across in the first place. As Terence Hawkes has so well reminded us, "The past is another country. They do things differently there." In the light of that past, Cordelia appears to have been a Plain Dealer, an archetypal character who began with Socrates, was picked up and carried through the middle ages by Cicero and Seneca and dumped on Shakespeare's England through scores of conduct books, dozens of translations, and the public schools. These schools were founded in the 16th century on Cicero's premise that man is rational, therefore educable and civilizable. His De Officiis was the core of the curriculum. Shakespeare's England, let's face it, was Stoic, and Stoicism, which fostered the needs of society, is a foreign country to us, who prioritize the needs of the individual. Kent is a Plain Dealer, too, and so is Lear, temporarily misled by flatterers. Edmund is a Plain-Dealing Villain, and Goneril and Regan are Double-Dealing Villains. In De Beneficiis, translated in 1548, Seneca gives us a perfect scenario for King Lear. He asks, what can we give a person who has everything? and answers his own question: "I will show you what the highest in the land stand in need of, what the man who possesses everything lacks: someone, assuredly who will tell him the truth, who will deliver him from the constant cant and falsehood that so bewilder him with lies that the very habit of listening to flatteries instead of facts has brought him to the point of not knowing what truth really is. Do you not see how such persons are driven to destruction by the absence of frankness and the substitution of cringing obsequiousness for loyalty? No one is sincere in expressing approval or disapproval, but one person vies with another in flattery, and, while all the man's friends have only one object, a common aim to see who can deceive him most charmingly, he himself remains ignorant of his own powers, and, believing himself to be as great as he hears he is, he brings on wars that are useless and will imperil the world, breaks up a useful and necessary peace, and, led on by a madness that no one checks, sheds the blood of numerous persons, destined at last to spill his own. While without investigation such men claim the undetermined as assured and think that it is as disgraceful to be diverted from their purpose as to be defeated and believe that what has already reached its highest development and is even then tottering, will last for ever, they cause vast kingdoms to come crashing down upon themselves and their followers." The culture of absolutism is a foreign country to us, but Seneca, who was Nero's tutor, lived his whole life there. At a time when cultural studies are the rage, I find it incredible that we have totally ignored the moral milieu in which Shakespeare was raised, schooled, and s elf-educated. Maybe it's because it's in plain sight. * * * SHAKSPERians who want further documentation of these allegations should consult my articles on Lear, published in Early Modern Literary Studies, vol 1, no 1 at the website http://purl.oclc.org/emls/emlshome.html ; on Merchant, by sending a message to listserv@ws.bowiestate.edu, skipping "Subject" with the Enter key, and writing no more than GET SHAKSPER GRANVILL JEW_OF_V ; and on Tempest, in Shakespeare Studies for 1995. I have also written drafts on why Shakespeare was a Stoic, on Henry IV 1&2, and on Henry V. If you would like to have hard copies of the electronic texts or any or all of these drafts, email your request and your regular mail address to me at ben.r.schneider@lawrence.edu . The article on Granville's Jew of Venice was published in Restoration, Fall 1993. Yours to command, BEN SCHNEIDER ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 08:03:53 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0476 Re: Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0476. Saturday, 19 April 1997. [1] From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 18 Apr 1997 10:13:39 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0470 Re: Ideology [2] From: David M Richman Date: Friday, 18 Apr 1997 11:00:43 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0473 Re: Ideology [3] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Friday, 18 Apr 1997 13:09:35 -0400 Subj: SHK 8.0470 Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Friday, 18 Apr 1997 10:13:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0470 Re: Ideology Dear Phyllis Rackin-- Is there such a thing as a question that isn't rhetorical? And if so, is this question one of them? And what do you mean by changing your mind? Can people be set in their ways TO change their mind? (I.e. my habit is to break habits). Or is this the "madness of discourse, the bi-fold authority" too busy setting up cause against "itself" to speak for itself? And If this attitude is valorized as "negative capability?" some of the times, it still can be "madness" other times? And maybe the "mind" is nothing BUT change? But then we have the idea of constant change? Oh, PARADOXICA EPIDEMICA? What do we mean by CHANGE? A once and for all change? IS such change the point? Well, I don't know, but I just wanted to tell people that your daughter, Ethel, is a good poet (though I haven't seen her work on the page yet, just on the stage).... Chris Stroffolino [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Friday, 18 Apr 1997 11:00:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0473 Re: Ideology This is an attempt to speak to the non-rhetorical question whether this ideology discussion on *The Winter's Tale* has changed minds. I believe my thinking has been broadened and enriched. I have tended to concentrate on that last scene's wonder and art, and on he emotional response it seems to elicit. "I like your silence. It the more shows off / Your wonder." I had not forgotten, but I had subordinated, the loss, the done and irreparable damage done by Leontes to Hermione, his children, and his kingdom. The debate, at its best, has encouraged me, like Mr. Kiernander, seriously to contemplate directing this play once again; and seeking a staging that makes clear the difficult balance between crime and forgiveness. Forgiveness, of a sort, there is, I think-and I still believe that a powerful emotional response, of which wonder is an element, and which Mr. Hawkins describes, is appropriate. But this response need not and should not exclude a materially and historically informed sense of Leontes' political and personal crimes. The play is a complex tale of difficult forgiveness, and he debate has taught me something about how very difficult that forgiveness is. I haven't decided yet how I would stage that last scene, but when I do, the decisions will be informed by he debate. David Richman [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Friday, 18 Apr 1997 13:09:35 -0400 Subject: SHK 8.0470 Re: Ideology Dear Robin, I was sorry to hear that you'd been ravished. It confirms one's worst fears. But how generous of you to share the experience with us. No, I am not tone-deaf. I sometimes wish I were. Terry ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 08:12:42 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0477 Re: Lear; Cordelia; Hamlet The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0477. Saturday, 19 April 1997. [1] From: David Dyal Date: Friday, 18 Apr 1997 11:03:00 -0700 Subj: SHK 8.0472 Distressed by Lear [2] From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Friday, 18 Apr 1997 11:23:52 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0471 Re: Cordelia [3] From: Ed Pixley Date: Friday, 18 Apr 1997 17:07:35 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0459 Hamlet: A Question and Other Responses [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Dyal Date: Friday, 18 Apr 1997 11:03:00 -0700 Subject: SHK 8.0472 Distressed by Lear I can identify with the student who is having trouble with _Lear_. I've heard all my intellectual life that _Lear_ is Shakespeare's most powerful tragedy. I wonder if the nature of the theme prevents identification? For me, the theme finally comes down to, Is that all there is?, like the Peggy Lee song. Yes, he's an old fool, believing that he can control the consequences of his actions. The utter uselessness of it all is the whole point, isn't it? If often wonder why I "like" the character Macbeth better than either Hamlet or Lear. Perhaps because Hamlet won't act, and Lear is impotent. Macbeth, at least, acts decisively against the forces that oppose him. Of course, the fact that I like Macbeth says much about me, but I have a feeling that many people feel the same way. I don't want to like Lear because I don't want to believe that's all there is. David Dyal University of Florida [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Friday, 18 Apr 1997 11:23:52 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0471 Re: Cordelia I apologize for sending a response without adding what I was responding to! Someone on the board suggested that Cordelia was not being stubborn and willful, but that she was merely presenting herself as one ready for marriage (paraphrase). I agree with this, because of the line I mentioned in the last letter that goes, "Why have my sisters husbands if they say/They love you all? (1.1.97)." There was no reason for France or Burgundy to assume that had Cordelia appeased her father, it would not threaten their standing with her. If taken in the biblical and social context of the times, when a woman marries a man, she cleaves unto him, setting aside-not only her love-but her loyalty to her family (to what extent I do not know). Reading Goneril and Regan's replies to Lear question, it is not only clear that they are deceptive, but that their husbands are in on it as well. Cordelia does not have the advantage of a husband; she is on the auction block, and if nothing else, must maintain the appearance of being available. When Burgundy rejects her, it's not because of her presentation as one who will be a wife in the "fullest" sense, but because of her lost dowry. France then says, "Thee and thy virtues here I seize upon (1.1.252)," then, after chastizing Burgundy and Lear, he ends with, "Thou losest here, a better where to find (1.1.261)." Cordelia is neither stupid, stubborn, or rude, folks. If anything, she was smart enough to remember the rule of survival as a woman of the time. Security-whether emotional, financial, or social-seems to play a big part in the makeup of women in Shakespeare's works. I believe this is all that is happening here. JoAnna [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pixley Date: Friday, 18 Apr 1997 17:07:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0459 Hamlet: A Question and Other Responses On 12 Apr 1997, Andrew Walker White wrote: > I believe it was Granville-Barker who revived the notion that "to be or > not to be" was a contemplation of action, not a contemplation of > suicide; the 'enterprises of great pith and moment' he refers to involve > taking revenge for his father, very likely, an act which would certainly > involve risking his own life in the process. To which I can only add > that the last word of this famous speech is "action", not "death" or > "suicide". > > Have your Hamlet begin the scene as written, 'reading a book', and show > the audience a thoughtful man, reading out loud and commenting on what > he reads. It's up to the actor to decide what's read and what's his own > commentary, but I find this approach to be far more fruitful an exercise > than the set-piece, mirror-gazing, cliffs-contemplating stuff that has > been regarded as de rigeur (sic) for so many years. The prince thinks > out loud, he doesn't whine or moan out loud, that's the key I think to > discovering the activist in the Dane. Dear Andy: Thanks for reminding me that Granville-Barker was my source for the perception of Hamlet contemplating action in "To be, or not to be." Allow me to take this idea a few steps further-into its relevance to other parts of the play. At least with the standard scene arrangement deriving from the First Folio, this reading makes it a culmination of a dramatic problem established in I.5, where Hamlet vowed to sweep to his revenge on "wings as swift as meditation," though, by the end of the scene, he has also hinted at some kind of "antic disposition" he may put on. Nevertheless, an audience who approaches Act II expecting sweeping revenge must indeed be puzzled with the gradual realization of the amount of time that has passed since Hamlet made that vow, with no apparent results, except the antic disposition. 1) Ophelia has apparently barred Hamlet's access to her long enough to interpret that as the cause of his distress; Laertes has been in Paris long enough for Polonius to send Reyaldo to spy on him; 3) Cornelius and Voltimand have gone to Norway and returned with their mission complete; 4) Hamlet's weird behavior has prompted Claudius to send to Wittenberg for R & G, who have already arrived at their behest. When we finally do see Hamlet, he is reading (hardly a sweeping activity) and playing mind games with Polonius. He goes on to play more mind games with R & G and play some scenes with the Players. Only after the Players leave, in his final soliloquy of the act, does he suddenly ask the same question an audience might have been asking throughout. Why haven't I done it? Look at this player . . . moved to tears . . . by a fiction. Had he my cause. . .etc. He answers the question first by deciding he must be a coward and then rants awhile over that. Suddenly recognizing the folowing of such ranting-like a very drab-he calls himself an "ass," and says "about my brains." That is when he comes up with the second answer. He doesn't trust the Ghost. (By the way, recognizing Hamlet as a character who frequently acts impulsively and by intuition, this reading assumes that when he asks the Player to do THE MURDER OF GONZAGO, and even to add some 12 or 16 lines, he has not yet planned how he intends to use all that.) And so the play's the thing wherein he'll catch the conscience . . . This brings him back to the same position he was in at the end of his I.2, where he needs to act on his suspicions. But at least he now has a direct plan, and a means in place to follow through. Question: Why haven't I done it? Answer: I'm a coward -- Rejection. Answer 2: I don't trust the Ghost -- Plan: use the play. Now, ten minutes later he's back on stage: To be or not to be -- that is the question (Answer # 3) I haven't done it because I know that by taking revenge I'm going to die. "To be" is to suffer the slings and arrows-that is, do nothing. "Not to be" is to take arms against a sea of troubles (to act). That would result in death-to sleep-no more-tis a consumation devoutly to be wished To sleep -- perchance to dream -- ay, there's the rub. Thus deeds of great pitch and moment with this regard their currents turn awry and lose the name of action. Not until Hamlet reconciles himself with his own intuitive and impulsive nature can he commit himself to the action. He loathes the impulsiveness in himself, thinking he must never act until he has worked through in his mind to the final consequences of that action. Thus he so admires Horatio who is not "passion's slave." And every time he allows thought to intervene between his desire and his action, he is paralyzed-as at the prayer scene: "that would be scanned." He goes through several stages in working that out, most notably, of course, watching Fortinbras, where he arrives at a new sense of greatness: "rightly to be great" is "greatly to find quarrel in a straw when honor's at the stake"; then in the graveyard, with a new sense of destiny, contemplating great Caesar and Alexander-and of course Yorick; then with Horatio at the beginning of V.2, recognizing the "divinity that shapes our ends" and the "providence in the fall of a sparrow." "Let be." Only now can he let go of his own need to control and predict his own behavior, something that he has resisted from everyone else throughout the play. Unquestionably this reading is strongly influenced by 20th-century existentialism, but, as Otto Brahm said 100 years ago, all art can only be modern art. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to get that off my chest. Ed Pixley SUNY-Oneonta ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 08:20:29 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0478 Re: Subtext; TNK; Summer Festivals The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0478. Saturday, 19 April 1997. [1] From: Kurt Daw Date: Friday, 18 Apr 1997 17:07:22 -0500 Subj: Subtext [2] From: Kurt Daw Date: Friday, 18 Apr 1997 16:20:17 -0500 Subj: Two Noble Kinsmen [3] From: Marian W. Price Date: Friday, 18 Apr 1997 11:02:17 -0400 Subj: Orlando Shakespeare Festival [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kurt Daw Date: Friday, 18 Apr 1997 17:07:22 -0500 Subject: Subtext The thread on sub-text has taken many interesting turns recently, but since my understanding of the meaning of this term differs substantially from the generally offered definitions so far, I wanted to put in my (perhaps idiosyncratic) two cents worth. It is worth noting that I am primarily an acting teacher, which may well explain why I think about this subject differently from the thread so far. Theories of subtext date from the Russian schools of acting at the turn of the century, especially relating to theories about how to perform Chekhov. Scattered throughout his major plays are scenes where the text (i.e.,. the dialogue) is at odds with other non-verbal (i.e.,. subtextual) aspects of the scene. A simple example might be the scene near the end of *Three Sisters* where Tusenbach holds a very trivial conversation with his fiance Irina about coffee and a few items on his desk. The scene is utterly incomprehensible if you don't know that Tusenbach is on his way to fight a duel which he suspects (correctly, as it turns out) he will not survive. This fact is never mentioned in the scene, and no reference is ever made to the reason that Tusenbach utters such banalities instead of telling his love goodbye, perhaps forever. We are left to conclude from his behavior and manner of delivery that his words have very little to do with the main plot interest at that moment. Commonly, we read into his psychology that he is unwilling or unable to utter the words out loud because he is unable to face his coming death. As an acting teacher I have to help students learn to do something rather sophisticated and difficult when they face this kind of material, which is make the plot point clear by undercutting the dialogue and filling in with much behavior. To fail to do so in Chekhov is to render the play meaningless. In this usage, subtext doesn't mean that the actor is feeling some parallel emotion or motivation for the speech. (That is the interiority question, which has flared up from time to time on SHAKSPER. That question, too, is debatable and interesting, but not the issue here.) It doesn't even mean that the actor is feeling something different than words are expressing. Characters do this throughout Shakespeare, as when Juliet pretends to agree with the Nurse about dumping the exiled Romeo in favor of Paris, or more subtly when Hermione delivers her moving trial speech. Sub-text (in the sense that it I am proposing, which is how it is commonly used in actor training) means that there is an essential plot point in the scene which is not directly expressed or referenced in the dialogue. It must be inferred by audience members through interpreting the non-verbal behaviors of the actors, even at times when their words explicitly contradict the underlying point. This dramatic technique is very common in Twentieth Century drama, and learning to play these behaviors is an essential acting skill. The problem is that this skill has also proven useful in cases where there is no underlying plot point, but the text is so minimal or banal (like, for example, much daytime soap opera writing for television). Some actors are now used to "filling in," with interesting bits of their own invention on almost all occasions. The firm pronouncement that there is no subtext in Shakespeare pops up occasionally, almost always in connection with acting teachers who are trying to put a stop to the indiscriminate use of this modernist acting technique in early-modern drama. I remember a mini-firestorm on SHAKSPER about a year ago, arising out of Milla Riggio quoting Michael Kahn on this subject. Then as now, the topic was complicated by the fact that it was stated in absolutist fashion and terms were vague. To say that Shakespeare's characters ALWAYS say exactly what they mean with no irony or sarcasm or intent to deceive is ludicrous. On the other hand, to say the plot lines of the scenes are rarely, if ever, rendered totally below the level of dialogue in early modern drama, so don't play it that way, is sound advice for the young actor. For what its worth, Kurt Daw, Ph.D., Chair Department of Theater Kennesaw State University [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kurt Daw Date: Friday, 18 Apr 1997 16:20:17 -0500 Subject: Two Noble Kinsmen To Eric Armstrong: Concerning your request for information about *Two Noble Kinsmen,* I strongly urge you to look at the newly released Arden - third, edited by Lois Potter. In the introductory materials there are superb discussions of the way in which the play is generally valued and how that valuing relates to the attribution. Also there are extensive and insightful commentaries about the theatrical pitfalls and strengths of the play based on keen viewing of recent major productions. (My disclaimer: I'm not commercially connected to this volume, just think it is a superb source.) Cheers, Kurt Daw [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marian W. Price Date: Friday, 18 Apr 1997 11:02:17 -0400 Subject: Orlando Shakespeare Festival SHAKSPERians in Florida might enjoy these performances. --Best, Norm Holland The Orlando Shakespeare Festival is performing in Eola Park (Rosalind between Central and Robinson, downtown). Performances are at 8 p.m. Tickets may be ordered with a credit card by phone (407) 245-0985 or by fax (407) 317-7380. Prices range from $6 to $35, but the B seats at $10 Sun, Th and $12 F, Sa are good ones. There's a parking garage on Central opposite the public library. The remaining dates for Richard III are April 19, April 25, April 27, May 2, May 4, May 8, and May 10. The remaining dates for The Merry Wives of Windsor are April 20, April 24, April 26, May 1, May 3, and May 9. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 08:28:23 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0479 Qs: Quotation; Sir Thomas More The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0479. Saturday, 19 April 1997. [1] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Saturday, 19 Apr 1997 04:29:33 -0400 Subj: Quotation [2] From: Marica Hepps Date: Friday, 18 Apr 1997 10:59:40 EST Subj: Sir Thomas Moore [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Saturday, 19 Apr 1997 04:29:33 -0400 Subject: Quotation As I hope I made clear, the phrase about the past being another country isn't my invention, unfortunately. Was it the novelist L.P.Hartley? Whoever it was was right. T. Hawkes [Editor's Note: "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there." -- L.P. Hartley, *The Go-Between*: wonderful novel, terrific film.] [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marica Hepps Date: Friday, 18 Apr 1997 10:59:40 EST Subject: Sir Thomas Moore Is there any Elizabethan Era play called "Sir Thomas Moore"? The only one I've been able to come up with is by Anouilh. Thanks.========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 09:57:57 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0480 Re: Cordelia; Lear; The Fool The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0480. Monday, 21 April 1997. [1] From: Stephanie L. Paulsen Date: Sunday, 20 Apr 1997 22:08:07 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0471 Re: Cordelia [2] From: Helen Vella Bonavita Date: Monday, 21 Apr 1997 11:58:11 +0800 (WST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0471 Re: Cordelia [3] From: Robert G. Marks Date: Monday, 21 Apr 1997 19:20:01 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0461 Re: Cordelia [4] From: Robert G. Marks Date: Monday, 21 Apr 1997 20:24:22 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0468 Re: Cordelia [5] From: Chuck Nickerson Date: Sunday, 20 Apr 1997 16:00:02 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0472 Lear Distress [6] From: Robert G. Marks Date: Monday, 21 Apr 1997 21:26:27 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0472 Distressed by *Lear* [7] From: Robert G. Marks Date: Monday, 21 Apr 1997 14:51:14 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0455 Re: The Fool [8] From: Robert G. Marks Date: Monday, 21 Apr 1997 15:39:43 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0461 Re: The Fool; Cordelia [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie L. Paulsen Date: Sunday, 20 Apr 1997 22:08:07 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0471 Re: Cordelia This may sound simple to those of you who have written about Cordelia's refusal to humor her father - how it makes her less of a person and how it seems to diminish her love for Lear - but I don't think the issue is that of her coldness or her stubbornness. I think more of her for refusing to flatter her father in order to gain more political power and for jeopardizing her marital prospects in order to be honest. I agree that it sounds odd to say she takes half of her love with her when she marries, but if you consider that statement to be saying that she feels that her father and her husband will both be equal in her esteem (even though once married she is completely subject to the will of her husband) then it makes sense. Besides, what happens to the rest of the play if Lear has no reason to disown his daughter? She has to say something to make him angry. Sincerely, Stephanie Paulsen [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Vella Bonavita Date: Monday, 21 Apr 1997 11:58:11 +0800 (WST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0471 Re: Cordelia I see the scene between Lear and his daughters as one where *identity* is all-important. Lear seems to me to be demanding that his daughters define their whole existence in terms of himself - they are competing for the identities as rulers of parts of Britain - which he alone as King and father can give. Cordelia is the only one who refuses to buy into this game. Her insistence on the love and duty which she will give her husband asserts her identity as a person independent of Lear, desiring to assume another, wider identity than that simply of Lear's daughter. The result of her integrity is, of course, the identity of Queen of France which is immediately supplied her, one which she has won with minimal help from her father. To me, this is crucial when looking at her conduct later on in the play. When she and Lear are brought before Edmund, Cordelia shows herself willing to fight on: "Shall we not see these sisters and these daughters?" (I hope that quotation's correct; I don't have the text by me). Lear's response, urging them away to prison together, in fact begs for what he desired at the beginning of the play - to have Cordelia's love and being focused solely upon himself, in his retreat. And Cordelia, in her silent assent, gives in to him, as she did not before. In this sense, her death can be seen as being in some way self-inflicted; she reverts to her original identity of "Lear's daughter" and in her refusal to go beyond that, dies. Just my two cents' worth.... Helen Vella Bonavita University of Western Australia [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert G. Marks Date: Monday, 21 Apr 1997 19:20:01 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0461 Re: Cordelia Monday, 14 Apr 1997 13:32:17 -0900 (PDT) Derek Wood Re: SHK 8.0431 Re:"Lear" (Cordelia) quoted Gregory McSweeney SHK 8.0431: > >>.... It's a conscious decision on Cordelia's part to showcase her own superior morality over that of her siblings. And then Derek adds: > I too have had trouble dealing with Cordelia's stubbornness, as uncompromising as her father's, .... I am of the conviction that it's not Cordelia who is showcasing her superior morality, but Shakespeare. There's no doubt that Cordelia's morality is superior to her sisters'. But the question is, does it measure up to the standard espoused by James I before whom Shakespeare originally performed his version of the ancient tale? It's my conviction that in serving her father as his Fool without any acknowledgement, even by today's critics(!), she more than adequately satisfies James I's idea of how a Christian prince(ss) should behave. To conclude then, both this purpose of conscience and the first part of this booke; Keepe God more sparingly in your mouth, but aboundantly in your heart: be precise in effect, but sociall in shew: kythe [make known] more by your deeds then by your words the loue of vertue and hatred of vice: and delight more to be godlie and vertuous in deede then to be thought and called so; expecting more for your praise and reward in heauen then heere: and apply to all your outward actions Christes commaunde, to pray and giue your almes secretly: so shall ye on the one part be inwardly garnished with true Christian humility, not outwardly (with the proud Pharisie) glorying in your godlines: but saying, as Christ commandeth vs all, when we haue done all that we can, Inutiles serui sumus. And on the other part, ye shall eschew outwardly before the world the suspition of filthie proud hypocrisie and deceitfull dissimulation. _Basilikon Doron_ Her service of Lear as his Fool would also be an exemplification of the Stoic idea expressed by Seneca in his brief chapter (9) from Book 2 of _On Benefyting_ translated into English by Arthur Golding as late as in 1578: Therefore all Authors of wisdomme teache, that some benefites must bee bestowed openly, and some secretly. Openly, which are a prayse too attein: as rewardes of Chiualrie, and honour, and whatsouer else becometh more honourable by beeyng knowen. But as for the thinges that auaunce not a mannes credit or estimation, but releeve his weaknesse, his want, or his shame: they must bee giuen secretly, so as they may bee knowen too none but those that take good by them. Ye and sometymes euen he that is too bee holpen must bee beguyled, so as he may haue the thing, and yet not knowe of whom he had it. Cordelia does this if she is Lear's Fool. If she wasn't the Fool, Shakespeare missed a wonderful opportunity to exemplify what James and Jacobean audiences would have been looking for. If you would like to read more, email me about acquiring my book _Cordelia, King Lear and His Fool._ It incorporates _Basilikon Doron_ and other important sources of Shakespeare's _King Lear._ Sincerely, Bob Marks rgm@ar.com.au [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert G. Marks Date: Monday, 21 Apr 1997 20:24:22 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0468 Re: Cordelia I like what someone pointed out to Susan Mather which she reported Tuesday, 15 Apr 1997 23:24:25 -0400 (EDT) Re: SHK 8.0461 Re: The Fool; Cordelia > Goneril and Regan really say absolutely nothing to their father. Goneril says, > "Sir, I love you more than word can wield the matter,.... A love that > makes breath poor and speech unable." (I. i. 50, 55) & then Regan says, > "In my true heart I find she names my very deed of love"(I. i. 65-66) > Well then why are they still talking? What they say is so palpably flattering. I believe that James I would have valued Cordelia's decision not to try to out do her sisters' flattery of their father who now wants more of her than her sisters have already delivered. Shakespeare's choice of "Nothing" as Cordelia's response to her father also opened up the very popular dramatic idea of getting something from nothing. Fool will later ask Lear "Can you make no use of nothing, Nuncle?" Lear has essentially reduced Cordelia to nothing - "little-seeming substance" and "nothing more". If she is Lear's Fool, as I believe she is, then Lear is making use of nothing! The trouble with so much criticism of _Lear_ is that most of it is made in light of the feelings that we bring to the play rather than the feelings Shakespeare's original audiences would have brought to it. I also like Susan's concluding comment > What I always find ironic is that critics who > write about the stubborn, frigid, cold, unfeeling Cordelia I keep > reading about in articles are so very much like Lear in their judgment > of her. How could we understand that Shakespeare intended for us to understand that he felt this way about Cordelia too? You take care too Susan. Sincerely, Bob Marks rgm@ar.com.au [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chuck Nickerson Date: Sunday, 20 Apr 1997 16:00:02 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0472 Lear Distress LEAR at its simplest is about giving up control of something you have built, and still care about. A cracker-jack audience for this play would be entrepreneurs who have lost control of their companies after taking them public. Corporate governance is the modern analog of royal succession. For a factual account of the business analog, see the book 'Barbarians at the Gate'. If you have yet to experience Lear's set of emotions, enjoy that state while you can. [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert G. Marks Date: Monday, 21 Apr 1997 21:26:27 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0472 Distressed by *Lear* I can't see how any person of feeling, reading _Lear_, can be anything other than distressed at the conclusion of what is the normal way of looking at the play. Samuel Taylor, John Keats, Nahum Tate all were. Thackery thought it "boring." Probably the things that most moderns appreciate about the play is the evil and madness in the play. How about James I? What would he have thought of his playwright who took a fairy tale of Cinderella proportions and turned it into a horror story which he then presented to him at Christmas time? I can't see him appreciating it! Can you imagine Shakespeare explaining to James later at dinner that in his _Lear_ the Fool "subsumes" Lear or vice versa? Is that the way Shakespeare usually worked his characters out in his plays? It seems to me to be much more feasible that Shakespeare would have hidden Cordelia in the motley of the Fool as he hid so many others of his characters in various disguises. By doing this he created something really wonderful which modern audiences have not yet seen. Cordelia, and abused daughter, going to heaven at her death to receive her reward for that which she did without acknowledgment or reward from men - serving her father as his Fool. It might be objected that _Lear_ is a tragedy and should therefore be distressing. Lear comes down to us labelled as both a History and a Tragedy. How are we to regard it? Higgins presented what was undeniably a tragedy, but it was "The Tragedy of Cordila" who in despair took her own life and was therefore condemned. The anonymous 1605 version of the folktale reversed the fortune of Cordella and Leir and called it a History. Shakespeare's Quarto version of 1608 is an obvious contrast with Leir and so is labeled a History also. The Folio version of 1623 recognized the tragic element in Shakespeare's play and so labeled it a Tragedy. But it is "The Tragedy of King Lear" not of Cordelia, because even though she dies, it is not by her own hand, as was the case with Cordila, and she would have been seen as having gone to heaven to receive her reward, which would not have been seen as tragic. _Lear_ is not distressing to me. It need not be for you either! And it is still Shakespeare's finest work. Not distressed. Bob Marks rgm@ar.com.au [7]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert G. Marks Date: Monday, 21 Apr 1997 14:51:14 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0455 Re: The Fool My apologies for the delay in responding to David Evett's comparison of Fool with Pisanio and Adam. David Evett wrote in response to SHK 8.0438: > > Robert Marks' use of the Fool's unacknowledged disappearance from the > text as an argument for his identification of the Fool with Cordelia > ignores the fact that this disappearance is not unique. Two other > Shakespearean servants who have demonstrated extraordinary fidelity to > their masters, in forms contrary to their own self-interest, likewise > disappear without further notice once the service has been rendered. > Pisanio in *Cym* is presumably still on stage at the end of the play, > but despite his material contributions to Innogen's escape from the > plots of the Queen, Cloten, and Iachimo, once his purely expository > duties in Act 5 are finished he speaks no more, and is never formally > thanked or rewarded. Adam in *AYL* is even more relevant; having left > his home of 80 years and turned over his retirement savings to Orlando, > then followed the youngster into the wild woods to the point of > exhaustion, he's dropped without a word. On the evidence, we are not > obliged to suppose that the Fool is not, in fact, still around: it could > be quite striking and moving for him to come running on at the very end, > having finally caught up, to confront the tragic loading of the stage, > especially if cast young. > > Servilely, > David Evett My response to David is simply to say first that Pisanio and Adam both have names. The Fool has none - unless we are to understand from "And my poor Fool is hanged...." that her name is Cordelia. Pisanio is present in just about every scene in _Cym_ and his goodness and faithfulness is acknowledged repeatedly. 1.1.170; 1.3.21; 1.5.80; 3.2.62; 3.4.100; 3.5; 4.3.12; 5.1; 5.3; 5.5.123. He is there to share in the reconciliation of his master and Imogem in the denouement of the play. The Fool is only present in the middle of the play and disappears ..... Adam does not disappear from _AYL_. He is honourably received into the company of Duke Senior in the Forest of Arden at 2.7.167, from which he is no doubt eventually restored to civilization with the rest of the Duke's party. His service is exemplary and is acknowledged by Orlando's: O good old man, how well in thee appears The constant service of the antique world, When service sweat for duty, not for meed! Thou art not for the fashion of these times, Where none will sweat but for promotion, And having that, do choke their service up Even with the having; it is not so with thee. 2.3.57ff And notice too that Orlando does not mean to, nor probably does, use up Adam's retirement funds: And ere we have thy youthful wages spent, We'll light upon some settled low content. In the Folio version of _AYL_, as in the Folio version of most if not all plays where there are Clowns or Fools, Touchstone's speeches are prefixed by "Clown" or some abbreviation of it. In these plays we know the name of the clown from stage directions or from how the clown is addressed. In the case of Touchstone, the Folio shows a stage direction at the beginning of 2.4, "Enter Rosaline for Ganimed, Celia for Aliena, and Clowne, alias Touchstone." A few lines into this scene he is called Touchstone by Rosalind, and then in 3.2 he is twice called Touchstone by Corin. My point is that simply because we have a separate speech prefix for Fool in _Lear_ it does not necessary follow that the Fool is a different person to Cordelia. The Fool's "And I'll go to bed at noon" is predictive of the Fool's own departure from the play. We go to bed to sleep, and sleep in this play can mean die (1.2.50). The Fool will cease to exist because she is to reappear as Cordelia. Happily reading King Lear, Bob Marks rgm@ar.com.au [8]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert G. Marks Date: Monday, 21 Apr 1997 15:39:43 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0461 Re: The Fool; Cordelia Sunday, 13 Apr 1997 11:09:34 +1200 Brian Turner wrote: > There are perfectly good dramatic reasons to explain the disappearance > of The Fool. To quote Kenneth Muir in his introduction to the Arden > edition: "He fades from the picture when he is no longer needed, since > Lear can act as his own fool." SHAKSPEReans, As much as I respect Kenneth Muir for his scholarship, I do not think that his statement that the Fool "fades from the picture when he is no longer needed, since Lear can act as his own fool" is accurate. Lear sinks much deeper into madness after the Fool's departure, much less able to out-jest his own heart-struck injuries. Cordelia will command, long after the Fool disappears: Seek, seek for him [Lear], Lest his ungovern'd rage dissolve the life That wants the means to lead it. Granville-Barker wrote concerning the Fool's final words "this is the last we hear or see of him; and what happens to him thereafter, who knows and who cares?" Well many have cared. The question of what became of Lear's Fool is often asked. And certainly, Lear cared! - in his dying moments and the denouement of the play when I believe that he identified the Fool as having been Cordelia. The Fool disappeared at the precise moment that Lear was put into the litter to be carried to Dover in the care of Kent. The Fool disappeared because she had to get to Dover in advance of Lear, in the same way that the disguised Portia and Nerissa leave Venice before Bassanio and Gratiano to return to Belmont ahead of them. At Dover Cordelia put off the motley and for the first time put on the Queen's robes newly arrived from France. Perhaps this trusting of Lear to Kent has its parallel in the secondary plot, at 4.7.281,282, when Edgar speaks of entrusting his blind father into the hands of a friend while he goes off to deliver his letter to Albany and regain his rightful place. Sincerely, Bob Marks rgm@ar.com.au ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 10:03:02 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0481 Re: Sir Thomas More The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0481. Monday, 21 April 1997. [1] From: Jean R. Brink Date: Saturday, 19 Apr 1997 08:54:09 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0479 Qs: Sir Thomas More [2] From: Brother Anthony Date: Monday, 21 Apr 1997 10:00:25 +0900 (KST) Subj: Sir Thomas More [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean R. Brink Date: Saturday, 19 Apr 1997 08:54:09 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0479 Qs: Sir Thomas More The name of the play about More is the Book of Sir Thomas More or Book about Sir Thomas More. One page or so may have been written by Shakespeare. It is sometimes attributed to Anthony Munday. The Riverside discusses it. Jean R. Brink (602) 965-7777 English Department Arizona State University [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brother Anthony Date: Monday, 21 Apr 1997 10:00:25 +0900 (KST) Subject: Sir Thomas More An incomplete text written by various people, a few pages are thought to be by Shakespeare, published several times, easily found by looking under "Moore" in the Oxford Companion to English Literature. But Why oh Why does the Oxford UP "Shakespeare: A Bibliographical Guide" ed by Stanley Wells not have an index! You can find it discussed there on pages 398-90. Anouilh's play is probably more interesting, to say nothing of "A Man for All Seasons" by Bolt on the same topic. Good reading. An Sonjae ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 10:22:36 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0483 Q: The Ghost in Ham. The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0483. Monday, 21 April 1997. From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Saturday, 19 Apr 1997 19:31:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0470 Re: Ideology I have a question about the relation of the Reformation to religious imagery in Shakespeare. Specifically, I am wondering about the ghost in *Hamlet* and the separation of the image from the word (or text). Of course the ghost can only speak to Hamlet because his message is only for Hamlet, but I am wondering if the Reformation belief in the text and the rejection of the images of Catholicism could play into this as well. Does anyone know of essays or books which have treated this subject? Annalisa Castaldo Temple University ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 10:18:23 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0482 Re: Subtext; Hamlet; The Past; Instructions; Stoic; WT The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0482. Monday, 21 April 1997. [1] From: Dale Lyles Date: Saturday, 19 Apr 1997 09:27:32 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0478 Re: Subtext [2] From: Steve Sohmer Date: Saturday, 19 Apr 1997 12:19:52 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0477 Re: Hamlet [3] From: Ben Schneider Date: Saturday, 19 Apr 1997 17:31:14 +0000 Subj: Quotation [4] From: Ben Schneider Date: Saturday, 19 Apr 1997 12:53:21 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Error in downloading instructions [5] From: Ben Schneider Date: Sunday, 20 Apr 1997 11:52:45 +0000 Subj: Stoic Shakespeare [6] From: Harry Hill Date: Saturday, 19 Apr 1997 09:05:44 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0476 Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Saturday, 19 Apr 1997 09:27:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0478 Re: Subtext Thank you Kurt Daw for outlining the very issues that had been buzzing through my head while following the subtext debate. We practitioners often use terms in very specific ways which do not match our scholar compatriots, and the result is tergiversation all round. Your last comment, that actors are well-advised not to seek the Chekhov alternative in early drama, puzzled me, though. We have often found that it is very helpful, especially in the "mood-painting" speeches, for the actor to be delivering some character or plot issue through his/her delivery of the "pretty words." My understanding of the debate was that the pretty words were simply that in early drama, and your dictum would indicate to me that we are misguided in trying to give each speech some impetus other than the surface meanings. Have I misunderstood your comment? Not that we are prepared to change our minds or our practice, of course... Your neighbor to the south, Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Saturday, 19 Apr 1997 12:19:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0477 Re: Hamlet Dear Friends, Ed Pixley closes his thoughtful and useful exegesis of Hamlet's entrance with book and question with a prudent warning against reading a 17th century document through 20th century eyes. Thirty-year-old schoolboys were not unfamiliar in Shakespeare's England. A number of 16th century illuminati, including the remarkable William Tyndale, were schoolboys at Wittenberg at age 30. Adults who removed to Wittenberg to study (Lutherism) were the 16th century equivalent of our '60s Flower Children. Many died for their countercultural leanings. At 3.1.56 Hamlet presents a tableau which would have been highly suggestive to those members of Shakespeare's audience who were familiar with formal dialectic. This peculiar form of education had been raised to high art by the Scholastics. By Shakespeare's time Scholastic dialectic had grown notorious for its obsession with doctrinal trivia and its association with the via moderna. When Hamlet was a student there were two great rival schools of philosophy: the via moderna, and the schola Augustinia moderna, which was in favor at Wittenberg. Both schools had English roots. The via moderna, whose champion was the Englishman William of Occam, held that good works were essential to salvation. The schola Augustinia moderna held that works were indifferent to salvation. Its founders were Englishmen, too: Thomas Bradwardine and the 14th century Oxford movement. Which makes the question of the importance/indifference of works a very English question. Luther's acknowledged master of dialectic was Occam. However, the reformer embraced the Oxonians' view of the indifference of works. Consequently, a student who traveled from Henry VIII's England to Luther's Wittenberg transited from a world in which works were essential to salvation into a world where salvation was a free gift and works indifferent. [After 1582, the two societies also lived by different calendars-which explains why Hamlet is so uncertain about how long the interval between his father's death and his mother's remarriage ("But two months dead-nay, not so much, not two...within a month...a little month....within a month...she married" 1.2.138-156).] Shakespeare's Hamlet inhabits a world where two calendars, cosmologies ("Doubt thou the stars are fire, etc."), and Christianities coexist in intense rivalry. Within days of returning to Elsinore, Hamlet is confronted by a Ghost who demands he undertake a work (of revenge). Hamlet's dilemma is Shakespeare's existential joke on the salvation debate: Hamlet must decided to do, or not to do, an act of revenge. After encountering the Ghost, Hamlet seeks justification for revenge through an elaborate plot ("The Moustrap"). Instead, he finds another kind of (Lutheran, Pauline) "justification" when he recognizes "There is a divinity which shapes our ends, etc." It has not been generally understood that this revelation entails the indifference of works. In the denouement, Hamlet kills Claudius not with premeditation but in passion. Notwithstanding all Hamlet has done-he's accountable for the deaths of Polonius, Ophelia, Rosencrantz, Guildernstern, and Claudius- Horatio and the audience are satisfied that Hamlet is sung into heaven by angels. This, I suggest, is Shakespeare's testament that works are indifferent to salvation. But Hamlet is a long way from his revelation about works when he enters reading at 3.1.56. His engagement in a one-man dialectic might become entirely transparent if we could identify the mysterious book. Luther detested the "devil" Aristotle, but was a life-long devotee of Virgil, and Cicero (he refers to Cicero in the note found beside his deathbed). Virgil is prominently recalled in the play via the yarn of Priam, Hecuba, and the fall of Troy, which is based Aeneid (2). My hunch is that Hamlet's book is a work by Cicero, though I cannot say which. If this notion rings a bell with a Ciceronian, I'd be glad to discuss it in more depth. All the best, Steve Sohmer [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben Schneider Date: Saturday, 19 Apr 1997 17:31:14 +0000 Subject: Quotation Dear Terence Hawkes, If L. P. Hartley was right, as you affirm, that "The past is a foreign country," then you must acknowledge that Shakespeare's country was Stoic. What other standard of behavior, outside of Christianity, could it have followed? Since Christianity and Stoicism were thought to harmonize during the Renaissance (,e.g. both advocated turning the other cheek), and since Stoicism, besides being more practical in application, promised rewards in THIS life, it had a big advantage over Christianity in an age of growing skepticism during which Puritanism was inventing the bourgeois subject and giving Christianity a bad name. For undeniable evidence of its popularity see Ruth Kelso's two bibliographies of conduct books-for the gentleman (1929) and the lady (1956)--, especially the summary of her whole project in the preface to the second. Yours ever to command, (another quotation) BEN SCHNEIDER [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben Schneider Date: Saturday, 19 Apr 1997 12:53:21 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Error in downloading instructions In my posting of 17 Apr I erroneously gave the listserv instructions for my article on Merchant: It should read Send a message to LISTSERV@ws.bowiestate.edu Containing only the command GET GRANVILL JEW_OF-V SHAKSPER I reversed the filetype and filename Very sorry for the inconvenience BEN SCHNEIDER [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben Schneider Date: Sunday, 20 Apr 1997 11:52:45 +0000 Subject: Stoic Shakespeare Dear SHAKSPERians, Since apparently people don't care whether they get hardcopy or softcopy of current versions of chapters from my book on Shakespeare's Morals, I'm filing them in the SHAKSPER file server and you may download at will whatever interests you. It will take a few days to get them into ASCII format, but when they are done, Hardy will announce their filenames on SHAKSPER. Yours ever to command, BEN SCHNEIDER [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Saturday, 19 Apr 1997 09:05:44 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0476 Re: Ideology *WT* was directed here at the Centaur Theatre by Alexander Marin from Moscow, and in the very last moment of the play when forgiveness seemed all, and the light was bright, Mamillius' favourite toy fell from the sky as a reminder, I joyfully supposed, of the difficult paradox that mature happiness has to be tempered by living with the memory of shame. Harry Hill ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 10:25:11 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0484 Oxford Summer Program The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0484. Monday, 21 April 1997. From: William Proctor Williams Date: Saturday, 19 Apr 97 16:37 CDT Subject: [Oxford Summer Program] If any of you, or your students, are interested in a residential, full-academic credit program this summer in Oxford, including +Hamlet+ at the RSC in Stratford, visit our website at: www.niu.edu/acad/english/oxford.html William Proctor Williams Department of English Northern Illinois University ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 10:30:20 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0485 EMLS: Opening for an Associate Editor (Reviews) The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0485. Monday, 21 April 1997. From: Joanne Woolway Date: Saturday, 19 Apr 1997 21:39:14 +0100 (BST) Subject: EMLS: Opening for an Associate Editor (Reviews) Early Modern Literary Studies: Opening for an Associate Editor (Reviews) EMLS is currently seeking an Associate Editor, responsible for reviews. The position will commence fully in January 1998, but some duties will begin during preparations for our August and December 1997 issues. Duties for this position include dealing with publishers and reviewers (much of this online), and the preparation of reviews for publication in electronic format. A detailed list of duties is available on request. Should you be interested in being considered for this position, please send a cover letter and vita to R.G. Siemens, Editor Early Modern Literary Studies Department of English University of British Columbia 9#397 - 1873 East Mall Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. V6T 1Z1. Electronic Mail: siemens@unixg.ubc.ca Fax: (604) 822-6906 Review of candidates will begin in early May. ---------------- ABOUT EMLS: EMLS (ISSN 1201-2459) is published three times a year for the on-line academic community by agreement with the University of British Columbia's English Department, and with the support of the University's Library and Arts Computing Centre. EMLS is indexed by the MLA International Bibliography, the Modern Humanities Research Association's Annual Bibliography of English Language and Literature (ABELL), Web-Cite, and the Lycos and InfoSeek indexing services and others, as well as being linked to resource pages of scholarly journals, libraries, educational institutions, and others worldwide. EMLS does not appear in print form, but can be obtained free of charge, along with Interactive EMLS and EMLS On-Line Resources, in hypertextual format on the World Wide Web at http://purl.oclc.org/emls/emlshome.html and by electronic mail subscription by sending a message to Subscribe_EMLS@arts.ubc.ca. Most components of the EMLS site are mirrored at Oxford University. EMLS is a participant in the National Library of Canada's Electronic Publications Pilot Project, where it is also archived; it is also archived by the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) Electronic Journals Collection. Journal E-mail Subscription: To subscribe to the version of EMLS that is distributed through electronic mail, please send a message including your name, affiliation, and electronic mail address to Subscribe_EMLS@arts.ubc.ca. Journal Information, Comments, Mailing List: For more information, to join our mailing list, or to offer your comments on EMLS, please contact our Editorial Assistant at Ed_Asst_EMLS@arts.ubc.ca. Site Information, Comments, &c.: All correspondence pertaining to our site may be sent to our Electronic Editors at Webmaster_EMLS@arts.ubc.ca. Editor: Correspondence to the Editor may be sent to EMLS@arts.ubc.ca. * Hard-copy correspondence may be addressed to: Early Modern Literary Studies, Department of English, University of British Columbia, #397 - 1873 East Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6T 1Z1. Fax: (604) 822-6906. Editorial Group The EMLS Editorial Group is representative of the on-line academic community as a whole and includes scholars with wide-ranging interests and experience, from junior to well-established senior academics. Senior Editorial and Advisory Board: o Gordon Campbell, University of Leicester o Hardy M. Cook III, Bowie State University o Roy Flannagan, Ohio University o W. L. Godshalk, University of Cincinnati o Ian Lancashire, New College, University of Toronto o Graham Parry, University of York, England o Paul G. Stanwood, University of British Columbia Advisory Editors: o John Archer, University of New Hampshire o Richard W. Bailey, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor o Glenn Black, Oriel College, Oxford o Ronald Bond, University of Calgary o Luc Borot, Universit=E9 Paul-Valery, Montpellier, France o Douglas Bruster, University of Texas, San Antonio o Thomas Corns, University of Wales, Bangor=20 o Peter Donaldson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology o A.S.G. Edwards, University of Victoria o Jane Finnan, University of Toronto o Antonia Forster, University of Akron o John K. Hale, University of Otago, New Zealand o Robert S. Knapp, Reed College o F.J. Levy, University of Washington o Lawrence Manley, Yale University o John Manning, University of Wales, Lampeter o Mark Morton, University of Winnipeg o Stephen Orgel, Stanford University o Milla Riggio, Trinity College, CT o Alan Rudrum, Simon Fraser University Editor: o Raymond G. Siemens, University of British Columbia Co-Editor: o Joanne Woolway, Oriel College, Oxford Associate Editors: o Patricia Badir, University of British Columbia (Reviews) o David L. Gants, University of Virginia (Interactive EMLS) Editorial Assistants: o Sean Lawrence, University of British Columbia o Jennifer B. Lewin, Yale University o Jennifer Read, University of British Columbia Electronic Editors: o Richard Bear, University of Oregon (Managing Editor, Discussion Groups) o Joseph Jones, University of British Columbia o Jeff Miller, University of British Columbia (Managing Editor) o David Thomson, University of British Columbia o Perry Willett, Indiana University (Managing Editor, On-line Resources) _____ R.G. Siemens Editor, Early Modern Literary Studies English, University of British Columbia ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 10:32:15 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0486 New Novel about Shakespeare The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0486. Monday, 21 April 1997. From: Chris Gordon Date: Saturday, 19 Apr 97 15:35:55 -0500 Subject: New Novel about Shakespeare Stephanie Cowell, whose two earlier historical novels (_Nicholas Cooke_ and _The Physician of London_) focused on the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras has now published her third novel, _The Players: A Novel of the Young Shakespeare_. I enjoyed the first two immensely, and have just called my local independent bookstore (the fabulous Hungry Mind; don't miss it if you're ever in St. Paul) and had them hold a copy of the new one for me. Another something for the spin-off list and for others like me who enjoy re-creations of this period. Happy reading! Chris Gordon ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 10:45:55 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0487 Re: Cordelia; Ideology; Ghost; More; Distressed The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0487. Tuesday, 22 April 1997. [1] From: Gerda Grice Date: Monday, 21 Apr 1997 13:34:02 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0480 Re: Cordelia [2] From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Monday, 21 Apr 1997 17:39:13 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Ideology And WT [3] From: William Proctor Williams Date: Monday, 21 Apr 97 15:47 CDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0483 Q: The Ghost in Ham. [4] From: John V Robinson Date: Monday, 21 Apr 1997 21:47:39 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0479 Qs: Sir Thomas More [5] From: Bill McRae Date: Tuesday, 22 Apr 1997 06:58:36 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0472 Distressed by *Lear* [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gerda Grice Date: Monday, 21 Apr 1997 13:34:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0480 Re: Cordelia Many years ago, I played Cordelia in an Earl Grey Players touring production of _King Lear_. (Older Canadian list members may remember this company.) The company that year toured the Maritime provinces, and performed for student audiences in high school auditoriums throughout Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. (I was one of the youngest and least experienced members of the company, and I suspect I was cast mainly for two reasons. I weighed only about 90 lbs., so I was easily portable for Lear's Cordelia-bearing last entrance, and I was inexperienced enough not to object to being used as a coffee gofer during the long middle part of the play when Cordelia doesn't appear.) One of our performances was in Halifax, and I was startled to read in one of the Halifax papers the morning after the performance that I had been fine as Cordelia, who-in the reviewer's opinion-was "clearly a psychopath". (Now, that's a reason for Cordelia's inarticulateness that no one on this list has suggested so far!) I was not a very good Cordelia, and so it's entirely possible that my performance didn't always express my vision of the role, but certainly that vision did not include anything resembling mental illness. I saw, and still see, the reason for Cordelia's "failure to humour and flatter her father as her inability either to articulate her deepest emotions (I cannot heave/ My heart into my mouth) or to exercise the "glib and oily art" of creating flattering speeches. I do not think she is either a prig or a love-by numbers young woman. Rather, she is simply a person for whom speech is not always easy. Another point about Cordelia's words and behaviour in Act One, scene one that no one yet seems to have made concerns her repeated use of the word "nothing" in response to Lear's questions. It seems to me that her use of "nothing" is meant to parallel and contrast with Edmund's use of the same word in response to Gloucester's query about the letter he sees Edmund apparently hastily putting away as he approaches him: Glouc. What paper were you reading? Edm. Nothing, my lord. Gerda Grice Ryerson Polytechnic University Toronto, Canada [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Monday, 21 Apr 1997 17:39:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Ideology And WT Professor Rackin wants to know if anyone's mind has been changed as a result of the ideology thread. But it doesn't seem to me that "changing one's mind" is exactly the point. Of course, Gabriel Egan would probably find a way of arguing that "changing one's mind" is either impossible, tautological, or delusional-in any case, an ideological "effect." But what I mean is that the sheer act of arguing ideas the way Egan and the others have done has changed the ideas themselves. I don't know what I am going to do with my "mind." I suppose I am still subject to the same predispositions on the subject of Shakespeare and ideology as I ever was. But I think that the ideas have changed because they have been allowed to develop in a contentious, idea-challenging environment. I now see some silliness where I didn't see any before and I now see some new directions I didn't see before either. If the whole thing has gotten tedious, its implications have gotten a little bit clearer too. I have not been persuaded by anyone's argument to change my "mind"-but I do see different ways of getting engaged with the ideas in question if and when my mind feels called upon to enter into discourse about them. I also see different ways of not getting engaged with them, and that for me is an even greater thing to have learned. Robert Appelbaum English Department University of Cincinnati [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Proctor Williams Date: Monday, 21 Apr 97 15:47 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0483 Q: The Ghost in Ham. If you look at the text closely you will see that Hamlet Snr is in Purgatory. This is certainly a Roman Catholic, not a Reformation belief. How long did the "old religion" hang on? We simply do not know, but it clearly was around at the turn of the century in Shakespeare's and his audiences' minds. William Proctor Williams Department of English Northern Illinois University [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John V Robinson Date: Monday, 21 Apr 1997 21:47:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0479 Qs: Sir Thomas More << Is there any Elizabethan Era play called "Sir Thomas Moore"? The only one I've been able to come up with is by Anouilh. Thanks. >> A good resource about STM is the book: Sir Thomas More. eds. Vittorio Gabrieli and Giorgio Melchiori. Manchester UP 1990. For a good resource about the Shakespearean addition to STM consult Thomas Clayton's monograph "The 'Shakespearean' Addition in the Booke of Sir Thomas Moore..." published by Shakespeare Studies Monograph Series 1969. This study is an invaluable resource that contains lots of useful information and a concordance. [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill McRae Date: Tuesday, 22 Apr 1997 06:58:36 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0472 Distressed by *Lear* ENCOURAGE HIM! Whatever else he declares of himself, he is cut out for the trade. It's always rewarding to see a student challenge the orthodoxies. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 10:57:29 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0488 Re: The Ghost in Ham The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0488. Wednesday, 23 April 1997. [1] From: Jeff Myers Date: Tuesday, 22 Apr 1997 15:58:08 GMT Subj: Re: Ghost [2] From: Michael Skovmand Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 10:16:07 MET Subj: Re: SHK 8.0487 Re: The Ghost in Ham [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Tuesday, 22 Apr 1997 15:58:08 GMT Subject: Re: Ghost >If you look at the text closely you will see that Hamlet Snr is in >Purgatory. This is certainly a Roman Catholic, not a Reformation >belief. How long did the "old religion" hang on? We simply do not >know, but it clearly was around at the turn of the century in >Shakespeare's and his audiences' minds. Or the Devil is playing a papist trick by trying to make young Hamlet think he is his father in purgatory. A knowledge of the "old religion" probably still hangs on in England today. Is that what you meant by "hang on"? Jeff Myers [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Skovmand Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 10:16:07 MET Subject: Re: SHK 8.0487 Re: The Ghost in Ham The discussion on the ghost in * Ham* in purgatory is related to another theme in Shakespeare: the fear of death not simply because of the loss of on'e s life, but "the dread of something after death, / the undiscover'd country, from whose bourn no traveller returns..." Claudio in *Measure* expresses exactly the same thought, although in more personal terms than Hamlet: "Ay, but to die and go not where..." (III.1.118). Having taught both plays recently, it's struck me how this fear of the uncertainty of one's afterlife, in a literal sense, is one of the few ideas in Shakespeare that is difficult to make sense of to a late 20th C (Protestant) reader. Hamlet's argument in the To Be or Not To Be - soliloquy - that this fear is the reason people don't, or hesitate to commit suicide - however miserable their lives may be - has never really seemed a convincing argument to me - as an argument within Catholic dogma, yes, but existentially, hardly. We would like ; I think, to read this part of the soliloquy as a kind of "Verschiebung" on the part of Hamlet - Hamlet coming up with theological arguments for what is really Hamlet playing the old delay-game with himself. And we might be right, of course, in part - motivation is rarely unambiguous. And in *Measure* the motivation may be part of a persuasive argument directed at Isabella, to relent, and give in to Angelo, to save Claudio's life. Nevertheless - in both Claudio and Hamlet , the fear of one's afterlife/purgatory is not presented as part of an antiquated system of beliefs, but as part of a shared and legitimate way of thinking... or so it seems. Any comments? Michael Skovmand U. of Aarhus. Denmark ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 11:02:47 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0489 Re: Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0489. Wednesday, 23 April 1997. [1] From: Thomas Bishop Date: Tuesday, 22 Apr 1997 12:16:55 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0487 Re: Ideology [2] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Tuesday, 22 Apr 1997 12:53:53 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Ideology [3] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 22 Apr 1997 23:13:33 GMT Subj: Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Tuesday, 22 Apr 1997 12:16:55 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0487 Re: Ideology I have another non-rhetorical question about ideology. If I understand correctly, one version of an argument about ideology runs that it pervades the entire structure of cognition, from deliberate political commitments, through half-glimpsed assumptions and unacknowledged structures of feeling, all the way down to the most basic foundations of one's orientation in the world as a functioning being. I think Gabriel Egan was arguing something like this position a while ago. At some point in this descent to the more and more basic, ideology as a system of organizing information ought to encounter the biological and Darwinian apparatus of the brain, which, as neurobiologists and evolutionary theorists can show, is a highly structured system designed to facilitate the survival and reproductive success of the organism that owns it. One of the faculties structured at least in part by Darwinian processes in the brain (as several important theorists have argued) is language, for which certain universal properties can be traced (such as childhood acquisition). My question concerns the intersection between ideology and biology at this very basic level, one that seems, for all the reading I can do, not to have been addressed by any theorist. Do "deep" ideology theorists posit an absolute gap between the biology of language function in the brain and the formation of ideological commitments to concepts like "self as individual", a concept with potentially powerful Darwinian resonances? Or is there some complex anastomosis between these two sets of structuring pressures? What are the consequences for a philosophical materialism of embracing either of these positions? [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Tuesday, 22 Apr 1997 12:53:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Ideology I was interested to read in the second paragraph of Stephen Greenblatt's General Introduction to the Norton Shakespeare the astonishing post-modern advice that, "The starting point, and perhaps the ending point as well, in any encounter with Shakespeare is simply to enjoy him, to savor his imaginative richness, to take pleasure in his infinite delight in language." Since Greenblatt does not add, "except for anything in the canon that our betters would not have us enjoy-by no means enjoy those things," does his advice make Terence Hawkes or any other list members squirm? Paul Hawkins [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 22 Apr 1997 23:13:33 GMT Subject: Re: Ideology It's entirely possible Robert Appelbaum is joking and I don't get it, but assuming not... > ...it doesn't seem to me that "changing one's mind" > is exactly the point. Of course, Gabriel Egan > would probably find a way of arguing that "changing > one's mind" is either impossible, tautological, or > delusional-in any case, an ideological "effect." Quite the opposite. Since the one essence the anti-essentialist Marxist believes in is conflict and its by-products, meaning and social change, changing minds is entirely the point. > But what I mean is that the sheer act of arguing ideas > the way Egan and the others have done has changed the > ideas themselves....I suppose I am still subject to the > same predispositions on the subject of Shakespeare and > ideology as I ever was. The conviction that one's consciousness is a stable rock in a sea of shifting meanings is, indeed, an ideological effect. Capitalism's denial of all social intercourse other than the cash-nexus extends into language, which rather than being a social phenomenon which constitutes individuals on the basis of their (albeit incomplete) sense of shared experience, becomes the swirling sea between islands of consciousness. For example: > I have not been persuaded by anyone's argument to change > my "mind"--but I do see different ways of getting engaged > with the ideas in question if and when my mind feels > called upon to enter into discourse about them. 'Discourse' means the active process of the generation of meaning in acts of discussion, but is here used simply as though it were a synonym for 'discussion'. The Marxist notion of 'meaning-in-process' is deformed back into the old Romantic idea of 'meaning-in-self'. In this model, the 'mind' is not immersed in process (the conviction which usually makes people emphasize 'discourse' over 'discussion') but rather can dip its toes into those swirling seas "when [it] feels called upon to enter" them. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 11:08:43 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0490 Re: Sir Thomas More; New Novel about Shakespeare The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0490. Wednesday, 23 April 1997. [1] From: Maria Concolato Date: Tuesday, 22 Apr 1997 23:44:12 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0479 Qs: Sir Thomas More [2] From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Tuesday, 22 Apr 1997 17:50:49 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0486 New Novel about Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maria Concolato Date: Tuesday, 22 Apr 1997 23:44:12 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0479 Qs: Sir Thomas More In 1981 there was an Italian edition of 'The Book of Sir Thomas More' by Vittorio Gabrieli and Giorgio Melchiori (Bari,Adriatica editrice), which was translated into English some years later.In the introduction, the various problems of the play were very accurately discussed, as was the identification of hands B and D in the original manuscript with Heywood and Shakespeare respectively.1594 was given as a possible date. Maria Concolato [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Tuesday, 22 Apr 1997 17:50:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0486 New Novel about Shakespeare Thanks I picked it up today . . . looks interesting. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 11:10:33 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0491 Q: Nunn's *Othello* The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0491. Wednesday, 23 April 1997. From: John Cox Date: Tuesday, 22 Apr 1997 19:27:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Othello I'm trying to find a video for my college library of Trevor Nunn's *Othello*, in which Ian McKellen plays Iago. Any suggestions of where it can be purchased? John Cox Hope College ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 21:35:35 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0492 Birthday Greetings The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0492. Wednesday, 23 April 1997. [1] From: Karen Krebser Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 10:26:15 -0700 Subj: St. George's Day [2] From: Louis Marder Date: Wednesday, April 23, 1997 Subj: Happy Birthday [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Krebser Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 10:26:15 -0700 Subject: St. George's Day Thinking fondly of the gentle, brilliant man without whom none of us would be here. Born (or perhaps baptized) on this day, died on this day. Sonnet LXXXI Or I shall live your epitaph to make, Or you survive when I in earth am rotten; From hence your memory death cannot take, Although in me each part will be forgotten. Your name from hence immortal life shall have, Though I, once gone, to all the world must die: The earth can yield me but a common grave, When you entombed in men's eyes shall lie. Your monument shall be my gentle verse, Which eyes not yet created shall o'er-read, And tongues to be your being shall rehearse When all the breathers of this world are dead; You still shall live--such virtue hath my pen-- Where breath most breathes, even in the mouths of men. Karen Krebser [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Marder Date: Wednesday, April 23, 1997 Subject: Happy Birthday Heaven and earth. Must I remember? Today is Shakespeare's birthday. As His vicar here on earth I send all SHAKSPERans His best wishes and mine. Another thing to remember. I am still seeking Associates to the Shakespeare Data Bank. Select a scholarly, popular, or whatever theme, topic, subject, angle, your pet project, etc, or write for one. I will send instructions. A computerized plaque will be entered at the head of your contribution when we go on line. Everyone will learn from everyone else. Knowledge is power. Knowledge brings wisdom. There is no sin but ignorance. 'tis not folly to be wise. lou marder avon4@juno.com. Or CompuServe 76411.3613 [If you would rather celebrate S's birthday on May 3 (in the Gregorian calendar), that is ok with me too.] Rememberrrrrrrrrrr me.... and the SDB. Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 06:59:09 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0493 Re: Nunn's *Othello* The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0493. Thursday, 24 April 1997. [1] From: Ron Moyer Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 12:12:52 -0500 (CDT) Subj: RE: SHK 8.0491 Q: Nunn's *Othello* [2] From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 97 13:21:00 PDT Subj: RE: SHK 8.0491 Q: Nunn's *Othello* [3] From: David Levine Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 13:26:17 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0491 Q: Nunn's *Othello* [4] From: Michael Friedman Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 13:53:32 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0491 Q: Nunn's *Othello* [5] From: Tom Simone Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 14:33:55 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0491 Q: Nunn's *Othello* [6] From: Charles Ross Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 15:24:35 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0491 Q: Nunn's *Othello* [7] From: L. Wood Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 19:16:52 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0491 Q: Nunn's *Othello* [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Moyer Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 12:12:52 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: SHK 8.0491 Q: Nunn's *Othello* The video of the Trevor Nunn-directed RSC _Othello_, with McKellen, Willard White, and Imogen Stubbs, is distributed in the USA by Films for the Humanities and Sciences, PO Box 2053, Princeton, NJ 08543-2053; 1-800-257-5126; email . Item #ARH6008; purchase price $159 (FfH&S is expensive, but has a bunch o' good titles) + 6% s&h. Best,--Ron Moyer, Univ. of South Dakota [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 97 13:21:00 PDT Subject: RE: SHK 8.0491 Q: Nunn's *Othello* Trevor Nunn's "Othello" starring Ian McKellen and the RSC is available for $159. (3 hrs. 30 mins.) from Films for the Humanities and Sciences (Video and CD-Roms 1997 catalog): Phone: 1-800-257-5126; Fax: 609-275-3767 - 8:30-5 daily. You can also contact them by e-mail: custserv@films.com Georgianna Ziegler Folger Library [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Levine Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 13:26:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0491 Q: Nunn's *Othello* I know that the video was broadcast by the BBC. I assume then that it is available from them. I also don't think it's commonly available here, which means that you will have to call them directly in the UK, long distance. I have never had much luck contacting them electronically (eg-e-mail, etc.). Once you purchase it, however, you will have to have it transferred to a video standard that will play on our sets. This can be done at a lot of places nowadays. the question is whether or not you think it's worth it. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 13:53:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0491 Q: Nunn's *Othello* Films for the Humanities has the Nunn *Othello* video on the front cover of its latest mailing. Call 1-800-257-5126. I should note that they charge $159. Michael Friedman University of Scranton [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Simone Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 14:33:55 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0491 Q: Nunn's *Othello* Films for the Humanities has the Nunn OTHELLO. A bit pricey, around $80 I believe, but available. Tom Simone University of Vermont [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Ross Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 15:24:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0491 Q: Nunn's *Othello* For John Cox: Trevor Nunn's video of Macbeth with Ian McKellan is available from Shakespeare: The Writing Company, 1-800-421-4246; access@WritingCo.com. Charlie Ross Purdue [7]------------------------------------------------------------- From: L. Wood Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 19:16:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0491 Q: Nunn's *Othello* The Continental Shop has Trevor Nunn's "Othello" available for $39.95. Their address and other info: 1619 Wilshire Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90403 Tel: 310-453-8655 Fax: 310-453-5093 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 09:56:16 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0494 Re: Afterlife The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0494. Thursday, 24 April 1997. [1] From: Edward vanAelstyn Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 08:44:58 -0800 Subj: Afterlife (Hamlet, etc.) [2] From: Peter Hyland Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 13:31:08 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0488 Re: The Ghost in Ham [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward vanAelstyn Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 08:44:58 -0800 Subject: Afterlife (Hamlet, etc.) The fear of one's afterlife has been alive and well continuously till now as a shared and legitimate way of thinking. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Hyland Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 13:31:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0488 Re: The Ghost in Ham Michael Skovmand should read Robert N. Watson's THE REST IS SILENCE: DEATH AS ANNIHILATION IN THE ENGLISH RENAISSANCE for an extensive and provocative examination of the questions he raises. Peter Hyland ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 10:18:31 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0495 Qs: OED; Caliban The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0495. Thursday, 24 April 1997. [1] From: Hugh Davis Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 11:32:52 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Off-topic: OED [2] From: Kathleen Breen Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 21:38:34 +0000 Subj: [Q: Caliban] [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hugh Davis Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 11:32:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Off-topic: OED I know this is off-topic, but does anyone on this list know if the OED has ever been put on a CD-ROM? It seems like a natural (if that term can be applied) step for the project to take-a cd set could hold the information of many volumes. It also might be a more affordable edition. Just curious, Hugh Davis hhd@email.unc.edu [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Breen Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 21:38:34 +0000 Subject: [Q: Caliban] Having read conflicting criticisms on , some students in my Shakespeare class have raised questions about the character of Caliban. Some critics examine the character from a Primitivist point of view, saying that Caliban represents innocence, a version of the noble savage untarnished by civilization. Others take a more medieval Christian view, saying that Caliban is untouched by grace. As a "monster," i.e. a creature of mixed species, he is not fully human and does not even have a soul. I'm familiar with the idea that both Caliban and Ariel reflect dimensions of Prospero's personality (This thing of darkness I acknowledge mine.") I'd be interested in hearing other current ideas on Caliban. Is he viewed as essentially good? essentially evil? neither? Thanks, Kathleen Breen ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 10:22:03 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0496 Re: Subtext The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0496. Thursday, 24 April 1997. From: Kurt Daw Date: Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997 11:06:27 -0500 Subject: Subtext To Dale Lyles: Glad to hear your are interested in this debate, and I am interested in answering your question, but I must admit I am at a bit of a loss as to how to do so. Perhaps you could give me some examples of "mood-painting" speeches and "pretty words" that do not have character or plot issues behind them. Cheers, Kurt Daw Kennesaw State University ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 08:16:16 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0497 Re: OED The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0497. Friday, 25 April 1997. [1] From: Steve Neville Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 12:31:51 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0495 Qs: OED = [2] From: Judy Kennedy Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 13:35:03 -0300 (ADT) Subj: Re: OED = [3] From: Andrew Murphy Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 18:15:01 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0495 Q: OED = [4] From: Nora Kreimer Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 15:16:39 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0495 Qs: OED is on line! [5] From: Harry Keyishian Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 14:00:53 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0495 Q: OED = [6] From: Mason West Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 16:44:32 Subj: OED [7] From: Bob Stubbs Date: Friday, 25 Apr 97 11:08:46 GMT Subj: Off-Topic: OED = [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Neville Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 12:31:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0495 Qs: OED = << I know this is off-topic, but does anyone on this list know if the OED has ever been put on a CD-ROM? >> Yes, and it is wonderful. The cost in England is around three hundred pounds. This is a bargain as in book form it costs over a thousand pounds. = OU Press web site : http://www.oup.co.uk E-mail : ep.help@oup.co.uk Lexicographically Steve Neville [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Judy Kennedy Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 13:35:03 -0300 (ADT) Subject: Re: OED Hugh Davis asks whether the OED is on CD-ROM. It has been for some years, but the first version was difficult to use, and didn't really catch on. I just bought the Second Edition, at the price charged for individual users: $629.66 Canadian including all taxes and shipping. USD price at a guess might be in the region of 450.00. If your email address refers to Chapel Hill, I'm sure your excellent library's main floor CD-ROM section must have it. Judy Kennedy jkennedy@stthomasu.ca [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Murphy Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 18:15:01 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0495 Q: OED Doubtless, I'll be one of many people to confirm that the OED has, indeed, been released in electronic form. An increasing number of institutions are providing it as a networked resource. Andrew [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nora Kreimer Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 15:16:39 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0495 Qs: OED is on line! Perhaps our listowner can provide the website of the OED. I understand that it is on line. I think it may be freely accessed fos a week or a month and, like the E.B., then, access is granted after payment of a sum not higher than $150 a year. Thank you Nora Kreimer [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Keyishian Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 14:00:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0495 Q: OED [Editor's Note: Harry Keyishian asked his friend Jeffery A. Triggs about the OED on CD ROM and got the following response. HMC] In fact the OED has been available on CD for Windows and Macintosh for some years now. For more information, contact: Janet Caldwell Customer Service Manager Electronic Publishing Oxford University Press Great Clarendon St. Oxford OX2 6DP = telephone (0865) 267979 fax (0865) 267990 = Eric Baumes Marketing Manager, Electronic Products Oxford University Press, Inc., USA 198 Madison Avenue New York N.Y. 10016 = telephone (212) 726-6246 fax (212) 726 6442 There will also soon be a version of the OED online. You can visit the test site and see the demo pages at http://www.oed.com. Jeffery Triggs Director, the North American Reading Program Oxford English Dictionary [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mason West Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 16:44:32 Subject: OED Hugh Davis asked whether "the OED has ever been put on a CD-ROM?" Yes it has, and as you suspect, the edition costs less-about $900, I believe-about one-third of the cost for the printed and hardbound set. = If you are fortunate enough to be among the students, faculty, and staff at the University of Pennsylvania, then you have free access to a CD edition of the OED because the university has a network license. -- Mason West mason@pobox.com www.pobox.com/~mason [7]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Stubbs Date: Friday, 25 Apr 97 11:08:46 GMT Subject: Off-Topic: OED To Hugh Davis Yes the OED is on CD_ROM. You can order direct from the publisher, the Oxford University Press. Here in the UK the Telephone No is 01865-556767 and you can email them on ep.info@oup.co.uk The price is =A3250 plus Value Added Tax which I believe is 17.5% Regards Bob Stubbs ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 08:22:58 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0498 Re: Caliban The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0498. Friday, 25 April 1997. [1] From: Nick Clary Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 11:21:52 -0400 Subj: Caliban [2] From: Greg Lanier Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 10:28:25 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0495 Q: Caliban [3] From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 18:12:08 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0495 Q: Caliban [4] From: Jurgen Pieters Date: Friday, 25 Apr 1997 08:30:22 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0495 Q: Caliban [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Clary Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 11:21:52 -0400 Subject: Caliban Kathleen Breen is interested in hearing "other current ideas on Caliban." I'm sure she will receive many helpful suggestions from the list, but I thought I'd mention a title that my son gave me as a gift a few years ago. The book is a tiny novel by Tad Williams entitled Caliban's Hour (New York: Harper Collins, 1994). Let me warn you that this invention imagines Caliban arriving in Naples, intent on making off with Miranda. During the course of the evening he tells his version of the island experience. The dust jacket promises "the long-hidden truth [about] how his beloved island became an imprisoning Hell." This fiction is readable and might prompt some interesting discussion. Nick Clary [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Greg Lanier Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 10:28:25 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0495 Q: Caliban To Kathleen Breen: Caliban is all of the above. You might want to read the book "Shakespeare's Caliban: A Cultural History" by Alden & Virginia Vaughan. It is a wonderful analysis of the range of presentations and responses Caliban has prompted throughout the years. Cheers! Greg Lanier [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 18:12:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0495 Q: Caliban Much recent work on Caliban as a fully sentient victim of colonialist oppression, op cit interpretation by NY Public Theater's George Wolfe a couple of years ago. I find this read underwhelming. H. R. Greenberg [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jurgen Pieters Date: Friday, 25 Apr 1997 08:30:22 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0495 Q: Caliban As an answer to Kathleen Breen's query: fall 1997 a collection of new essays on Caliban will be published by Rodopi, _ Constellation Caliban_, edited by Nadia Lie and Theo D'haen. That might be of interest. Yours Jurgen Pieters ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 08:32:07 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0499 Re: Plain Dealers; Thomas More; Ideology; Afterlife The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0499. Friday, 25 April 1997. [1] From: Rick Jones Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 09:12:22 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0475 Re: Lear; Cordelia [2] From: John Velz Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 12:18:03 -0500 (CDT) Subj: *Sir Thomas More* [3] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 25 Apr 1997 01:00:37 GMT Subj: Re: Ideology [4] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 21:37:53 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0494 Re: Afterlife [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 09:12:22 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0475 Re: Lear; Cordelia I realize I am entering late into this conversation, but I did want to respond to Ben Schneider's comments: > As Terence Hawkes has so well reminded us, "The past is another > country. They do things differently there." In the light of that past, > Cordelia appears to have been a Plain Dealer, an archetypal character > who began with Socrates, was picked up and carried through the middle > ages by Cicero and Seneca and dumped on Shakespeare's England through > scores of conduct books, dozens of translations, and the public > schools. These schools were founded in the 16th century on Cicero's > premise that man is rational, therefore educable and civilizable. His > De Officiis was the core of the curriculum. Shakespeare's England, > let's face it, was Stoic, and Stoicism, which fostered the needs of > society, is a foreign country to us, who prioritize the needs of the > individual. > > Kent is a Plain Dealer, too, and so is Lear, temporarily misled by > flatterers. Edmund is a Plain-Dealing Villain, and Goneril and Regan > are Double-Dealing Villains. I find this an intriguing argument, but either it is over-stated here, or I am being particularly dim-witted this morning. Certainly the Stoic Plain Dealer was a Renaissance type, but used only sparingly in Shakespeare (who else but those mentioned above? Enobarbus? I'm running out of ideas...). The most striking example of the type that comes to my mind at present is Diogenes in Lyly's _Campaspe_. But he is, first of all, a comic character (as are the more famous Plain Dealers of Wycherley and, especially, Moliere a couple of generations later). Secondly, whereas his influence must be felt by Alexander in order for the latter to be an appropriate sovereign, it is crucial that Alexander NOT adopt his traits: Diogenes exists to maintain balance in the world. If Cordelia fulfills a similar function, then her Plain Dealing must be maintained to counterbalance the fawning of her sisters, but is not itself the stuff of appropriate royal behavior. Cordelia then returns to the "center" of the Plain/Double Dealing continuum at the end of the play... as well she should. I need hardly mention that I have yet to work these thoughts out completely. I'm not even sure whether I'm agreeing or disagreeing with Ben... Perhaps he (or someone else) would be kind enough to tell me? Rick Jones rjones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 12:18:03 -0500 (CDT) Subject: *Sir Thomas More* For those asking about any STM plays in the renaissance. A play exists probable date just about same time as R3; the work, most say, of several artists, of which one was Shakespeare (most scholars believe), who contributed a scene, 147 lines, which survives in the ms. in Shakespeare's own hand, so most people agree. Some of this you will know already from others. But do take note that there is a whole book from Cambridge U.P. 1989 titled *Shakespeare and 'Sir Thomas More': Essays on the Play and its Shakespearian Interest* ed. T. H. Howard-Hill. A variety of scholars, a variety of approaches. It would be the place to start. But note that this book originated as a 60th anniversary volume of a similar volume published in 1923 and titled *Shakespeare's Hand in The Play of Sir Thomas More." The 147 lines, if we accept them as Shakespeare's, and I have no doubt about this, are the longest piece of his writing by far that survives in ms. John Velz Professor of English (Emeritus) University of Texas [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 25 Apr 1997 01:00:37 GMT Subject: Re: Ideology Thomas Bishops writes > At some point in this descent to the more and more > basic, ideology as a system of organizing information > ought to encounter the biological and Darwinian > apparatus of the brain, which, as neurobiologists > and evolutionary theorists can show, is a highly > structured system designed to facilitate the survival > and reproductive success of the organism that owns it. If I understand Richard Dawkins right, it's a system designed to facilitate the survival and reproductive success of the _genes_ that made it, not the organism in which it resides. Depending on the circumstances this might encourage altruistic or selfish behaviour according to how this behaviour affects the survival of other organisms sharing the same genes. > Do "deep" ideology theorists posit an absolute gap > between the biology of language function in the brain > and the formation of ideological commitments to concepts > like "self as individual", a concept with potentially > powerful Darwinian resonances? Again, accepting that genes, not individuals, are the primary unit of reproduction (the Dawkins position), the "self as individual" concept is already a construction serving a biological need at a lower level. (That is, genes find that making me feel I have independent consciousness is a good way to reproduce themselves.) 'Individual' is one of those delightful words which has undergone a reversal in meaning: once denoting the indivisibility of the member from the group, it now denotes the difference between the member and the group. If Raymond Williams is to be believed, changing notions of self and society underlie that reversal. The language function and the selfhood feeling don't go all the way down to the hardware. To the end of promoting a social end (the genes' survival) an illusion of unsocial existence (my consciousness) is constructed. Gabriel Egan [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Thursday, 24 Apr 1997 21:37:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0494 Re: Afterlife In relation to Hamlet's "To be or not to be" soliloquy, and questions of the ghost and the afterlife, someone recently (sorry that I've forgotten who) cautioned against reading a 17th century document through 20th century eyes. I wouldn't for a moment question the value of scholarship which offers and examines conflicting accounts of the theological, historical, cultural, ideological content of the plays, their production, or their initial reception. But of course, 20th century eyes are inevitably what we read through, and as various contemporary criticisms teach us, we can't possibly screen out our own concerns when we read (or at least, certain contemporary Marxists may be able to, but old historicists like Tillyard and the rest of us can't possibly). But leaving aside the questions of the value of historical scholarship and the inevitability of critical blindness, isn't bringing our own concerns to the literature of the past-allowing our concerns to inform our reading and the literature itself to interrogate our concerns-a part of what great art is for? And isn't our willingness to reinvent certain works of literature, and the ease with which they can be reinvented, testament to the aesthetic power which, more than ideological content, defines something's greatness? And isn't it that aesthetic power which enables a work like Hamlet to transcend the ideology in which it was born and from which it detaches itself as art? Reading the play recently through 20th century eyes I was struck by the counter-intuitive and almost nonsensical quality of Hamlet's thinking on his predicament: death would be welcomed were it oblivion, as an unknown it is to be feared. Living in the late 20th century, I would be more inclined to say the reverse. Hamlet's conclusion is particularly Hamletian, rather than universal, I thought. For him the overwhelming burden is any consciousness. Oblivion alone can satisfy him. Whatever the merits of my reading, the greatness of Hamlet is in the power of the textual nodes mentioned that demands and satisfies interpretation and re-interpretation through 20th century eyes. The power is not in the 17th century concerns that informed the writing and first reception, but instead in the aesthetic achievement through which the work transcends its ideology. Paul Hawkins========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 09:52:18 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0500 Re: OED The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0500. Monday, 28 April 1997. [1] From: Jeff Myers Date: Friday, 25 Apr 1997 13:12:08 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0497 Re: OED [2] From: Bob Stubbs Date: Friday, 25 Apr 97 14:00:20 GMT Subj: Off-Topic:OED [3] From: Hugh Davis Date: Friday, 25 Apr 1997 10:11:54 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0497 Re: OED [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Friday, 25 Apr 1997 13:12:08 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0497 Re: OED >Yes, and it is wonderful. The cost in England is around three hundred >pounds. This is a bargain as in book form it costs over a thousand >pounds. You really think so? Considering that the cost of reproducing a CD-Rom was less than $10.00 (last I heard), I'd say it's an outrageous rip-off. If they charged a reasonable price ($50-100), everyone would buy it, and they'd recoup pre-production costs in no time. As it is, no one (well, very few academics, I would think) can afford it. Get your library to network it; it's not as convenient, but at least you have some access. Jeff Myers P.S.-Anyone seen the New Arden Shakespeare on CD-Rom? I looked at the demo, and it's fabulous! But again, at a sale price of $3,000, who can afford it? I'm not certain the library can afford to network it at this price (which includes provisions for 10 users). If they charged $50, I'd make it the text in my Shakespeare classes, and in a bit over a semester they'd have grossed as much as they would by selling the $3,000 disk to our library, which probably won't happen. I get the feeling that academic presses are pretty stupid when it comes to marketing electronic media. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Stubbs Date: Friday, 25 Apr 97 14:00:20 GMT Subject: Off-Topic:OED To Hugh Davis Regarding my ealier message _Yes the OED is on CD-ROM_ I didn't realise that email would translate the English Pound Sterling sign on my keyboard as _A3_ The price of the OED CD-ROM is 250 Pounds Sterling plus VAT of 17.5%(I spoke to the Multimedia Section of the Oxford University Press this morning) Sorry for the confusion Regards Bob Stubbs [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hugh Davis Date: Friday, 25 Apr 1997 10:11:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0497 Re: OED Thank you to all who responded to my OED query. I appreciate your help, and I will follow up with the addresses (regular and on-line) that have been provided. --Hugh Davis ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 10:03:45 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0501 Re: Plain Dealers The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0501. Monday, 28 April 1997. [1] From: Michael Pantaleoni Date: Friday, 25 Apr 1997 13:37:08 -0400 Subj: SHK 8.0475 Re: Plain Dealing [2] From: Ben Schneider Date: Friday, 25 Apr 1997 20:11:03 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Plain Dealers [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Pantaleoni Date: Friday, 25 Apr 1997 13:37:08 -0400 Subject: SHK 8.0475 Re: Plain Dealing Rick Jones says that plain dealers appear only sparingly in WS. He suggests only Enobarbus as a possible addition to the characters in Lear noted by Ben Schneider. A number of others occur to me. Interestingly, the first three that came to mind are all in the same play-Antonio, Bassanio and Gratiano. Does this suggest a theme in M/V contrasting plain dealing with duplicity. If so, where does Portia fit in? Larry Weiss [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben Schneider Date: Friday, 25 Apr 1997 20:11:03 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Plain Dealers Dear Rick Jones You say my case for Cordelia being a Plain Dealer (PD) is either overstated or you aren't getting my point (you're certainly not "dim-witted"). The case is overstated, and maybe I have spread the PD too thin. A Plain Dealer is really what we might call a "true gentleman," but "gentleman" has too many bad connotations. You could call him the "good man" of Stoic moral philosophy, but that sounds prissy. It's not that he goes out of his way to be surly; anyone who tells the truth runs the risk of being thought rude in shallow company. That's Cordelia's problem. You think of the PD as performing the raisonneur in Moliere, but though that character is a very good example of the type, he by no means exhausts the possibilities. I would define the PD by his honesty rather than his function. Here's a whole string of PD's I've been collecting. They pervade history because there's always a demand for them and they are hard to find in real life. They crop up randomly throughout arts and letters, in bitter and in sweet versions: in Durer's weather beaten knight who rides deliberately straight ahead past death and the devil; in Chaucer's knight who is "as meke as is a mayde;" in his Parson who first "wrought" and then "taught;" in Jonathan Swift, who wrote "Honesty [is] a pair of shoes worn out in the dirt"; in Wycherley's _Plain Dealer_, whose hero was Manly; in almost every Restoration comedy, under names like Blunt, Careless, Wildair, Easy, Truman, Worthy , Hardy, and Constant; in Conrad's Axel Heyst, for whom death was the _Victory_ foretold in the title; in Yeats's "Friend whose work has come to nothing" who is "Bred to a harder thing than triumph;" in Hemingway's Lady Brett, who gave up the first man she ever loved because she wasn't good enough for him; in Hemingway himself who blew out his brains rather than become a vegetable; in the unpressed George Smiley, who, wondering "Why do we do this dangerous work?" answers, "I rather think it's because it gives us a chance to pay" (_Honorable Schoolboy_); in Faulkner's upright judge; in Faulkner himself, who wrote to a colleague of mine, I have been writing all the time about honor, truth, pity, consideration, the capacity to endure well grief and misfortune and injustice and then endure again, in terms of individuals who observed and adhered to them not merely for reward but for virtue's own sake, not even merely because they are admirable in themselves, but in order to live with oneself and die peacefully when the time comes. Except when Don John of _Much Ado_ calls himself a "Plain Dealing Villain," which he is (and so is Edmund), Shakespeare did not use the term to designate a character type, though he frequently uses the word "plain" in the context of honesty (eleven times in _Lear_), and Lear "deal[s] plainly" (4.7.61) with Cordelia during their reconciliation. But the type is recognizable throughout the canon. Sir Walter Blunt of _1 Henry IV_, whose "grinning honor" Falstaff "like[d] not," is one of many dead plain dealers in history and literature, and Enobarbus is another. Hal, Hotspur, Timon of Athens, Othello, Brutus, Cleopatra's Antony, and Antonio of _The Merchant of Venice_ are other Shakespearean varieties. I've tried to compile a list of the PD's virtues: CONSTANCY (the same today and tomorrow), comprehending integrity (the same inside and out), responsibility, loyalty, keeping promises. GENEROSITY, comprehending graciousness, the capacity to "love" and to feel gratitude, to be mindful of obligations, to have a good memory for favors received and in haste to reciprocate them. PLAINNESS, comprehending honesty, frankness, reticence, diffidence, modesty, lack of pretense, amateurism, easiness in manners, --eschewing all formality and precision as attributes of a fop. COURAGE, comprehending patience, endurance, fortitude-a willingness to undergo any amount of suffering or loss, including death, rather than fail in any of the above. Cordelia couldn't be more than this because she gets good marks for everything, nor less than this without being worse. No, I don't think she changed in the course of the play. Yours ever, BEN ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 10:19:53 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0504 Re: Afterlife; Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0504. Monday, 28 April 1997. [1] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 26 Apr 1997 10:00:55 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Reading Hamlet [2] From: Thomas Bishop Date: Friday, 25 Apr 1997 15:21:06 -0500 Subj: Ideology [3] From: David Evett Date: Saturday, 26 Apr 97 21:53:42 EST Subj: SHK 8.0499 Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 26 Apr 1997 10:00:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Reading Hamlet Paul Hawkin's remarks on the 'reinvention' of great works like Hamlet is well taken; my only concern is when artists and others, in the process of reinvention, deliberately misread or ignore vital passages. They will come up with a very interesting theory or production or two, but its value in the long run will be severely limited. While it is a measure of its greatness, that Hamlet in particular has seen so many incarnations and taken on so many guises, a part of me involuntarily rebels when theorists, particularly some of the more modern ones, try to tell me who Hamlet is and why he 'hesitates'. I, for one, don't believe he 'hesitates'. He has perfectly good reasons for everything he does, especially his refusal to kill Claudius at his prayers, e.g. He has no sexual dysfunction, he only in passing refers to his wish to 'melt' and disappear from the world. To my mind, most modern interpretations falter in one place; in dealing with the Ghost. If you accept the Ghost, you have to accept everything the Ghost implies about the nature of the human soul, and the kind of revenge Hamlet needs to take against Claudius. Merely killing his body wouldn't do it; his ultimate goal is to ensure Claudius suffers as much as his Father does in the afterlife. It was Masefield, in his wonderful precis on Hamlet, who pointed out that the Prince lives in two worlds. When theorists and directors ignore this, I find their arguments on Hamlet that much less compelling. Andy White [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Friday, 25 Apr 1997 15:21:06 -0500 Subject: Ideology I thank Gabriel Egan for responding to my query. I have some questions arising from his attempt to help me understand the relations among biology, language and ideology. A continued search has still failed to turn up much work in this area. It's not my field, and I appreciate that it is probably not that of any of us. Still, it bears thinking about. Gabriel Egan writes: >If I understand Richard Dawkins right, it's a system designed to >facilitate the survival and reproductive success of the _genes_ that >made it, not the organism in which it resides. Depending on the >circumstances this might encourage altruistic or selfish behaviour >according to how this behaviour affects the survival of other organisms >sharing the same genes. Richard Dawkins in this argument holds to what Niles Eldredge calls an "ultra-Darwinian" position, one that wants to reduce the operation of Darwinian processes to the lowest possible level. Leaving aside all questions of the evolutionary impact of selection at the organismal or social level, Dawkins argues that bodies and societies are merely the vectors for an evolutionary struggle between certain genes (not all genes, since not all genes code for proteins). The link between genes and behavior though is much fought-over and it would be a brave, and possibly foolish, theorist who would insist that genes code complex behavior like language in a direct way. Most evolutionary theorists argue that natural selection operates primarily on the single organism within its ecosystem, including the socialities it enjoys with its own and other species. But this is still controversial. >Again, accepting that genes, not individuals, are the primary unit of >reproduction (the Dawkins position), the "self as individual" concept is >already a construction serving a biological need at a lower level. (That >is, genes find that making me feel I have independent consciousness is a >good way to reproduce themselves.) I agree strongly that the organism's perception of itself as an individual is determined by Darwinian process (though this entails at least modifying the widespread claim that it is determined by -social- process), and that the survival of an organism entails the survival of its genes (though not their reproduction: an organism also needs to be able to tell a viable mate from a non-viable one, and this may entail curtailing a commitment to the single individual as the unit of survival). Even on the argument above, however, the emergence of the "self as individual" is a -necessary-construction given the constraints of the system we inhabit. Even if we concede a shaping link between genes and consciousness, that -is- the way genes code us to be, and not another way. >The language function and the selfhood feeling don't go all the way down >to the hardware. To the end of promoting a social end (the genes' >survival) an illusion of unsocial existence (my consciousness) is >constructed. This is, I think, the nub. It appears from current research that "the language function" actually -does- go down to the hardware, at least as far down as the organization of the brain by natural selection into potentialities and faculties. And Darwinism gives very good reasons for this. I'm less sure about "the selfhood feeling" but, on the argument above, "selfishness" is a very prominent element in Darwinian selection, for Dawkins and others. And without a workable way to distinguish self from other, selfishness cannot come into being. I dont think we can really call gene competition a "social end", as there can hardly be a coherent sociality among nucleotides. They don't plan policy, and they're not like parasites. Thus consciousness of my individual being as an organism at least is not an illusion at all, in any useful sense. It is a necessary and entirely explicable element of my adaptation for the world I am in as a Darwinian parcel of matter. If it ever proves maladaptive, we will all presumably perish, but that's another story. Slime-moulds dont write poetry. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Saturday, 26 Apr 97 21:53:42 EST Subject: SHK 8.0499 Re: Ideology Gabriel Egan asserts that the "illusion" of individuality "does not go all the way down to the hardware." But he identifies the hardware as the genes. My understanding is that genes work more like software; the hardware includes a huge and very complex system of brain and neural cells, which seems to involve some interrelationships that are genetically preset and some that are constructed by the processing of various kinds of experience. The argument Tom Bishop has advanced, I believe, is that the presettings are pretty uniform across the species and that they powerfully but not entirely affect the way the variables can be processed. Here's a brief summary of the position by Galen Strawson, from his review of Mark Ridley's recently published *The Origins of Virtue*: "Evolutionary psychology . . . has blown the extreme cultural-relativist creed of many anthropologists and sociologists out of the water. Its first lesson-that there is such a thing as universal human nature-was always entirely obvious to anyone with any feeling for the species, and Ridley's way with the mystics of relativistic incommensurability is suitably short: 'for all their superficial differences of language and custom, foreign cultures are still immediately comprehensible at the deeper level of motives, emotions, and social habits.' He doesn't deny that cultural influences are extremely important; he uses the hard-to-beat metaphor of the cake (culture cooks the cake, but all the ingredients are supplied by the genes)" (TLS 11/29/97:4). Ridley himself argues from what's known as the Wason test (which involves determining whether an individual making decisions in a particular context is altruistic or cheating) that certain social processes are in fact part of the hardware: "...how can a part of the brain instinctively know' social contract theory? Has Rousseau somehow infiltrated the genes? It is no more absurd than arguing that the brain somehow knows calculus because a sportsman can catch a ball by extrapolating its trajectory, or grammar because you know how to make a past tense from a previously unknown verb. . . . As a species, wherever we live and in whatever culture, we seem to be uniquely aware of cost-benefit analysis of exchanges..."(130) That is, some profoundly effective transcultural biosocial system appears to operate in precisely those activities and relationships commonly subsumed under the concept of ideology in virtually all its meanings. The main argument of Ridley's book is that most prior Darwinian thought (and I think this includes most Marxist thought, as well, though of course by no means all on either front), by focusing on the matter of competition, missed "the myriad ways in which *individuals* [my emphasis] do not always fight each other" (20)--can reach, for instance, the kind of negotiated reconciliation figured in the closing scene of *Winter's Tale*-- and to find not only individual but social satisfaction in doing so. That's a long jump in a short time, and it may be that the SHAKSPER format is not really hospitable to this kind of argument. But I hope we can keep the discussion going, and will be interested to see what responses appear. Sociobiologically, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 10:07:31 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0502 Re: Subtext; Caliban The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0502. Monday, 28 April 1997. [1] From: Dale Lyles Date: Friday, 25 Apr 1997 11:55:15 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0496 Re: Subtext [2] From: David Evett Date: Friday, 25 Apr 1997 14:05 ET Subj: SHK 8.0498 Re: Caliban [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Friday, 25 Apr 1997 11:55:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0496 Re: Subtext Example of "pretty words" speech: Perdita's catalog of flowers. A speech ripe for cutting, if there ever was one. Instead, we used it to show Perdita's strong attraction to Florizel, through intonation, etc. MND: "Thou remember'st/Since once I sat upon a promontory..." An awful lot of verbiage there just to say, "Go get that flower." or the one at the end about damned spirits. Or Theseus and Hippolyta's discussion about dogs (although if one handcuffs Hippolyta in I.i, this is pretty much one's only chance to show they truly love each other... but see, that's not what the speech is about, is it?) In general, think of any extended bit of speech that you, faced with directing college or community actors, might sigh and say, "Well *that* can go." Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company http://shenandoah.peachnet.edu/~nctc/ [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 25 Apr 1997 14:05 ET Subject: SHK 8.0498 Re: Caliban There are stimulating pages on Caliban (which provide a more complex and to my mind persuasive account of the entangled attitudes toward non-Europeans than most) in John Gillies' *Shakespeare and Geographical Difference*. David Evett ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 10:11:16 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0503 Qs: Elizabethan stage; Antony & Cleopatra translations The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0503. Monday, 28 April 1997. [1] From: Maria Concolato Date: Friday, 25 Apr 1997 18:05:11 +0200 Subj: Elizabethan stage [2] From: Yashdip Bains Date: Saturday, 26 Apr 1997 13:38:05 -0500 (EST) Subj: Antony & Cleopatra translations [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maria Concolato Date: Friday, 25 Apr 1997 18:05:11 +0200 Subject: Elizabethan stage I'd like to know whether the fact that the Elizabethan stage was exclusively male has already been discussed by SHAKSPERIANS. More precisely, whether there has ever been an answer to Stephen Orgel's question :"why were women more upsetting than boys to the English?"(considering the European context). Thank you.Concolato [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Yashdip Bains Date: Saturday, 26 Apr 1997 13:38:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: Antony & Cleopatra translations I would like information about translations of "Antony and Cleopatra" into any languages of Asian (especially India, Indonesia), African, and South American countries for an annotated bibliography for Garland. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 09:37:38 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0505 Re: OED and CD-ROM Pricing The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0505. Tuesday, 29 April 1997. [1] From: Alan Young Date: Monday, 28 Apr 1997 14:22:10 AST4ADT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0500 Re: OED [2] From: Steve Neville Date: Monday, 28 Apr 1997 15:25:36 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0500 Re: OED [3] From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Monday, 28 Apr 1997 19:27:24 -0400 (EDT) Subj: CD-ROM Pricing [4] From: Brother Anthony Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 1997 10:15:49 +0900 (KST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0500 Re: OED [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Young Date: Monday, 28 Apr 1997 14:22:10 AST4ADT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0500 Re: OED This is in response to Jeff Myers' comments on the pricing of CDs such as the OED and the Arden Shakespeare. It should be clear that, for the most part, publishers of such items are not really interested in assisting individual academic researchers, nor, it seems to me, are they interested in the needs of students. The key concern is to re-coup costs and make some money as quickly and easily as possible. Charging several thousand dollars for a product works, because there is a sufficient number of large institutional budgets that can pay that kind of money would appear to be the way to go. The alternative marketing route would be to use a very modest price and sell to individual academics and to class upon class of students. But why bother? The result of such marketing policies is that individual researchers and teachers are "priced out", as are small institutions like my own. So, if you work as teacher, researcher or student at a small institution, and if you do not live close to a large wealthy institution, you will be at a disadvantage if you want to make use of the Arden Shakespeare on CD or if you want to work with one of the wonderful Chadwyck-Healey productions, to name two obvious examples. What do other people think about this situation? Alan R. Young (Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada) [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Neville Date: Monday, 28 Apr 1997 15:25:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0500 Re: OED In a message dated 28/04/97 15:01:20, Jeff Myers wrote: << You really think so? Considering that the cost of reproducing a CD-Rom was less than $10.00 (last I heard), I'd say it's an outrageous rip-off. If they charged a reasonable price ($50-100), everyone would buy it, and they'd recoup pre-production costs in no time. >> It was me who described the CD-Rom as a bargain. I still think that it is, though, like you, I resent the mark-up and would be far happier buying it for less (who wouldn't?) . The fact is that if you want the OED you can pay one thousand six hundred and fifty pounds, which puts twenty very nice looking books on your shelf, and makes looking up a word and it's many definitions a daunting process. Monkey, as a simple example, takes up nine whole pages. Or you can have the whole lot on a single CD-Rom. It's fast, it's portable, you can cross reference with ease. Bargain is a relative term. Sixteen hundred and fifty pounds OR three hundred pounds (at OUP prices). Moving from Monkey to Callitrichidae by getting down another volume, OR highlighting the word Callitrichidae where it appears under Monkey and going straight to it? So, it is a lot cheaper, easier to use, and portable. Beware, however, of buying the work direct from Oxford Press. Since my first post I have hunted through computer magazines and have found it at least fifty pounds cheaper through software dealers. What is a reasonable price for a brilliant piece of software? Microsoft Office costs more, yet is bought without question as it is probably the best (though I'm not prepared to argue for it). You say, Jeff, that if it sold for fifty or one hundred dollars, everyone would buy it. I doubt it. Rearguards, Steve Neville sjnevil@aol.com [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Monday, 28 Apr 1997 19:27:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: CD-ROM Pricing Dear SHAKSPERians, I want to second the spirit of Jeff Myers' posting on the high prices of some academic CD-ROMs, and I would encourage a discussion of this topic on the list. (To Jeff's list of the OED-not as badly priced as some-and the Arden Shakespeare CD-ROM, I'd like to add the new series of CD-ROMs produced by Chadwyck-Healey, as well as others I've learned of from various flyers and promotions.) I see the extraordinarily high pricing of academic CD-ROMs as having a number of wide-ranging effects. First, it prevents many of us from making these available to our students in our classrooms, and thus prevents our students from seeing CD-ROMs as serious academic tools (rather than game-delivery devices); in the end, this means that CD-ROMs become at best a marginal part of our work as teachers of Shakespeare. Second, it prevents many of us from using them in our research, since high prices means they are available typically only on a single machine or highly limited network, both of which limits easy access. Third, and most important, the high pricing widens (rather than narrows) the resource gap between well-funded universities and those that are not as well-funded, the latter, of course, being the larger group by far. Indeed, from what I've seen this kind of pricing has a kind of domino effect: since academic CD-ROMs are so expensive, many schools won't consider the technology as a potential tool and thus won't invest in the basic hardware (i.e., CD-ROM drives in computer clusters) to use that technology, the result being that even future CD-ROMs, no matter how useful, simply won't be a possibility. There is, in other words, an institutional politics worth considering here. If electronic media were supposed to give us easier and more democratic access to information, to make resources more available, the trend in pricing CD-ROMs threatens to have the opposite effect. One might argue that the World Wide Web will solve this problem, but there are indications that the opposite is beginning to occur. Companies running academic sites have begun to charge fees for access, either on a per-session basis (often very expensive over time, with costs being unpredictable and potentially astronomical) or on a site-license basis (with the subscription fees charged being quite high). The librarians I've spoken with are wary of this trend, because i) the fees, like journal subscriptions, have had a tendency to escalate; ii) the information at many of these sites is typically also available in a university library in print form (though, to be fair, one can search the information in ways one can't with print-cf. the OED, where a library having it on-line almost certainly has a print copy in its reference section); iii) such fees are continuing, and unlike journal subscriptions, one tends to get access not to new information from year to year (i.e., new issues of a journal), but to the same information from year to year (one of the reasons the term "service," not "information," is preferred by companies); iv) the demand for passwords and such tends to work against free access to information, an ideal to which most librarians are committed (rightly, in my view). Imagine asking for a student's social security number and their PIN before letting them look something up in the library's print OED!! Lest I seem too pessimistic, I should add that we are in a position to affect these trends for the better, since the electronic information revolution is in its infancy and we (as a group) are often the persons in our departments and programs who are consulted when CD-ROMs are proffered. I would urge colleagues to tell these companies-not merely the salespeople but also the company leadership-that we will not pay such prices for these resources. I would (and have!) argued to company representatives that such pricing structures are finally counter-productive to their own self-interested long-term goal of having us regularly use the technology and, not coincidentally, their products. It may be too much to hope that even with pressure from us, the prices will plummet on products already announced, but a writing or e-mail campaign will at least let companies know why their over-priced products are not being widely adopted or embraced (because of price, not because of the product itself). Individual letters won't do the trick; companies will, however, listen to groups of academics. Writing of this sort may also generate enough publicity within the industry to encourage companies to rethink their marketing strategy or new companies to spring up and fill in the gap. If we let companies know that we ARE interested in buying these products for individual use and we might even assign them in our classes, the companies may change. On the positive side, I also think that we should let companies know when they have produced CD-ROMs that are useful and well-priced, so that they are encouraged to continue to do so. On that count, let me sing the praises of the National Gallery Complete Illustrated Catalogue with CD-ROM, published by Yale UP. It is a well-made CD-ROM, easy to navigate and very comprehensive, with a wonderful feature that allows you to study details of paintings. Not exactly inexpensive, it is nonetheless well within the price range of a mere mortal, and in my estimation well worth what it costs (around $150, as I remember, and it comes with the print version of the catalogue to boot!). I should add that I'm not affiliated with Yale UP or the editors, etc., etc. One of the great promises of electronic media such as CD-ROMs and the World Wide Web is that it can make information easier to access and available to a wider range of people. (There's much more to be said about the politics of these media, but I've already gone on too long.) I'm certainly not against companies making a reasonable profit on their products, but I feel strongly that the great promise of this technology should not get lost in the process. Were some of the papers at the SAA session on "The Politics of Electronic Text" addressed to this issue? I would be interested in others' discussion of these matters. Cheers, Douglas Lanier DML3@christa.unh.edu [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brother Anthony Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 1997 10:15:49 +0900 (KST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0500 Re: OED In calculating the price of the CD-Rom OED please remember that people ordering it from outside the United Kingdom from suppliers inside the Uk do not pay VAT. I got mine from Blackwells through the WWW at the basic price plus mailing (and do remember that "Accelerated Surface Mail" gets things across oceans at airmail speed for near surface prices) Br Anthony Sogang University, Seoul, Korea ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 09:43:49 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0506 Re: Cordelia The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0506. Tuesday, 29 April 1997. [1] From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Monday, 28 Apr 1997 13:24:36 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0461 Re: The Fool; Cordelia [2] From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Monday, 28 Apr 97 21:54:44 Subj: [Re: Cordelia] [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Monday, 28 Apr 1997 13:24:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0461 Re: The Fool; Cordelia Derek Wood wrote: > Yes, I too have had trouble dealing with Cordelia's stubbornness, as > uncompromising as her father's, though to be fair, he is different in > that he does not hear what she says or listen to her words, demanding to > be offered up a verbal incense of loving cliche's, a pre-set bunch of > tired, formulaic flattery. But why does she not humour the old fool: few > people know better than she what he needs. It would take thirty seconds > of playing the old man's game: not long to hold your nose. If the > tragedy comes about because Lear uses power perversely and then > abdicates power irresponsibly, Cordelia is equally guilty. Lear acts out of anger. Cordelia acts out of a love for the truth, which is incompatible with flattery. Clearly, Shakespeare is contrasting truthfullness and flattery through these characters. The supposition that Cordelia could have held her nose and lied for 30 seconds is contrary to her character. To say she is guilty, is to miss the point that Lear has all the political power, Cordelia has none; Cordelia has done nothing wrong, although some consider her to have done something inexpedient. > What makes me hesitate about going further on this road is the presence > of France and Burgundy. They've been sniffing her over for about two > months. Soon she must leave her father's home for ever with a man she > hardly knows. It must be terrifying. What love means, how it can be > located, tested, verified, that's "the entire point." No doubt Burgundy > was a charming man, a gracious, refined courtier. He clearly had been > satisfied with the dowry offered by Lear ("I crave no more") so all he > awaited was Cordelia's decision. For France, "She is herself a dowry." > Cordelia's stubbornness, "Which often leaves the history unspoke That it > intends to do," actually does the job. Her unspoken question is > answered: Burgundy is anatomised and revealed to her. "Since that > respect and fortunes are his love, I shall not be his wife." The same > stressed, anxious, self-punishing precision ("What shall Cordelia > speak?"), which so disastrously infuriates her father, delivers her a > husband who comes through the ordeal so splendidly, more romantically > than any golddigging Bassanio, with only love and respect for the > "unpriz'd precious maid." Good analysis. Burgundy wants Cordelia for her wealth. France wants her for her worth as a person. So in this scene we have contrasted persons as means to an end, persons as having inherent worth, and persons as subordinate to a higher good. Cordelia values a higher good, namely truth, than pleasing her father, whom she loves with that love which is appropriate to a human being as one among many human beings, towards whom our love is conditioned by the relationship we have to each. But it is not, or at least should not be, absolute. Goneril's and Regan's flattery echo language that would be appropriate to a god. Cordelia knows that Lear is not God and acts accordingly. Roger Schmeeckle [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Monday, 28 Apr 97 21:54:44 EDT Subject: [Re: Cordelia] Cordelia . . . . In the last few weeks of department-chairing (three years that have gone on like decades), I'm getting to sympathize more and more with that old King. But what hasn't been mentioned about the youngest daughter's response to the contest is that she also is refusing to participate in what is from the outset not a contest but rather a fixed mock-contest, a set-up, a job-search with the successful candidate already chosen. Which of you shall we say doth love us most . . .? sez the King. "Goneril . . . speak first." And then he gives her her chunk BEFORE he hears what anyone else says. In my part of the Bronx we'd say that the basic rules of contests had been violated if the prizes and the recipients of them had been determined before the contestants took their best shots. "Not fair!" Cordelia breaks the old guy's rules. Have you ever been a participant in a fixed race? Not fun. She reminds poppa that family relationships are not a game of Jeopardy. The "bonds" are tougher than the rules of Scrabble or Monopoly. When Kent also breaks those "courtly" rules and Lear tries to chop him, two voices --Alb. and Cor.-step in to cry out, "Dear Sir Forbear." (But only in F.) Killing a truth-teller breaks the rules of something tougher than courtly decorum. A few minutes later, after Lear plays out his dismal game of banishment and disowning, "Cor." (in F, "Glost." in Q) again tries to bring him back to a world more complex, more lasting, than his strut-your-stuff bluffness. "Here's France and Burgundy, my noble Lord." Cordelia breaks surface rules repeatedly. She takes terrible and deadly risks because she plays according to deeper values. At his best Lear laughs wildly when he learns to manipulate the social codes rather than feel bound by them, and his language glows, laughing in the pain. We laugh with him, but then watch pained ourselves as he collapses back, finally, into questioning, Why should a dog, a horse, a rat . . . When students and faculty gripe about a particular anomaly or injustice in the batty kingdom I chair, I take 'em to a window. "See, out there, that's the world. It comes in, right through the glass, no discontinuities." Lear gets it for a while, then loses it; Cordelia knows it all the way. G'night/ Urquartowitz, the short-timer ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 09:58:32 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0507 Re: Elizabethan Stage; Afterlife; Plain Dealers; Sir Thomas More The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0507. Tuesday, 29 April 1997. [1] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Monday, 28 Apr 1997 11:48:17 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0503 Qs: Elizabethan Stage [2] From: Scott Crozier Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 1997 12:20:23 +1100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0504 Re: Afterlife [3] From: Richard Regan Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 1997 08:15:01 -0400 Subj: Sir Thomas More [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Monday, 28 Apr 1997 11:48:17 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0503 Qs: Elizabethan Stage Hi, Maria. A former professor of mine with an expertise in Middle-English drama had a response to this issue. I won't say who it was, lest I imbricate her in an argument that I might be misrepresenting in the first place, but here goes: Basically, the mystery cycles were traditionally performed by guilds. Guilds, of course, had all-male membership. Therefore the stage was all male. When inflationary pressures combined with lowering wages in the sixteenth century (for which, see C. S. L. Davies, R. B. Outhwaite, etc.), these chaps found themselves out of work, or at least, underemployed. Being former guildmen, however, they did have another skill-acting. Acting as an economic activity, it should be recalled, was closely associated with vagrancy (hence the fiction of being "the Lord Chamberlain's Men," "The Admiral's Men," etc.) So women were excluded from the Elizabethan stage in part because of the tradition deriving from the miracle plays, and in part because the problems of economic competition which had led to exclusion of women from the guilds in the first place, still operated to keep women off the stage later. Cheers, Sean. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 1997 12:20:23 +1100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0504 Re: Afterlife; Ideology Andrew White writes: "Paul Hawkin's remarks on the 'reinvention' of great works like Hamlet is well taken; my only concern is when artists and others, in the process of reinvention, deliberately misread or ignore vital passages. They will come up with a very interesting theory or production or two, but its value in the long run will be severely limited." Although this is written as an introduction to a discussion of "reinventions" of Hamlet, it must necessarily be directed at all "subsequent performances" to use Jonathan Miller's term. It is in this sense that I would make the following comment. Surely, unless a company were trying to replicate the original production, contextual elements of the production at hand must play a substantial role in the development of the performance. If this means applying an "interesting theory" or "deliberately misreading" then so be it. For if a performance does not speak to an audience now, then what is its worth? I am not advocating the modernising Shakespeare but I am suggesting that if it is more appropriate to reinvent an element of a play for a contemporary audience so that it has a similar effect to what the original might have had at the plays inception, then so be it. Brook's spinning plate "flowers" were a case in point. Here he "reinvented" magic for an audience who had lost the power to believe in the efficacy of herbal drugs! Spinning plates refound that belief. Keep on "reinventing" I suggest! Regards, Scott Crozier Head of English St. Michael's Grammar School [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Regan Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 1997 08:15:01 -0400 Subject: Sir Thomas More Colleagues, Perhaps I missed it, but I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Scott McMillin's __Sir Thomas More_ and the Elizabethan Stage_. (I don't have the book with me, so please pardon if I've mis-spelled the author's name or mis-remembered the title.) I find McMillin's discussion of the authorship and handwriting questions an excellent corrective to our obsessions with authors and personalities. --Chris ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 09:56:59 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0508 Re: OED and CD-ROM Pricing The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0508. Wednesday, 30 April 1997. [1] From: Michael Best Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 1997 09:31:59 -0700 Subj: Electronic text and CDs [2] From: Michael Best Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 1997 09:31:59 -0700 Subj: Cost of CDs and the Internet Shakespeare Editions [3] From: Malcolm Keithley Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 1997 10:34:10 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0505 Re: OED and CD-ROM Pricing [4] From: Jeff Myers Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 1997 20:27:25 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0505 Re: OED and CD-ROM Pricing [5] From: Ed Peschko Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 1997 18:02:53 -0600 (MDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0505 Re: OED and CD-ROM Pricing [6] From: Wes Folkerth Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 00:11:16 -0400 Subj: CD-ROM pricing [7] From: Nick Kind Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 09:06:31 +0100 Subj: Arden Shakespeare CD-ROM (re: SHK 8.0497) [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Best Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 1997 09:31:59 -0700 Subject: Electronic text and CDs Douglas Lanier asks "Were some of the papers at the SAA session on "The Politics of Electronic Text" addressed to this issue [the cost of CD ROMs and the use of the Web]? Several did so, somewhat tangentially: Peter Donaldson discussed a project which avoids the problem by delivering high quality texts, video, and graphics over a "wide area network" restricted to students at two institutions; Laurie Osborne looked at some of the Web sites and CD ROMs associated with recent Shakespeare films, though her emphasis was more on what the CDs said about current popular pedagogical attitudes; Christie Carson provided some information on the cost in time and money of producing a CD ROM on Lear, with extensive performance materials (coming from Cambridge UP); my paper looked at some questions of copyright and the Internet (the paper is at the URL ). There are some genuine and concrete problems associated with CDs: cost of copyright permissions, cost of distribution, and the speed of change of the technology, with the attendant fear that the CD itself will be a kind of "bridging" technology, out of date before those pressed are sold. More insidious in my experience is the problem of perception-those who work on CDs run into two roadblocks: the lack of recognition within our discipline for work carried out in the electronic medium; and the tendency of copyright holders to assume that they are dealing with Microsoft, and can charge accordingly. In my opinion, however, none of this justifies the kind of price that is being asked for some of the CD ROMs now being marketed. It seems to be another example of the way a previous technology influences a new one: to produce these texts in printed format would cost the earth, so why not charge it for a CD? Michael Best Department of English, University of Victoria Coordinating Editor, Internet Shakespeare Editions [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Best Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 1997 09:31:59 -0700 Subject: Cost of CDs and the Internet Shakespeare Editions Alan Young comments (accurately, I believe) that "publishers of [CD ROMs] are not really interested in assisting individual academic researchers, nor, it seems to me, are they interested in the needs of students." I invite comments from SHAKSPER members (to the list or privately) on the a proposal that plays published on the Internet Shakespeare Editions, when complete, should also be made available on CD ROM. The CD would come with a licensed browser for each of the major computer platforms, and would provide the same data as would be available on the Internet site, with the possible addition of better quality graphics. The advantage to the user would be that the edition would be available on his or her desktop without having to connect to the Web-and wait for bits to download. The CDs would be inexpensive, since all the data would be available at the cost of copyright permissions only. The CD would include a link to a page at the ISE site which would provide information about changes, since one of the great strengths of an Internet edition is that it can be continuously updated as new material on a play becomes available. The Internet Shakespeare Editions will be refereed, scholarly, and fully annotated; all texts and materials posted on the site will be freely available for educational, non-profit use. CDs generated from them should cost under $50 each. Question: would there be a market for them? Michael Best Department of English, University of Victoria Coordinating Editor, Internet Shakespeare Editions [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Malcolm Keithley Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 1997 10:34:10 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0505 Re: OED and CD-ROM Pricing The conversations about CD-ROM costs have been interesting, as I have been trying to determine a realistic price for "Shakespeare's World." http://www.digifx.com/Shakespeare/ This CD-ROM is now in Beta 1.0, which is structural and operational testing (still lots of content to input yet). It will be in Beta 2.0 in the near future and we would like to distribute it as widely as possible. Some recommendations have been to offer it as a single disc as well as in multiple packs (5 for the price of 3, for instance). It appears, from what I am hearing on this list, that $100 US would be top price for a single CD package-ours consists of one CD-ROM program and an audio disc with 60 minutes of Elizabethan music. I would appreciate hearing more comments and thoughts. Regards, Malcolm Keithley [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 1997 20:27:25 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0505 Re: OED and CD-ROM Pricing I wonder how expensive the earliest books were compared to the manuscripts they replaced. Did printed books offer any added value, as CD-Roms do? Jeff Myers [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Peschko Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 1997 18:02:53 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0505 Re: OED and CD-ROM Pricing > It was me who described the CD-Rom as a bargain. I still think that it > is, though, like you, I resent the mark-up and would be far happier > buying it for less (who wouldn't?) . The fact is that if you want the > OED you can pay one thousand six hundred and fifty pounds, which puts > twenty very nice looking books on your shelf, and makes looking up a > word and it's many definitions a daunting process. Monkey, as a simple > example, takes up nine whole pages. Or you can have the whole lot on a > single CD-Rom. It's fast, it's portable, you can cross reference with > ease. > > Bargain is a relative term. Sixteen hundred and fifty pounds OR three > hundred pounds (at OUP prices). Moving from Monkey to Callitrichidae by > getting down another volume, OR highlighting the word Callitrichidae > where it appears under Monkey and going straight to it? So, it is a lot > cheaper, easier to use, and portable. Man. I agree. It doesn't stop at the CD world, many VHS tapes also go for such ridiculous prices, since they aim for a small market, rather than target as wide a market as possible. This trend should change however, since (hopefully!) the WWW should open up a much broader audience than was feasible before. The main problem right now with such CD's, and why they are so expensive, is because unlike popular culture, you simply can't mass market your product. There is not a great enough ROI to justify the expense. But-when the cost of 'getting your message' out to folks becomes next to nothing (via the web) the number of possible orders should increase exponentially. I'm sure these companies would rather have 100000 orders at 100 bucks a shot, than 1000 orders at 1000 bucks. After all, that's a tenfold increase in profit based on something that has little cost to press (CDs) I'm hoping that the same thing happens to cult movies, cult books, pretty much everything. The onset of DVD's should make the availability and price much lower, when mass-marketing via web is a reality. Now, if only the companies could come up with a way to encrypt the data, on disk, so that no one could successfully *pirate* it. Now, that would be extremely helpful at lowering prices. Ed [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wes Folkerth Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 00:11:16 -0400 Subject: CD-ROM pricing I agree with those who have recorded their objections to the pricing of electronic research materials. While it does only cost around 10 dollars to actually burn the CDs (and probably much less if done in bulk), I imagine the real costs come into play during the compiling of materials and the seemingly countless hours of data entry that must be required for some of the more comprehensive e-text collections. Does anyone on the list actually know who enters the data that appears on these materials? My local reference librarian informed me that at least one of the major companies in the industry uses very low-wage foreign labour for straight text entry. I've done this kind of work, and it's far more physically demanding than one would think. They have each text completely entered twice, and then use a synchronization program to catch errors. I can't verify this in any way, and would like to hear from someone who knows more. Finally, I would like to suggest that one response to the research materials pricing problem involves a little DIY, of the kind that made the internet and SHAKSPER possible in the first place. People like Michael Best (Internet Shakespeare Editions) and Don Foster (SHAXICON) have been working on projects for several years now that promise to become important research materials, available to the entire academic community for no cost. I'm grateful for their spirit of academic generosity. Wes Folkerth tfolke@po-box.mcgill.ca [7]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Kind Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 09:06:31 +0100 Subject: Arden Shakespeare CD-ROM (re: SHK 8.0497) Jeff - I'm glad you think our product is "fabulous" - thank you. Naturally, I'm disappointed that you (and others) find the price difficult; we have thought very carefully about it in consultation with an eminent editorial board. We feel that you are getting excellent value for money with: *A highly sophisticated interface which brings Shakespeare research onto a new level. It includes thousands of hypertext links, is fully searchable in a number of complex ways, and lets you display a lot of information simultaneously but clearly (notably folio, quarto, Arden text and commentary all on the same, scrollable, screen). *All 39 Arden 2 texts, including apparatus, plus the Arden 1 Sonnets (these latter weren't produced in Arden 2) *Bullough's Sources, Bevington's Bibliography, Abbott's Grammar, Onions and Eagleson's Glossary, and Partridge's Bawdy. *Facsimiles of the folios and quartos (and in some cases extra quartos) for all plays wherever these are available. The price, as you say, includes a ten user license. So leaving out the folio and quarto facsimiles, even though these were costly and are a vital part of the CD, you get a price of under $100 per text ($3,995 list price by 45 texts); divide this into the allowed number of users and you get under $9 per person, per text. That's less than the price of the paper book for each student - and you get all the benefits of our interface! Incidentally, the development of the Arden CD-ROM has taken several years and cost over 600,000 pounds sterling to develop directly so far, excluding any "overhead" cost (i.e. staff/ buildings/ admin/ management etc. at Routledge and Thomas Nelson). So we're probably looking at a million dollar plus development cost. Please feel free to respond to me either in public here on SHAKSPER or privately via email. I've recently been employed specifically to develop the Arden electronically and would be interested in any comments, suggestions, likes or dislikes people may have about Shakespeare in any electronic format, including the internet. I'm here to try and develop things you want to use and buy! Nicholas Kind Electronic Development Editor The Arden Shakespeare nick.kind@nelson.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 10:01:29 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0509 Re: Translations The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0509. Wednesday, 30 April 1997. [1] From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 97 11:08:00 PDT Subj: RE: SHK 8.0503 Q: Antony & Cleopatra Translations [2] From: Yashdip Bains Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 1997 15:43:03 -0500 (EST) Subj: Translations of "1 Henry IV" in India [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 97 11:08:00 PDT Subject: RE: SHK 8.0503 Q: Antony & Cleopatra Translations In reply to the query from Yashdip Bains, the Folger has translations of Antony & Cleopatra in Old Turkish, Turkish, and Urdu. The Old Turkish edition was published in 1921. The Turkish edition is "Antonius ile Kleopatra...saffet Korkut tarafindan tercume edilmistir" (Ankara: Maarif Matbaasi, 1944). The one in Urdu was published in Delhi by Maktaba Jamia in 1979. I'm sorry I can't give more information; there is no transliteration of the Old Turkish and Urdu scripts. Georgianna Ziegler Folger Library [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Yashdip Bains Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 1997 15:43:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Translations of "1 Henry IV" in India Are there any trnslations of "1 Henry IV" into Hindi, Bengali, Urdu and other languages of the subcontinent? Any information about translators and publishers would be welcome. Yashdip Bains University of Cincinnati ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 10:05:42 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0510 Q: The Soliloquy and the Construction of the Subject The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0510. Wednesday, 30 April 1997. From: Diane Hughes Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 1997 16:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The Soliloquy Has anyone any suggestions for relevant books or material on the importance of the soliloquy to the construction of the subject in Renaissance drama? Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 10:07:57 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0511 Columbia University Seminar on Shakespeare The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0511. Wednesday, 30 April 1997. From: Jill Niemczyk Smith Date: Tuesday, 29 Apr 1997 17:07:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Columbia University Seminar on Shakespeare THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY SEMINAR ON SHAKESPEARE is pleased to announce that Samuel Crowl of Ohio University will be speaking on "Branagh and Shakespeare: From Stratford to Hollywood" at our meeting on Friday, 2 May 1997 at Faculty House on the Columbia University Campus in New York City. Local and visiting Shakespeareans are welcome. Please contact Jill Niemczyk Smith at jan5@columbia.edu for further information. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 10:10:01 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0512 Volunteering The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0512. Wednesday, 30 April 1997. From: Louis Marder Date: Wednesday, 19 Mar 1997 09:18:30 PST Subject: Hi y'all - Today is the last day of the national meeting on volunteering and the noble functions it performs. How about volunteering to become an Associate of the Shakespeare Data Bank? It is a noble non-profit project to computerize what is known about Shakespeare (in the broadest possible sense of the word) for the benefit of vast numbers of people now and in the future. Students and scholars will thank us for what we volunteers have condensed, compiled, organized, and computerized for easy reference and intelligibility. The lawyers and doctors have done it for themselves ; why shouldn't we? E-mail me for information, a topic, or suggest the area of your own expertise. I pause for a reply........ Louis Marder, avon4@juno.com. Or on CompuServe 76411.3613.========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 09:32:21 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0513 Re: The Soliloquy and the Construction of the Subject The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0513. Thursday, 1 May 1997. [1] From: Peter C. Herman Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 07:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0510 Q: The Soliloquy and the Construction of the Subject [2] From: A.E.B. Coldiron Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 11:05:05 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0510 Q: The Soliloquy and the Construction of the Subject [3] From: Taiwon Kim Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 15:25:42 EST Subj: RE: SHK 8.0510 Q: The Soliloquy and the Construction of the Subject [4] From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 23:57:49 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0510 Q: The Soliloquy and the Construction of the Subject [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter C. Herman Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 07:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0510 Q: The Soliloquy and the Construction of the Subject >Has anyone any suggestions for relevant books or material on the >importance of the soliloquy to the construction of the subject in >Renaissance drama? Thanks. James Hirsch has a terrific article on Hamlet's "To Be or Not To Be" speech in a recent issue of Modern Language Quarterly (I think). He's the man to contact and/or read. Peter C. Herman [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: A.E.B. Coldiron Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 11:05:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0510 Q: The Soliloquy and the Construction of the Subject Katharine Maus, _Inwardness and Theatre_, is a good place to start, and follow her bibliography. Regards, A. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Taiwon Kim Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 15:25:42 EST Subject: RE: SHK 8.0510 Q: The Soliloquy and the Construction of the Subject Hi, I think you may want to look at Raymond Williams' essay, "On Dramatic dialogue and monologue" in (Verson, 1984). The same issue was dealt with in his book (Fontana, 1984), pp.139-147. Katherine Belsey is also taking up the issue in her book (methuen, ?) which I don't have now, so that I cannot provide the page numbers. Taiwon Kim University of Florida [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 23:57:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0510 Q: The Soliloquy and the Construction of the Subject Dear Diane Hughes-Off the top of the cuff, I can not think of any particular references about soliloquies (but I'm sure some will come), but I am very interested in this issue, and also the issue of how soliloquies came to be privileged (in post Coleridgean/Bradleyan) as not only more "authentic" but also more "poetic" than other discursive forms in Shakespeare (witty stichomythias, for instance), and what the implications of this "misreading" have been (for instance, the idea some still cling to that soliloquies are somehow beyond rhetoric, and are NOT performative). I think the relationship of soliloquies to lyric poetry (the kind that adheres to the convention of a singular lyric "speaker") might be worth exploring in this connection, and am currently working on comparing (and contrasting) Shakespeare's Sonnet 8 to RICHARD II's POMFRET SOLILOQUY to explore their formal dialogic (and self-referential/meta-poetic) aspects. In the process, I am reading JOEL FINEMAN'S excellent "Shakespeare's Perjured Eye" (should be underlined, not in quotes), which argues that in the sonnets Shakespeare was largely responsible for constructing modern subjectivity. Although I disagree with the historical ramifications of his argument, that prefers to see Shakespeare representing a clean break from earlier subjectivities (and much prefer the argument of someone like Rosalie Colie in Shakespeare's Living Art, who argues more for the historical continuity), and although Fineman's emphasis is primarily on the SONNETS and not SOLILOQUIES within the plays (he died, alas, before moving to that aspect of his project), much of what he says about the kind of subjectivity he detects in the sonnets can apply VERY well to the soliloquies as well, especially if one tends to see the soliloquies as "lyric" poems, which I'd argue is a valuable endeavor, even if at a certain point, they must be seen within the context of the "surrounding" play, whose meaning they are determined by, but also may determine (more than quite a few critics/readers allow themselves to admit). I hope this has at least SOME relevance to your inquiry. Thanks, Chris Stroffolino ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 09:44:51 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0514 Re: OED and CD-ROM Pricing The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0514. Thursday, 1 May 1997. [1] From: Jeff Myers Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 16:25:35 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0508 Re: OED and CD-ROM Pricing [2] From: Michael S. Hart Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 12:52:09 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0508 Re: OED and CD-ROM Pricing [3] From: Nick Kind Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 17:04:31 +0100 Subj: Encryption Methods for CDs [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 16:25:35 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0508 Re: OED and CD-ROM Pricing >From: Michael Best >The Internet Shakespeare Editions will be refereed, scholarly, and fully >annotated; all texts and materials posted on the site will be freely >available for educational, non-profit use. CDs generated from them >should cost under $50 each. Question: would there be a market for them? Depending on quality, I'd definitely consider making such a text _the_ text in my Shakespeare classes. We're renovating the humanities building, which will have a large computer-equipped classroom, and we're also planning to implement providing our entering students with laptops. So, you'd have a real shot at my business (about 65 students per year). >From: Ed Peschko >Now, if only the companies could come up with a way to encrypt the data, >on disk, so that no one could successfully *pirate* it. Now, that would >be extremely helpful at lowering prices. I believe the trick is to make the product so reasonably affordable that the user doesn't really want to pirate it. Even such added value as notification about upgrades can decrease the incentive. And I would think the same principle would apply to large-scale overseas pirating. Only extremely expensive programs are worth the effort. >From: Nick Kind >I'm glad you think our product is "fabulous" - thank you. It is! Shakespearean cyberlust! >Naturally, I'm >disappointed that you (and others) find the price difficult; we have >thought very carefully about it in consultation with an eminent >editorial board. We feel that you are getting excellent value for money >with: I'm not sure what "an eminent editorial board" knows about pricing. And, of course, the important point is that the purchasers, not the seller, must feel they are getting "excellent value for money." >*A highly sophisticated interface which brings Shakespeare research onto >a new level. It includes thousands of hypertext links, is fully >searchable in a number of complex ways, and lets you display a lot of >information simultaneously but clearly (notably folio, quarto, Arden >text and commentary all on the same, scrollable, screen). > >*All 39 Arden 2 texts, including apparatus, plus the Arden 1 Sonnets >(these latter weren't produced in Arden 2) So, the Sonnets text is really outdated, I guess. A bit difficult for a $4,000 product. Are all the plays on the CD in the most recent Arden editions? >The price, as you say, includes a ten user license. So leaving out the >folio and quarto facsimiles, even though these were costly and are a >vital part of the CD, you get a price of under $100 per text ($3,995 >list price by 45 texts); divide this into the allowed number of users >and you get under $9 per person, per text. That's less than the price of >the paper book for each student - and you get all the benefits of our >interface! Hmmm . . . Under such reasoning, Bevington's Shakespeare is a fantastic bargain! >Incidentally, the development of the Arden CD-ROM has taken several >years and cost over 600,000 pounds sterling to develop directly so far, >excluding any "overhead" cost (i.e. staff/ buildings/ admin/ management >etc. at Routledge and Thomas Nelson). So we're probably looking at a >million dollar plus development cost. I wonder what the development costs were for Bevington's edition? Of course, there's no CD-Rom involved. Perhaps a better example might be a recording of a Mozart opera by the Met. Imagine the incredible number of person-hours involved in making such a recording possible! Yet, they manage to sell their recordings for considerably less than $4,000. >Please feel free to respond to me either in public here on SHAKSPER or >privately via email. I've recently been employed specifically to develop >the Arden electronically and would be interested in any comments, >suggestions, likes or dislikes people may have about Shakespeare in any >electronic format, including the internet. I'm here to try and develop >things you want to use and buy! You've done it! I want to buy and use it. Now, price it so that I and/or ("and," I hope) my students can purchase it. Otherwise, it will remain a curiosity for most potential users. Curmudgeonly yours, Jeff Myers [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael S. Hart Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 12:52:09 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0508 Re: OED and CD-ROM Pricing >I wonder how expensive the earliest books were compared to the >manuscripts they replaced. Did printed books offer any added value, as >CD-Roms do? The earliest moveable type books were priced at about 1/400th the same book written in manuscript [which were priced at about the same price as the average family farm]. As for the other questions about the prices of CDROMs, even if you had only $1,000 made, it would still often be less than $1 each. Add in a box, paper literature you might want included, etc. There are lots of companies out there making a profit by selling CDROM and CD packages for under $5. If you think rehearsing an entire orchestra for months, and making the necessary recordings, edits, etc., costs less than typing Shakespeare, I would suggest you do some research. As for the comments by those say companies would prefer to sell copies to a greater market at a reduced price. . .I would suggest research on that topic as well. There are still many places who are so elitist that they would prefer, to an unbelievable degree, to sell 1,000 items to 1,000 people at 100% profit per item [or close to it] than for "everyone" to have a copy. Even severe competition and commentary will not stop this. I would still be happy to work on getting more "proven public domain" of Shakespeare on the Net. Thanks! [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Kind Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 17:04:31 +0100 Subject: Encryption Methods for CDs In reply to Ed Peschko's comment about encryption methods for CDs - there _are_ a number available, from vendors such as C-Dilla, which I am happy to tell people about if they would like to email me individually. They all have their various pros and cons! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 09:59:37 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0515 Qs: Flowers; Shr.; poor/pure; Riverside The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0515. Thursday, 1 May 1997. [1] From: Brad Morris Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 12:19:28 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Flowers [2] From: Dom Saliani Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 12:10:41 -0700 (MST) Subj: Taming [3] From: Tom Hodges Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 13:47:55 GMT-6 Subj: Re: *KL* 1.4, Poor vs. Pure [4] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 18:27:50 -0400 Subj: Questions [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Morris Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 12:19:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Flowers I was wondering if anyone could help me find an internet tool or something similar. I'm trying to find something along the lines of "The Flowers of Shakespeare." I could do a word search, but then I'd have to do each flower, and since I don't know all the flowers he wrote about, I'm kind of stuck. Anyone? [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dom Saliani Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 12:10:41 -0700 (MST) Subject: Taming I have agreed to dramaturge next September for a high school production of "Taming" with a twist. In our version, we plan on having Petrucia tame Katarino. Yes gender reversal. Baptista, Lucentia, Trania, Hortensia, Gremia, Vincentia will be the other females in the cast. Grumio, Biondello, Bianco will be the males. Has anyone seen a version similar to this or worked on a gender reversed production of Taming? We are looking for advice/suggestions. Please either respond through the list or directly to me. Thanks in advance. Dom Saliani dsaliani@cbe.ab.ca [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Hodges Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 13:47:55 GMT-6 Subject: Re: *KL* 1.4, Poor vs. Pure The recent *KL* threads prompt me to try out a pet idea. It deals with 1.4, when Lear asks Kent-in-disguise, "What art thou?" and Kent responds, "A very honest fellow, and as poor as the king." Why not render Kent's word *poor* onstage as *pure*? Has someone out there in ShaksperLand seen a production or read a study taking this angle? Kent's "as poor as the king" has often struck me as a curious departure in his application for "service." And hearing *pure* allows Lear to make an even better joke out of the situation. On the other hand, a cursory check of Spevak's *Concordance* did not yield, at least to me, any similar poor/pure puns; furthermore, neither Furness' *Variorum* nor recent *KL* editions I've seen supply any authority for such a reading of 1.4.21. Nor has my survey of bibliographies turned up commentary on this point. Despite the above, and acknowledging that Shakespeare's "authentic production" is a shadow of a phantom further obscured by my twentieth-century biases, I still wonder if the *pure* reading merits consideration. (1)These two words shared the forms *puyr peur puir* during those years when English was shifting its vowels. (2)Kent in a previous line warns the audients he will "defuse" his speech. (3)The *pure* angle raises, I think, dramatic and thematic possibilities congruent with the play as a whole; for example if Lear banters with this "stranger" about a poor/pure king, it reveals a witty and maybe even genial side of that choleric dolt from 1.1. In addition *pure* focuses on the "purity in poverty" theme of *KL* and does so in a manner worthy, it seems to me, of WS the Punmeister. I have, as you can tell, sifted this idea until I've become enamored of it. And, yes, that way madness lies. I would like to hear from, or about, others who have plowed this same ground or who can help me better appreciate "...as poor as the king." Thanks, Tom Hodges [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 18:27:50 -0400 Subject: Questions Question: The new *Riverside Shakespeare* (with *E3* and *FE*)--On 3/7/97, Patrick Gillespie wrote (SHK 8.0330) : >I hope this isn't old territory. I noticed the new Riverside in the >bookstore and saw that they had included the Elegy *and* that they had >included Edward III. Concerning the latter, I was curious by whom they >were persuaded. Was it Eric Sams (thinking of his latest book) or does >this decision go back to Muir and others. If it was Sams, I wonder now >at the status of Edmund Ironside. Also, I had only time for a brief >look, did they add anything else? > >And on a related subject: Are the older King Lear You mean *Leir*? [or do you mean Q1?] > and King John >seriously being touted as Shakespeare's and if so, on what grounds or >to whom and where should I look for material? If this is an old subject, >send to me privately. I don't want to bore anyone. I have not found the *New Riverside* anywhere. (Nor, for that matter, has a friend who would like to buy it for me for my birthday.) It was not in books in print. What happened? How come they're still selling the 1974 one in Barrnes and Noble? Totally unrelated question: How is "Harry LeRoy" a "Welshman"? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 10:09:14 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0516 Re: Cordelia; Subtext; Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0516. Thursday, 1 May 1997. [1] From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 11:02:50 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0471 Re: Cordelia [2] From: David Jackson Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 22:04:54 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0496 Re: Subtext [3] From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 11:57:04 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0504 Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 11:02:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0471 Re: Cordelia Louis C Swilley wrote: >Cordelia could say - would be expected to say - that she loves >everything else because of him. Not only would this be true, it is the >last step in the development of any true love (the sisters have given >the first two steps). It would not be true. To love everyone else because of a person is appropriate language and theology for a Christian's love of God, and other persons because of God's love for them. But Cordelia recognizes that Lear is not God; hence to love him as her sisters have professed, or to love other persons because of him, would be a form of idolatry. There exists confusion because this is a very Christian play in a pagan context. And pervasive in the pagan world was the divinization of rulers. I do not know whether that was so understood and practiced in pagan Britain, or what Shakespeare might have known about that. It is likely that he was familiar with the general custom of divinizing rulers before the Christian era. Cordelia does not confuse limited love due to a human father and worship due to God alone. >Cordelia should humour the old man and simply lie. She shouldn't and >needn't. What does she do instead? She "cannot heave her heart into >her mouth", she says; but then she does. I suggest that to heave her heart into her mouth means to displace her heart, a figure for lying. Truth requires that words and inner awareness coincide, that the heart be in its right place. It was asked in another post: "Is there a defense for Cordelia?" The answer, perhaps not popular today, is simple: truth is preferable to lying. Roger Schmeeckle [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 22:04:54 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0496 Re: Subtext As an actor, director, dramaturg and teacher, I am naturally reluctant (!) to throw in my two cents' worth, but here goes: I think that both Daw and Lyles are leaning toward extremes. "Subtext" can be interpreted as only referring to important plot points that are not expressly mentioned in the dialogue, but this leaves a lot of other issues that are churining around in any character's mind at any given time, so what do you want to call THEM? Similarly, long speeches may be the most obviously in need of close scrutiny for purposes of acting them in some way other than boringly general, but does that mean the actor need not work as hard on the two-liners? (Or even two-worders?) As far as I am concerned, subtext is what is going on ALL THE TIME when a character is on the stage (whether speaking or not). When we speak words, we try to put our thoughts and intentions into a form that will be received by our intended listener in a particular way. This will be influenced by the degree at that moment of our articulacy, of our honesty, and of our need to achieve some objective (to mention just a few matters). That's subtext. It's there ALL THE TIME. Even when we "mean what we say" our words only approximate our intentions. That's the limitation of common language. So: what the character says is text. What's going on inside the character is subtext. Even in Shakespeare, the only time a character has no subtext is when he or she is dead. David Jackson [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 11:57:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0504 Re: Ideology A brief comment on the sociobabology being introduced as a possible way of undermining Marxism, constructivism, humanism, poetry, and maybe even Hamlet's soliloquies. When evolutionary biologists talk about "selfish" genes or genes procuring "selfish" behavior surely they are already committing the error of anthropomorphosis? How can a gene be "selfish" or not? Or again, how can any behavior by man, beast, fish, or amoeba be characterized as "selfish" or "altruistic" unless so far as the behavior is already being submitted to a language of ethics-what is "selfish," that is, but thinking makes it so? I've tried reading some evolutionary biologists but what they're saying is really too hilarious. In historiography Whiggism is as dead as Lord Macaulay, but in evolutionary biology Whiggism thrives- what has turned out to win has always won for the purpose that it was supposed to win, given the "facts" (hardwiring, etc.) And although the very distinction between actions which are "selfish" depends upon a certain range of human, social experiences which include a sense of what is taken (for good or ill) to be "moral," evolutionary biologists think they can project these moral terms in reverse upon non-thinking chunks of matter, and then claim (with complete circularity) that the exemplification or non-exemplification of these moral categories in the behavior of chunks of matter actually tells us something about the moral categories. I smell a fish. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 10:13:26 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0517 Florence Internationale Conference of Editing The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0517. Thursday, 1 May 1997. From: Fernando Cioni Date: Thursday, 01 May 1997 11:15:59 +0200 Subject: Florence Internationale Conference of Editing International Conference Shakespeare's Text(s): A Hundred Visions and Revisions Florence, Palagio di Parte Guelfa 29-31 May 1997 THURSDAY 29: registration from 12.00 15.00: opening addresses 15,30: Plenary lecture: Stanley Wells (The Shakespeare Institute, Stratford-upon-Avon) "The First Folio: Where Should We Be Without It?" 16,30: coffee break 17.00-19.00 panel session: "The Politics of Editing" with Gary Taylor (University of Alabama), Giorgio Melchiori (University of Rome), Richard Proudfoot (University of London), Graham Holderness (University of Hertfordshire) ore 19.30: British Institute: drink & buffet FRIDAY 30:=20 9.30: Plenary lecture: Jerome McGann (University of Virginia) "Editing as a Theoretical Pursuit" 10.30: coffee break 11.00-13.00 panel session: "The texts of Hamlet" with Ann Thompson (Roehampton Institute, London), Alessandro Serpieri (University of Florence), Steven Urkowitz (University of New York), Bryan Loughrey (Roehampton Institute, London) 13.00: buffet 15.00: Book presentation: Alessandro Serpieri's translation of Hamlet Q1 with Giovanna Mochi (University of Siena), Alessandro Serpieri (University of Florence) and Giorgio Melchiori (University of Rome) 15.30: Plenary lecture: Margreta de Grazia (University of Pennsylvania) "Cruxes of the Zeitgeist in Hamlet" 16.30 coffee break 17.00-19.00 panel session: "The afterlife of Shakespeare's texts" with Keir Elam, (University of Florence), Fernando Cioni (University of Florence), Carla Dente (University of Pisa), Luca Biagiotti (University of Pisa) SATURDAY 31: 9.30: Plenary lecture: Michael Warren (University of California) "Citizens and Editors" 10,30: coffee break 11,00: Presentation of issue 9 of "Textus" on Shakespeare's texts (Keir Elam, Ann Thompson and Richard Proudfoot) Registration Fee Lit. 70.000 (=A3 30, $ 50) For further information contact Dr. Fernando Cioni e-mail cionif@cesit1.unifi.it or www.unifi.it/unifi/inglese/conferen.htm ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 09:14:25 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0518 Re: Riverside; Flowers; Welsh The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0518. Friday, 2 May 1997. [1] From: David J. Kathman Date: Thursday, 1 May 1997 13:24:25 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0515 Q: Riverside [2] From: Herman Asarnow Date: Thursday, 1 May 1997 09:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0515 Q: Flowers [3] From: Richard Dutton Date: Thursday, 1 May 1997 14:46:00 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0515 Q: Welsh [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David J. Kathman Date: Thursday, 1 May 1997 13:24:25 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0515 Q: Riverside Gabriel Wasserman wrote: >I have not found the *New Riverside* anywhere. (Nor, for that matter, >has a friend who would like to buy it for me for my birthday.) It was >not in books in print. What happened? How come they're still selling >the 1974 one in Barrnes and Noble? Hmmm. I don't know where you're located, but here in Chicago both Barnes & Noble stores I go to (including the University of Chicago Bookstore) had the new Riverside a couple of months ago. I know it's also at Borders-in fact, that was where I first saw it. You might try asking the staff, if you haven't already done so, or asking them again, if you have. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Herman Asarnow Date: Thursday, 1 May 1997 09:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0515 Q: Flowers Regarding Shakespeare's flowers, there's a book of that title by Jessica Kerr, illustrated by Anne Ophelia Dowden (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1969). And there are many other books that touch on the subject. Herman Asarnow Univ. of Portland [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Dutton Date: Thursday, 1 May 1997 14:46:00 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0515 Q: Welsh Gabriel Wasserman asks how 'Harry LeRoy' is a 'Welshman'. Henry V is a Welshman (a fact of which Fluellen is inordinately proud) by virtue of having been born in Monmouth - he is frequently referred to in Shakespeare as 'Harry [of] Monmouth'. He was born there because Monmouth was one of the great estates comprising the Duchy of Lancaster, bequeathed by John of Gaunt to his son Henry IV, Henry Bolingbroke - Bolingbroke being another great Duchy estate (though in Lincolnshire, not Wales). Richard Dutton ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 09:51:13 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0519 Re: Subject/Soliloquy; Subtext (Character); CD-ROMs The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0519. Friday, 2 May 1997. [1] From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Thursday, 01 May 97 18:56:14 EDT Subj: Re: The Subject and the Construction of the Soliloquy [2] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Friday, 2 May 1997 04:25:43 -0400 Subj: SHK 8.0516 Re: Subtext [3] From: Daniel Vitkus Date: Thursday, 1 May 1997 19:38:52 GMT Subj: RE: SHK 8.0514 Re: OED and CD-ROM Pricing [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Thursday, 01 May 97 18:56:14 EDT Subject: Re: The Subject and the Construction of the Soliloquy You might want to look at the 1595 and 1623 versions of 3 Henry VI, 3.2. Richa rd has a long soliloquy. The earlier-printed text is strictly logical, a text-book syllogism. The later version roils with "subjectivity" and self awareness and self-delusion. Neat. Good luck. Steve Urquartowitz [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Friday, 2 May 1997 04:25:43 -0400 Subject: SHK 8.0516 Re: Subtext David Jackson observes that a lot of 'issues' are always churning around in the 'minds' of Shakespeare's characters. Yes, I thought I caught a slight smirk on the face of that Hamlet only the other day. I blame his mother myself. Do they ever think about us? T. Hawkes [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Vitkus Date: Thursday, 1 May 1997 19:38:52 GMT Subject: RE: SHK 8.0514 Re: OED and CD-ROM Pricing It's either greed or incompetence that keeps these CD-ROMs so pricey-perhaps an unfortunate combination of "marketing" misapprehension and lust for profit. It's global pillage in the global village, as they say. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 09:57:39 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0520 Re: Ideology The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0520. Friday, 2 May 1997. [1] From: Lysbeth Benkert-Rasmussen Date: Thursday, 01 May 97 14:42:00 CDT Subj: RE: Ideology and biology [2] From: Thomas Bishop Date: Thursday, 1 May 1997 18:14:15 -0500 Subj: Re: Ideology [3] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Thursday, 1 May 1997 19:28:26 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Ideology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lysbeth Benkert-Rasmussen Date: Thursday, 01 May 97 14:42:00 CDT Subject: RE: Ideology and biology To: Robert Appelbaum You said that "I've tried reading some evolutionary biologists but what they're saying is really too hilarious. In historiography Whiggism is as dead as Lord Macaulay, but in evolutionary biology Whiggism thrives- what has turned out to win has always won for the purpose that it was supposed to win, given the "facts" (hardwiring, etc.)" Well, no . . . Some Stephen Gould should help-he is remarkably readable. Evolution is a matter of random mutation that fortuitously enables an organism either to better adapt to its environment, or else "gets in its way" (perhaps even to the extent that the organism fails to reproduce and so dies out). You also have mutations that have no discernible effect at all (like the fact that our air and our food can both enter into our mouth). I don't think that any evolutionary biologist would argue that it's at all a matter of determinism. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Thursday, 1 May 1997 18:14:15 -0500 Subject: Re: Ideology Robert Appelbaum's remarks are useful, and his strictures on the use of "selfish" to describe genes seem to me true, but strictly beside the point. Darwinism properly understood makes no claims at all about the moral character of what organisms do (Darwin himself was profoundly disturbed by this it seems, but had to concede it as a necessary consequence of his theory), let alone about their genes. Organisms are "selfish" in the limited sense that natural selection operates on them to promote traits that enhance their own survival and reproduction. The overwhelming majority of organisms make no -moral- choices about these matters whatever. An older kind of evolutionary biology was indeed often tainted by progressivism ("dinosaurs became extinct because mammals were just better designed"). But more careful and/or recent theorists (e.g. Stephen Gould) have fought to correct this in the name precisely of what Darwin actually theorized, a theorizing of which Marx in fact approved as an impressive example of the kind of materialist systemic argument he himself was working towards at another level. Organisms are not, however, contra Applebaum, merely chunks of unthinking matter. Anyone who has spent time around them knows that animals do engage in intellectual activity at various levels. The question of when and how the kinds of cogitation that we might call "moral" arose is a very important one. I know a dog who routinely steals his owner's treasured objects when the latter is on the phone. Why does he do this? Clearly there is calculation involved. Of what sort is it? Under what circumstances do what evolutionary pressures lead to the development of attributes like the need for affection? self-consciousness? language? the perception of rhythm? deception? love? Unless one supposes that these things were merely -given-to humans by a visitant power, or that they were entirely accidental, there must be good reasons why they evolved. Once they evolved, no doubt they could be used for other things, and create their own kinds of complexity. Do we merely assume -a priori- that this complex history has left no trace whatever in the patterns of our thinking, expressing, and feeling? Has it left us with no structured capacities that affect how we, say, form ideas like "self", or perceive the differences between a noun and a verb, or choose to believe that someone is lying to us? Chomsky's claim, for instance, that the apparatus for language is an integral part of our genetic endowment has been largely vindicated, and linguists have noted interesting ways in which, as a Darwinian array, it constrains how we think and speak. Surely these are things that a philosophical materialism needs to take into account if it is to be true to its principles? We might say that Darwinism is Marxism writ at the level of the organism (Marx apparently thought so). We were not simply -given- the capacity to love or distrust, to perceive a rhythm or a shape as ordered, to take another person's interest as our own. These capacities developed in specific ways, in response to specific pressures. Are we now simply to assert by fiat that we have gotten clear of all that? We make our history, but we do not make it up just as we choose. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Thursday, 1 May 1997 19:28:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Ideology I think Robert Appelbaum is missing much of the point of evolutionary psychology and cognitive science and what they have to teach us, which Thomas Bishop's and David Evett's posts begin to discuss. The issue is not whether or not genes are "selfish," or whether or not people using such terms are speaking, like Miss Prism, metaphorically (they are), but whether or not traits identifiable as selfish or altruistic in individual humans, or any psychological trait, or the structures of mind, consciousness, and subjectivity are genetically determined. In *Reflections on Language* Chomsky says the following: "It is a curious fact about the intellectual history of the past few centuries that physical and mental development have been approached in quite different ways. No one would take seriously the proposal that the human organism learns through experience to have arms rather than wings, or that the basic structure of particular organs results from accidental experience. Rather, it is taken for granted that the physical structure of the organism is genetically determined, though of course variation along such dimensions as size, rate of development, and so forth will depend in part on external factors. . . . The development of personality, behavior patterns, and cognitive structures in higher organisms has often been approached in a very different way. It is generally assumed that in these domanins, social environment is the dominant factor. The structures of mind that develop over time are taken to be arbitrary and accidental; there is no "human nature" apart from what develops as a specific historical product. . . . But human cognitive systems, when seriously investigated, prove to be no less marvelous and intricate than the physical structures that develop in the life of the organism. Why, then, should we not study the acquisition of a cognitive structure such as language more or less as we study some complex bodily organ?" (quoted in Steven Pinker's *The Language Instinct* page 22) Like David Evett, I hope that this discussion will continue. Robert Appelbaum may, without knowing it, have smelled a lot of fish in his academic life. This may be why he mistakes the current smell. Paul Hawkins ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 10:20:42 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0521 Re: Taming; Cordelia; Leontes The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0521. Friday, 2 May 1997. [1] From: Jonathan Hope Date: Thursday, 01 May 1997 16:32:54 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: Taming [2] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Thursday, 1 May 1997 20:23:44 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0516 Re: Cordelia [3] From: Syd Kasten Date: Friday, 2 May 1997 09:58:51 +0200 (IST) Subj: Leontes' Illness [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Hope Date: Thursday, 01 May 1997 16:32:54 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: Taming Dom Saliani might want to look at John Fletcher's _The Woman's Prize_, c. 1611, which features 'Petruchio' being tamed by his new wife Maria. It's quite a good play. (It's in vol 4 of the Bowers ed. Beaumont and Fletcher from CUP) Jonathan Hope Middlesex University [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Thursday, 1 May 1997 20:23:44 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0516 Re: Cordelia > Louis C Swilley wrote: > > >Cordelia could say - would be expected to say - that she loves > >everything else because of him. Not only would this be true, it is the > >last step in the development of any true love (the sisters have given > >the first two steps). > > It would not be true. To love everyone else because of a person is > appropriate language and theology for a Christian's love of God, and > other persons because of God's love for them. But Cordelia recognizes > that Lear is not God; hence to love him as her sisters have professed, > or to love other persons because of him, would be a form of idolatry. If I say that I love a person, and because of that love see everything else as lovable - and this seems to be what true lovers feel - am I idolatrous in my love for that person? Surely not? Cordelia's possible remarks would be based on the above phenomenon which presumably is analogous to one's perfect love of God. My original point, perhaps clumsily made, was that a Christian audience would be acutely aware of the three *theological* steps and would expect to hear the human *analogy* completed by Cordelia. Cordelia does not/need not presume Lear to be God to make this point, and make it truthfully. > There exists confusion because this is a very Christian play in a pagan > context. And pervasive in the pagan world was the divinization of > rulers. I do not know whether that was so understood and practiced in > pagan Britain, or what Shakespeare might have known about that. It is > likely that he was familiar with the general custom of divinizing rulers > before the Christian era. Shakespeare does not present Lear as divine, nor Lear (or others in the play) as supposing himself to be so. As you say, this is a Christian play. > Cordelia does not confuse limited love due to > a human father and worship due to God alone. She needn't. (See above) > >Cordelia should You mean "could" here? > humour the old man and simply lie. She shouldn't and > >needn't. What does she do instead? She "cannot heave her heart into > >her mouth", she says; but then she does. > > I suggest that to heave her heart into her mouth means to displace her > heart, a figure for lying. Truth requires that words and inner > awareness coincide, that the heart be in its right place. > > It was asked in another post: "Is there a defense for Cordelia?" The > answer, perhaps not popular today, is simple: truth is preferable to > lying. You mean her "truth" that love is quantifiable, as both Lear and Cordelia are saying? I think not. I agree that Cordelia should tell the truth, and I have argued above and earlier what that truth is. It is Cordelia's love for the whole world through her love for her father. If she loves him - and her subsequent actions indicate that she does - that is available to her. (This very point, by the way, stresses the truth that love is not quantifiable, divisable - as both are so stupidly maintaining - in fact, love develops, grows by its being given to another). L. Swilley [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Syd Kasten Date: Friday, 2 May 1997 09:58:51 +0200 (IST) Subject: Leontes' Illness A while back Gabriel Egan asked: "Does anyone else find convincing the argument of B J Sokol (_Art and Illusion in the Winter's Tale_, Manchester UP, 1995) that Leontes is suffering from couvade syndrome? This, you might recall, is a peculiar malady which affects expectant fathers and causes symptoms ranging from mild neurosis to raging paranoid delusions." Gabriel has posed a loaded question: there exists a school of opinion that psychiatric diagnosis exists to enable society, through its agents the psychiatrists, to control original thinking of individuals; another school holds that psychiatric diagnosis exists to allow transgressors to avoid trial and punishment. Some may say that imposing a diagnosis on figure in a play is like speculating on how many children did the Macbeth's have. And related to this last argument is the injunction under which a doctor should operate, that diagnosis is made only after taking a history and examining the patient. Against all this is my need to defend those who have no speech to defend themselves. Hence this belated message. Fortunately, Shakespeare has provided us both with a premorbid history, a view of the progression of the illness and observational data. Although the signs and symptoms of illness are subtle, they have definitely been engraved into the text. And it seems to me that if a play like Hamlet is typified by doubt The Winters Tale is typified by certainty. I can't remember when a Delphic oracle has been as clear cut and precise in conveying meaning as the one that declared Hermione's purity. Leontes is not merely suspicious; he is certain that his wife and his friend have been unfaithful. We are certain that they have not. Antigonus doesn't just disappear, like Lear's Fool, we see him eaten and his clothes survive as witness. My first acquaintance with the play was through reading. My unequivocal impression as I read the first scene was that Leontes was undergoing a conjugal paranoid reaction and I was impressed - well, that is too mild a word and "amazed" is too extreme- let's say I experienced awe (an aesthetic rush) at the accuracy of the portrayal. Shakespeare has provided us with enough background details to establish that the behaviour under question did not reflect Leontes' normal character. First of all, we have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the courtier's statement of the love of his subjects for their king that opens the play. Later on Paulina has enough faith in Leontes' benevolent character to risk telling him off. And at the height of her invective she asserts that he is no tyrant! Although the action is taking place in pagan, monarchic times there is none of the fear one might expect of absolutism gone mad. From Polixenes, we learn that up to the time of his marriage Leontes was capable of a reciprocal, happy and fast friendship. He was able to earn the love and admiration of his wife, over and above the duty she owed him as her husband and king. There is no hint of fear in the attitude to him of his son. His premorbid personality seems to have been without blemish. His affliction develops before our eyes (I am reading now, not watching a performance) even as it is compacted in time. First we have the seemingly normal importuning of his friend, who has been a "guest in the city" for an already long visit, to stay longer, and which quickly becomes excessive and unreasonable, perhaps petulant. This is followed by Leontes' placing undue emphasis in the acquiescence of his friend to Hermione's cajoling. By the time of his interview with Camillo he is suffering from ideas of reference: "Already they are whispering that Sicily is a soforth". By the time of Paulina's intrusion he has an overt sleep disturbance. He also develops difficulty in making decisions: With Camillo his intent was decisive and deadly, but he now allows himself to be persuaded not to kill the newborn baby. Nevertheless, the reserve that prevented him earlier from using a stronger word than "soforth", even in his mind, is weakened and we see him using unseemly language, somewhat short of incoherence. Whereas Camillo had no recourse but to flee from the king who at the time appeared in control of his faculties, the courtiers later recognize his incapacity. Conjugal Paranoia is generally chronic and not particularly amenable to psychotherapy. Chronic cases may even be refractory to medication. From the fact that the shock of his punishment for blasphemy at the hands of Apollo brought him back to himself I conclude that he was suffering from an acute condition. We might surmise, though, that had he not suffered the shock of his son's and his wife's death, Leontes might have become become more fixed in his delusional state, and the story would have ended here as a tragedy. The subsequent course is not characterized by deterioration or by recurrences over a period of fifteen years, so we are not dealing with schizophrenia. Joseph "Chepe" Lockett makes the very intersting observation that > I.ii shows an *obvious* {emphasis added} verbal (and, perhaps, social) >facility on the part of Hermione-and, indeed, Polixenes-which Leontes is >almost totally lacking. What we know of Leontes from the courtier, from Polixenes and from the loyalty and expectations of just about everyone in the play, is not congruent with the idea of an inherent or characteristic absence of social and verbal facility. And yet we learn that this lack, which to most of us in the audience is subliminal, is written into the play. These, along with disturbance of sleep and appetite, are among the basic attributes of clinical depression, which in itself may be an underlying factor in paranoia. Depression, as opposed to mourning and sadness, involves despair, which is connected among other things to the inability to mobilize as heretofore ones intelligence, social resources, faith, and habitual reactions to combat the feeling tone and the course of ones thoughts all part of depression. Finally, the question of jealousy. Chris Stroffolino makes the point that "possessive and suspicious" are more appropriate descriptions of Leontes' character than "jealous". (I would prefer "present mental status" rather than "character".) Even more interesting in this regard is Harry Hill's account of the class that included a blind student (SHK 8.0444 Re: Subtext): >One of students in a Shakespeare class this year is blind. He joined me >and some of the rest of the class at a recent production of *The >Winter's Tale*, and was unable to feel Leontes' jealousy in any aural >way at all as the actor had insufficient vocal equipment and gift; the >sighted students could *see* it while finding something indefinably >"wrong with his voice". The actor's father had died on day of the first >dress rehearsal and was naturally bringing his filial rage and grief to >his role; this had become part of his subtext, inaudible and largely >invisible. He was even less able to respond to the physical demands of >the particular words. Without trying to deny that the subjective emotional state influences performance in any field, I would submit for the sake of the discussion that the blind student couldn't feel Leontes' jealousy because it isn't in the text, or to the extent that it is there it is not a primary emotion. And this might explain why what seems so clear to me on reading the script, seemed much less so in the performance I saw where Leontes was played by Jeremy Irons in Stratford England. He may have been putting too much jealousy into the act and not enough depression. I found Jeremy Kemp in a production for BBC TV by Jonathan Miller was somewhat more successful, and I found especially authentic his development of the depression. One might envision a control experiment in which blindfolded or sightless auditors listened to a performance by players who hadn't suffered a recent bereavement. A problem in understanding paranoia is that in this condition the jealousy or suspicion is secondary and the source of the distress is primarily from within. Classical psycho-analytical theory has it that paranoia originates in fear of unconscious homosexual feelings that threaten to break through into consciousness. The threat is handled by the mechanism of projection, and the subject experiences the threat as originating from outside himself. Shakespeare, writing three hundred years before Freud provided us with a background of closeness between Leontes and Polyxenes such that their marriages could be construed as infidelities one toward the other. So to the extent that Leontes is "jealous" at the time of the play, one can see him as having regressed (I would say because of the depression identified by Lockett and his group) to a preadolescent stage in his life and the important distress is not that Hermione likes Polixenes better than she does Leontes, but that Hermione has replaced Leontes as the object of Polixenes affection. Painful as such feelings are as experienced by young children, they are experienced as innocent. During and after adolescence they might arouse the question "Am I a 'soforth'?". I'm not aware of Freud's having given Shakespeare credit, nor am I versed in xvith century views on psychodynamics. Perhaps Burton makes reference to this theoretical connection? Otherwise, either Shakespeare indeed had an uncanny feel for human nature or I am left with the existence of an enigmatic coincidence. The diagnostic problem with paranoid reactions is that unlike frank depressions or schizophrenic reactions there is generally no disturbance in the form or rate of thought. There are no hallucinations, and, aside from the particular focus, no delusions. Thus these reactions are hard to diagnose, and the subjects thought processes are adequate to deal with any attempts to treat the delusion with logic. Treatment is therefore delayed until there is a threat to life and limb, when treatment can be imposed, or the patient decompensates into frank depression, whose symptoms may then justify in his eyes the idea of treatment. It goes without saying that such an illness is not the prerogative of men or of kings. It is especially tragic when it strikes a wife and mother around whom the household revolves. As much as the patient may feel guilt, once he has recovered, for his accusations and actions, the spouse may feel guilt for having imposed treatment: medication or committal to a closed ward. (Paulina's handling of the situation takes on meaning when seen in this light: He looks OK but has he really recovered? What test is there that will let us know that it's safe to reveal the truth?) I agree that the better term for the relationship between the characters at the end is reconciliation. Patients shouldn't have to ask forgiveness for the results of illness any more than responsible relatives for imposing treatment. I'm grateful to Egan for bringing the couvade syndrome to my attention, but I don't see how it can be applied to Leontes. My Psychiatric Dictionary (Hinsie & Campbell, Oxford University Press) states under "couvade" that "Among many primitive races, it is a custom, *after* the birth of his child, for the father to take to his bed, as if he had actually given birth to the child". The compilers cite Freud who cites at second hand a case that is indeed postpartum. So the diagnosis I am left with is Acute Paranoid Reaction on the basis of an underlying depression of undetermined etiology. Leontes knew the nature and quality of his actions, but did not appreciate that they were wrong. He achieved insight and was probably left with a mild chronic depression. And finally and parenthetically, with regard to aesthetic response in the closing scene, the line that overwhelms me with an emotional surge is Paulina's instructing Perdita to "kneel and pray your mother's blessing". Each to his own susceptibility. Sorry for the length of this brief. Syd Kasten ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 10:23:03 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0522 The Changeling on TV The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0522. Friday, 2 May 1997. From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Thursday, 1 May 1997 09:21:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The Changeling on TV SHAKSPERians may be interested to know that the BRAVO cable network is re-broadcasting a TV production of Middleton and Rowley's THE CHANGELING. (Note: this is the American BRAVO network, not its Canadian cousin.) The production heavily cuts the text to pare it down to less than two hours, but the acting is exciting and the heart of the play is still there; it stars Elizabeth McGovern as Beatrice-Joanna and Bob Hoskins as DeFlores, and Hugh Grant is featured as a fop. I've seen the production and recommend it, particularly to those who teach non-Shakespearean Renaissance drama in their classes (tapes of such productions are very hard to find). The BRAVO webpage lists these as the showtimes (FYI: the show is actually less than 2 hours): May 2 11 AM - 1 PM, 6 PM - 8 PM. May 10 7 PM - 9 PM May 11 11 AM - 1 PM May 16 11 AM - 1 PM, 6 PM - 8 PM Warning to those taping: BRAVO's schedule is a bit fluid, so you would be wise to set your VCR a bit early, so you won't miss the first few minutes of the production. I am not affiliated with BRAVO, etc., etc. Cheers, Doug Lanier DML3@christa.unh.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 10:25:49 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0523 International Conference for Teachers of Shakespeare The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0523. Friday, 2 May 1997. From: Susan Brock Date: Friday, 2 May 1997 10:11:29 +0100 Subject: International Conference for Teachers of Shakespeare INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR TEACHERS OF SHAKESPEARE Shakespeare Centre, Stratford-upon-Avon, 27 July - 2 August 1997 LAST CALL FOR REGISTRATION The International Shakespeare Association and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust invite registrations for their third conference for teachers of Shakespeare. The theme of the conference will be physical, audible and visual Shakespeare. The registration fee is 90 stlg, excluding accommodation and theatre tickets. Applications are requested by 31 May 1997. Financial assistance with conference fees and accommodation may be available for those applying from outside the UK. For further information contact Susan Brock (slbrock@intershake.demon.co.uk) or Robert Smallwood (Smallwood@intershake.demon.co.uk) at the Shakespeare Centre, Henley St., Stratford-upon-Avon, CV37 6DW, UK. Tel. +44 1789 201804 Fax +44 1789 294911 PROGRAMME 1. Plenary lectures: Adrian Noble (Artistic Director of the Royal Shakespeare Company), on Shakespeare on stage Russell Jackson (Fellow of the Shakespeare Institute;Text Adviser to Kenneth Branagh on his films of Much Ado and Hamlet) on Shakespeare on film Jane Howell (director of the BBC TV production of Henry VI parts 1-3) on Shakespeare on television 2. Seminars: Professor Jay Halio (University of Delaware) Shakespeare Quartos as teaching aids Professor Carla Dente (University of Pisa) Hamlet adaptations Ms Teresa O'Connor (Shakespeare Birthplace Trust) Shakespeare for English language teachers Professor Miriam Gilbert (University of Iowa) Indirections and directions: Interpreting Hamlet 3.1 Dr Peter Smith (Nottingham Trent University) Hamlet and characterisation: theory, performance, criticism Dr Susan Brock and Mrs Marian Pringle (Shakespeare Birthplace Trust) Resources for Shakespeare Teaching 3. Group Practical Sessions: Andrew Wade (Head of Voice, Royal Shakespeare Company) Ian Wall (Film Education, London) Joseph Meydell (member of the Royal Shakespeare Company) 4. Theatre visits followed by post-performance discussions: The Spanish Tragedy at the Swan Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon Hamlet at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre Cymbeline at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre The Merry Wives of Windsor at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre Henry V at the Globe Theatre, London The conference will begin with a reception on the evening of Sunday 27 July and end at midday on Saturday 2 August with a forum of RSC actors discussing the week's theatre visits. Dr Susan Brock Executive Secretary and Treasurer International Shakespeare Association Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Stratford-upon-Avon CV37 6QW UK Tel. (+44) 1789 201802 Fax. (+44) 1789 294911 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 16:27:36 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0524 LISTSERV Upgrade with Search Function MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0524. Saturday, 3 May 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Saturday, May 3, 1997 Subject: LISTSERV Upgrade with Search Function Dear SHAKSPEReans, The long awaited upgrade of LISTSERV to 1.8c is complete. It ports into the UNIX version a search function that was included on the VMS version we used when SHAKSPER was located at the University of Toronto. This is very good news, and the new function is also very easy to use. Let me illustrate. A few days ago, there was a question about flowers. I remembered that during SHAKSPER's first year - 1990 - this very topic was discussed, so I used will use "flowers" to demonstrate the procedure for searching by keyword. The basic procedure is this: send to listserv@ws.bowiestate.edu the command - SEARCH KEYWORD/KEYWORDS/PHRASE IN SHAKSPER. In return, you will receive a numbered listings of all "hits." To order any item from the list, send to listserv@ws.bowiestate.edu the command - GETPOST SHAKSPER NUMBER/NUMBERS of the items. To help you decide what items to order with the GETPOST command, the list returned to you after you search also contains a KWIC listing. It does not get much easier than this. So to all who have inquired about how to find information by keyword and all other member of SHAKSPER, happy SEARCHing. Hardy PS: Below is the file I received from the command GET FLOWERS IN SHAKSPER. ------------------------------------------------------------- > search flowers in shaksper -> 39 matches. Item # Date Time Recs Subject ------ ---- ---- ---- ------- 000136 90/12/01 20:22 162 SHK 1.0132 Shakespearean Gardens / Bibliography 000138 90/12/02 18:21 21 SHK 1.0134 Shakespearean Gardens 000210 91/02/23 13:35 43 SHK 2.0064 Query: Sidon's Flowers 000246 91/04/09 17:38 292 SHK 2.0100 SHAKSPER Discussion Index 000321 91/06/22 09:12 75 SHK 2.0175 Queries: Masques, Mourning Rings, Hypercard Stacks 000420 91/10/30 22:50 21 SHK 2.0278 Agronomics: Long Purples, etc. 000523 92/03/04 13:28 279 SHK 3.0045 Public Domain files on SHAKSPER 000984 93/02/19 06:22 113 SHK 4.0094 Review: NTD *Hamlet* Adaptation 001167 93/05/04 22:52 199 SHK 4.0276 Assorted Reviews 001202 93/05/21 14:43 210 SHK 4.0309 Rs: SHAKSPER's Uses 001310 93/07/12 11:50 102 SHK 4.0422 "The Three-Minute HAMLET" 001921 94/01/21 09:55 127 SHK 5.0052 Re: Ale and Beer (Especially Falstaff's) 001961 94/02/05 21:17 65 SHK 5.0092 Re: Herbs 002147 94/03/28 11:09 107 SHK 5.0278 Sidney *Lear*; Ophelia's Contraceptive; Shakespeare & Film 002330 94/05/27 08:58 94 SHK 5.0463 Re: The Nature of Discussion Groups 002333 94/05/27 09:18 105 SHK 5.0465 Re: Memorizing; Adriana's Speech; Late Romances 002378 94/06/08 10:07 94 SHK 5.0511 Re: Bottom, Titania, Oberon. et al. 002393 94/06/11 15:14 338 SHK 5.0526 Authorship 002454 94/07/01 09:48 127 SHK 5.0586 Re: Jachimo; Character; Query re: New Edition 002461 94/07/05 12:17 136 SHK 5.0592 Re: Life and Art, Character, and Similarities 002575 94/08/31 15:52 87 SHK 5.0705 Qs: *Err.* Research; Hamlet Trial; Holme Citations 002578 94/09/03 10:38 82 SHK 5.0710 Re: Copulatives (Shr.); Gillyflowers; Hamlet Trial 003120 95/03/16 10:55 208 SHK 6.0217 *Hamlet* Questions 003604 95/09/20 15:03 157 SHK 6.0702 Re: *Winter's Tale*; Tennyson 003964 96/02/20 08:54 144 SHK 7.0129 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Character 004026 96/03/10 08:09 188 SHK 7.0190 Re: Funeral Elegy 004130 96/04/18 15:21 117 SHK 7.0294 Re: MND (Alienation and Chastity) 004135 96/04/19 08:38 147 SHK 7.0298 Re: SHK 7.0294 Re: MND (Alienation and Chastity) 004641 96/11/20 06:53 103 SHK 7.0859 Re: Hymen 004707 96/12/09 09:39 130 SHK 7.0925 Re: Recent Shakespeare FIlms 004853 97/01/21 09:35 68 SHK 8.0090 Re: Productions: 12th Night 004887 97/01/26 17:13 117 SHK 8.0123 Re: WT Productions and Intermissions 004928 97/02/03 10:11 107 SHK 8.0164 Re: Branagh's Hamlet; Iago; Helsingborg 005020 97/02/21 13:19 78 SHK 8.0250 DC's Shakespeare Theatre's AYL and a Question 005105 97/03/10 13:50 137 SHK 8.0335 Re: Polonius' Precepts 005274 97/04/28 10:07 53 SHK 8.0502 Re: Subtext; Caliban 005278 97/04/29 09:58 135 SHK 8.0507 Re: Elizabethan Stage; Afterlife; Plain Dealers; Sir Thomas More 005286 97/05/01 09:59 135 SHK 8.0515 Qs: Flowers; Shr.; poor/pure; Riverside 005289 97/05/02 09:14 71 SHK 8.0518 Re: Riverside; Flowers; Welsh To order a copy of these postings, send the following command: GETPOST SHAKSPER 136 138 210 246 321 420 523 984 1167 1202 1310 1921 1961 2147 2330 2333 2378 2393 2454 2461 2575 2578 3120 3604 3964 4026 4130 4135 4641 4707 4853 4887 4928 5020 5105 5274 5278 5286 5289 >>> Item #136 (1 Dec 1990 20:22) - SHK 1.0132 Shakespearean Gardens / Bibliography since Shakespeare's names for them may not still be in use or may refer to a variety or family of plants. The Putnam book (FLOWERS AND TREES OF TUDOR ^^^^^^^ ENGLAND) has been helpful to me in this area since it shows labelled *************** areas which do not readily grow together. Here in the Bay Area, I have been very successful with some of the flowers from bulbs (with the notable ^^^^^^^ exception of the Crown Imperial which refuses to grow for me), fruit trees, *************** ** Crane, Walter FLOWERS FROM SHAKESPEARE'S GARDEN / A POSY FROM THE ^^^^^^^ PLAYS (1980: Studio Vista, a division of Cassell Ltd., Great Britain) *************** ** de Bray, Lys FANTASTIC GARLANDS / AN ANTHOLOGY OF FLOWERS AND PLANTS FROM ^^^^^^^ SHAKESPEARE (1982: Blandford Press, Poole, Dorset) *************** ** Hunt, Doris THE FLOWERS OF SHAKESPEARE (1980: Webb & Bower, Exeter, ^^^^^^^ England) Forward by Flora Robson *************** ** Kerr, Jessica SHAKESPEARE'S FLOWERS (1969: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, ^^^^^^^ New York) Illustrated by Anne Ophelia Dowden *************** ** Putnam, Clare FLOWERS AND TREES OF TUDOR ENGLAND (1972: New York ^^^^^^^ Graphic Society Ltd., Greenwich, Connecticut) Introduction by W.O. Hassall ** Rendall, Vernon WILD FLOWERS IN LITERATURE (1934: The Scholartis ^^^^^^^ Press, London) ** Rhode, Eleanour Sinclair SHAKESPEARE'S WILD FLOWERS / FAIRY LORE, ^^^^^^^ GARDENS, HERBS, GATHERERS OF SIMPLES AND BEE LORE (1935: The Medici *************** ** Warner, James A. and Margaret J. White, Photographers, SHAKESPEARE'S FLOWERS (1987: Middle Atlantic Press, Wilmington, Delaware) ^^^^^^^ >>> Item #138 (2 Dec 1990 18:21) - SHK 1.0134 Shakespearean Gardens things Shakespeare must have smiled at. Hey, for a dirty old town, we do our flowers proud. ^^^^^^^ >>> Item #210 (23 Feb 1991 13:35) - SHK 2.0064 Query: Sidon's Flowers From: Ken Steele Subject: SHK 2.0064 Query: Sidon's Flowers ^^^^^^^ *************** From: SHAND@Venus.YorkU.CA Subject: Sidon's flowers ^^^^^^^ *************** Prefigured in my ghost, drawn in my mind, I think of Sidon's flowers that grow apace ^^^^^^^ And favour thee by quality and kind. *************** 381. Sidon's flowers] ADAMS compares *Ciceronis Amor*, p. 123: "the ^^^^^^^ flowers in *Sydon* as they are pretious in the sight so they are ^^^^^^^ pestilent in savour." In another context, Greene later refers to withered lilies as "faire and unsavourie"(165), and in *Greene's Vision* (1592?) he speaks of "flowers of *Egipt* [which] please the ^^^^^^^ eye, but infect the stomack"(12.203). LARSON considers the trope to *************** fair without" (*T&C* 5.8.1). But if anyone out there has ever heard it located in flowers in Sidon, I'd love to hear about it. Thanks. ^^^^^^^ >>> Item #246 (9 Apr 1991 17:38) - SHK 2.0100 SHAKSPER Discussion Index SHK 2.0063 Authorial Revision SHK 2.0064 Query: Sidon's Flowers ^^^^^^^ SHK 2.0065 Query: "His very name shall bruise us"? >>> Item #321 (22 Jun 1991 09:12) - SHK 2.0175 Queries: Masques, Mourning Rings, Hypercard Stacks I am especially interested in Jonson's, and in particular, "Oberon". I believe the "Masque of Flowers" was performed at KALAMAZOO sometime ^^^^^^^ back there. Productions either in U.S. or elsewhere, or information >>> Item #420 (30 Oct 1991 22:50) - SHK 2.0278 Agronomics: Long Purples, etc. My University's garden club is undertaking a Shakespearean Garden, hoping to grow a variety of plants and flowers ^^^^^^^ mentioned in the plays. >>> Item #523 (4 Mar 1992 13:28) - SHK 3.0045 Public Domain files on SHAKSPER Nor it nor noe remembrance what it was. But flowers distil'd though they with winter meete, ^^^^^^^ Leese but their show,their substance still liues sweet. >>> Item #984 (19 Feb 1993 06:22) - SHK 4.0094 Review: NTD *Hamlet* Adaptation with her at all the tragic events; yet we were also introduced to the poetic world of Ophelia, in which flowers talked with and ^^^^^^^ consoled her, the river cradled her to nurturing comfort, and >>> Item #1167 (4 May 1993 22:52) - SHK 4.0276 Assorted Reviews Latter, in her mad scene, Ophelia picks her flowers from the ^^^^^^^ graveyard. >>> Item #1202 (21 May 1993 14:43) - SHK 4.0309 Rs: SHAKSPER's Uses Sometimes for getting mail, sometimes for sending mail, sometimes for hiding things in, sometimes for holding flowers, and sometimes as a target for ^^^^^^^ frustrations. Sometimes as a comforting symbol that I'm not alone in the >>> Item #1310 (12 Jul 1993 11:50) - SHK 4.0422 "The Three-Minute HAMLET" And Ophelia with her dad killed by the man she was to marry, After saying it with flowers, she committed hari-kari. ^^^^^^^ >>> Item #1921 (21 Jan 1994 09:55) - SHK 5.0052 Re: Ale and Beer (Especially Falstaff's) The other crucial connection between Shakespeare and beer is the posthumous patronage of Flowers' brewery of Stratford, which funded the building of the ^^^^^^^ original Shakespeare Memorial Theatre and remains a patron of the RSC. Flowers' ^^^^^^^ bitter is now distributed nationally by one of the big conglomerates -- I think *************** Holderness and Bryan Loughrey's piece 'Shakespearean Features' (which reproduces both the Flowers' trademark and the version of the Chandos portrait ^^^^^^^ used on Tesco dry sherry bottles -- at least Tesco know their sack!), published >>> Item #1961 (5 Feb 1994 21:17) - SHK 5.0092 Re: Herbs Shakespeare, let me suggest Eleanour Sinclair Rohde's "Shakespeare's Wild Flowers, Fairy Lore, Gardens, Herbs, Gatherers of Simples and Bee Lore", ^^^^^^^ published by the Medici Society in 1935. Compared to the plays of Shakespeare >>> Item #2147 (28 Mar 1994 11:09) - SHK 5.0278 Sidney *Lear*; Ophelia's Contraceptive; Shakespeare & Film The March 8, 1994 "Science Times" section of the NYT contained an article entitle, "In Ancient Times, Flowers and Fennel for Family Planning." It was ^^^^^^^ based in turn on an article by John M. Riddle, a historian at North Carolina *************** prompted by more than just heartbreak. Rue is the only one of the flowers Ophelia keeps for herself. The rue the Queen must wear with a ^^^^^^^ difference, perhaps referring to its action as a contraceptive, >>> Item #2330 (27 May 1994 08:58) - SHK 5.0463 Re: The Nature of Discussion Groups Beowulf-dragon hoard that can only be diminished rather than a garden where new flowers and cantaloupes are coming up all the time. The debate over the flow ^^^^^^^ of hurley-Burleigh gossip seems to be structured this way. (Psssst! Here's a >>> Item #2333 (27 May 1994 09:18) - SHK 5.0465 Re: Memorizing; Adriana's Speech; Late Romances not very much in relation to Shakespeare. One source you will want to look at because it does include Shakespeare is Betty Flowers and Lynda Boose, *Fathers ^^^^^^^ and Daughters* (Johns Hopkins UP 1989). >>> Item #2378 (8 Jun 1994 10:07) - SHK 5.0511 Re: Bottom, Titania, Oberon. et al. the comment: "The monstrous ass is being raped by the poetic Titania, while she still keeps chattering about flowers." ^^^^^^^ >>> Item #2393 (11 Jun 1994 15:14) - SHK 5.0526 Authorship PARIS: Sweet flower, with flowers thy bridal bed I strew,-- ^^^^^^^ O woe! thy canopy is dust and stones;-- >>> Item #2454 (1 Jul 1994 09:48) - SHK 5.0586 Re: Jachimo; Character; Query re: New Edition ignorance of parts of the second. I have no problem with either. Let a hundred flowers bloom! ^^^^^^^ >>> Item #2461 (5 Jul 1994 12:17) - SHK 5.0592 Re: Life and Art, Character, and Similarities would not pass muster in the face of a rigorous postmodern interrogation. Letting a hundred flowers bloom is fine, if you own the nursery, but I think in ^^^^^^^ these complicated times you'll need a little more than the first chapter of >>> Item #2575 (31 Aug 1994 15:52) - SHK 5.0705 Qs: *Err.* Research; Hamlet Trial; Holme Citations something for everyone. In the Second Book (paginated independently), I found a section on gilliflowers (Shakespeare's "Gilly-vors," WINTER'S TALE 4.4.82). ^^^^^^^ Holme records two rather suggestive names for "Gilliflowers mixed with red and ^^^^^^^ white": "The painted Lady" and "Crown of Bohemia" (p 64, H4v). *************** In THE WINTER'S TALE, Polixenes, who normally wears the crown of Bohemia, argues that Perdita should cultivate the flowers. She responds: "Ile not ^^^^^^^ put/The Dible in earth, to set one slip of them:/No more then were I painted, I >>> Item #2578 (3 Sep 1994 10:38) - SHK 5.0710 Re: Copulatives (Shr.); Gillyflowers; Hamlet Trial From: "Hardy M. Cook" Subject: SHK 5.0710 Re: Copulatives (Shr.); Gillyflowers; Hamlet Trial ^^^^^^^ *************** Date: Thursday, 1 Sep 1994 16:57:50 -0400 Subj: Gillyflowers ^^^^^^^ *************** Date: Thursday, 1 Sep 1994 16:57:50 -0400 Subject: Gillyflowers ^^^^^^^ Bill Godshalk was wondering about Shakespeare and Gillyflowers. You may want ^^^^^^^ to have a peek at Spenser's *Amoretti*, #64 for what seems to be a fairly >>> Item #3120 (16 Mar 1995 10:55) - SHK 6.0217 *Hamlet* Questions And Ophelia with her dad killed by the man she was to marry, After saying it with flowers, she committed hari-kari. ^^^^^^^ >>> Item #3604 (20 Sep 1995 15:03) - SHK 6.0702 Re: *Winter's Tale*; Tennyson For Perdita's queen-of-the-feast addenda, we're giving her a ruff, perhaps a sash, and some type of crown of leaves/flowers. Is there a more "accurate" set ^^^^^^^ of paraphenalia we could use? >>> Item #3964 (20 Feb 1996 08:54) - SHK 7.0129 Re: Hamlet, Ophelia, and Character "There is a willow grows aslant..." more than just a flowery speech (pun intended), since the flowers mentioned were commonly used in Medieval speech ^^^^^^^ when refering to fertility. >>> Item #4026 (10 Mar 1996 08:09) - SHK 7.0190 Re: Funeral Elegy "T'was I that led you through the painted meads, Where the light fairies danced upon the flowers, ^^^^^^^ Hanging on every leaf an orient pearl, >>> Item #4130 (18 Apr 1996 15:21) - SHK 7.0294 Re: MND (Alienation and Chastity) quenched by them. Furthermore, even if "enforced chastity" is taken to mean compulsory, it seems fantastic to imagine that the moon and the little flowers ^^^^^^^ weep because men and women are forced to remain chaste until marriage and that the audience is meant to view "free love" (or whatever Jan Kott had in mind) as a good thing and weep with the little flowers. Titania's speech here is a ^^^^^^^ response to Bottom's speeech to Mustardseed: "I promise you your kindred hath *************** through Spenser. A compulsory chastity denies the chastity of wedded love and little flowers might weep. It is hard to imagine little Elizabethan flowers ^^^^^^^ weeping because maidens and a fairy queens are denied a Kottian coupling -- >>> Item #4135 (19 Apr 1996 08:38) - SHK 7.0298 Re: SHK 7.0294 Re: MND (Alienation and Chastity) >even if "enforced chastity" is taken to mean compulsory, it seems >fantastic to imagine that the moon and the little flowers ^^^^^^^ >weep because men and women are forced to remain chaste until marriage and >that the audience is meant to view "free love" (or whatever Jan Kott had in >mind) as a good thing and weep with the little flowers. ^^^^^^^ *************** 1) Why is it fantastic to believe that forces of nature (the moon and the flowers) would be upset to look down at the male dominated, sexually and ^^^^^^^ otherwise restrictive Athenian society and weep at it? Maybe the division that *************** >It is hard to imagine little Elizabethan flowers ^^^^^^^ >weeping because maidens and a fairy queens are denied a Kottian coupling -- >>> Item #4641 (20 Nov 1996 06:53) - SHK 7.0859 Re: Hymen In the second half of the play, there is a huge mound of earth upstage with dead flowers scattered around it. Orlando delivers his Rosalind love poems from ^^^^^^^ this mound. Pimlott and the actors insisted that this mound was not Adam's >>> Item #4707 (9 Dec 1996 09:39) - SHK 7.0925 Re: Recent Shakespeare FIlms her age. She also plays Gloria as a woman in love with Paris. This is so cool. Gloria dances with Paris, takes flowers he brought to Juliet for herself, does ^^^^^^^ everything but rip his clothes off. When Gloria turns on Juliet, she does so in >>> Item #4853 (21 Jan 1997 09:35) - SHK 8.0090 Re: Productions: 12th Night 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, >>> Item #4887 (26 Jan 1997 17:13) - SHK 8.0123 Re: WT Productions and Intermissions 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. >>> Item #4928 (3 Feb 1997 10:11) - SHK 8.0164 Re: Branagh's Hamlet; Iago; Helsingborg downstream--although with the snowstorm that was raging outside, it might have been hard to gather those flowers; e)well, I think you get the idea... ^^^^^^^ >>> Item #5020 (21 Feb 1997 13:19) - SHK 8.0250 DC's Shakespeare Theatre's AYL and a Question Post intermission, we get some flowers and some moisture; but overall, I ^^^^^^^ was left with the impression of a Dallas skyscraper jutting through the *************** production on Valentine=92s day, only to have all thoughts of hearts and flowers wiped out by intermission. I=92d say, catch the show if you want= ^^^^^^^ >>> Item #5105 (10 Mar 1997 13:50) - SHK 8.0335 Re: Polonius' Precepts others that Polonius may have "con'd" them and that once the lesson is over "we are regal'd with a style very different, and flowers of speech ^^^^^^^ is his way. . . ." While offering no opinion on their suitability to the >>> Item #5274 (28 Apr 1997 10:07) - SHK 8.0502 Re: Subtext; Caliban Example of "pretty words" speech: Perdita's catalog of flowers. A ^^^^^^^ speech ripe for cutting, if there ever was one. Instead, we used it to >>> Item #5278 (29 Apr 1997 09:58) - SHK 8.0507 Re: Elizabethan Stage; Afterlife; Plain Dealers; Sir Thomas More the original might have had at the plays inception, then so be it. Brook's spinning plate "flowers" were a case in point. Here he ^^^^^^^ "reinvented" magic for an audience who had lost the power to believe in >>> Item #5286 (1 May 1997 09:59) - SHK 8.0515 Qs: Flowers; Shr.; poor/pure; Riverside Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0515 Qs: Flowers; Shr.; poor/pure; Riverside ^^^^^^^ *************** Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 12:19:28 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Flowers ^^^^^^^ *************** Date: Wednesday, 30 Apr 1997 12:19:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Flowers ^^^^^^^ *************** something similar. I'm trying to find something along the lines of "The Flowers of Shakespeare." I could do a word search, but then I'd have to ^^^^^^^ do each flower, and since I don't know all the flowers he wrote about, ^^^^^^^ I'm kind of stuck. Anyone? >>> Item #5289 (2 May 1997 09:14) - SHK 8.0518 Re: Riverside; Flowers; Welsh Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0518 Re: Riverside; Flowers; Welsh ^^^^^^^ *************** Date: Thursday, 1 May 1997 09:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0515 Q: Flowers ^^^^^^^ *************** Date: Thursday, 1 May 1997 09:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0515 Q: Flowers ^^^^^^^ Regarding Shakespeare's flowers, there's a book of that title by Jessica ^^^^^^^ Kerr, illustrated by Anne Ophelia Dowden (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, Summary of resource utilization ------------------------------- CPU time: 2.910 sec Overhead CPU: 2.370 sec CPU model: SPARCstation-4 (32M) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 17:05:42 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0525 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: *Shakespeare's Morality* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0525. Saturday, 3 May 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Saturday, May 3, 1997 Subject: New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: *Shakespeare's Morality* As of today, SHAKSPEReans may retrieve Ben Ross Schneider's work in progress *Shakespeare's Morality* from the SHAKSPER fileserver. This work is in five chapters: Chapter One: "Shakespeare was a Stoic" (MORAL.SHAKES-1); Chapter Two: "Shylock Is Us" (MORAL.SHAKES-2); Chapter Three: "*King Lear* and the Culture of Justice" (MORAL.SHAKES-3); Chapter Four: "Henry IV, 1 & 2: The Education of a Prince" (MORAL.SHAKES-4); Chapter Five: "Hal Imitates The Sun" (MORAL.SHAKES-5) To retrieve these files, send the following commands to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu: GET MORAL.SHAKES-1 GET MORAL.SHAKES-2 GET MORAL.SHAKES-3 GET MORAL.SHAKES-4 GET MORAL.SHAKES-5 Should you have difficulty receiving this or any of the files on the SHAKSPER file server, please contact the editor at or . [Below I have attached the opening and closing paragraphs of Chapter One, the introduction.] ************************************************************************ Chapter 1 of Shakespeare's Morality: Shakespeare was a Stoic Long ago when this century had run only half its course and I was writing my doctoral thesis on "Wordsworth's Cambridge Education," I met a book that, now that I think about it, changed my life. It didn't strike me the way the light struck Paul on the road to Damascus; it had a much more gradual effect, more as if it sowed a seed that grew into a tree on whose branches I hung not exactly my philosophy of life, though there is some of that on it, but, bit by bit, my appreciation of the English Literature which I have adored and studied and taught. The book I met was one of Wordsworth's schoolbooks, the De Officiis of Marcus Tullius Cicero, a book written in the form of a letter to his son, once known in English as Tully's Offices, but now, since an "office" is the place where you pursue your career, better known as Of Duty. This book leads directly to Wordsworth's well-known "Ode to Duty," that "stern daughter of the voice of God," and, in that same ode, to the very most important Wordsworthian idea of all, that the same force that keeps human beings on the right track "preserves the stars from wrong." It was Cicero (and I now know, his fellow Stoics) who taught Wordsworth that virtue is Natural and more importantly the reverse, that Nature is virtuous, and thus gave rise to the emotional component of modern environmentalism. The year I found Tully's Offices was also my year as a Research Student at St John's College, Cambridge, during which I underwent a considerable culture shock. Imagine my surprise on reading the Offices to find in it a striking blueprint of the undergraduate behavior I witnessed daily around me in the extremely sociable style of life at that supposedly academic institution. Cicero had the same horror of pedantry and bragging that the undergraduates did, and his section on decorum perfectly predicted the famous English reserve that they exemplified. The taboos on bragging and pedantry explained one of the most curious things about them: why they never discussed their studies or allowed themselves to be caught doing them. Cicero very much disapproved of absorption in booklearning at the expense of the social life. Rowing, rugger, local events, and mutual friends were almost all they talked about. It turns out that the correspondences I found between Cicero's Of Duty and the folkways of Cambridge undergraduates were no accident. De Officiis had been for many centuries the English gentleman's handbook. In the preface to his 17th-century English translation of Tully's Offices, Sir Roger L'Estrange called it "the commonest school book that we have," and went on to observe, "as it is the best of books, so it is applied to the best of purposes, that is to say, to training up of youth in the study and exercise of virtue." Voltaire said of it, "No one will ever write anything more wise." The philosopher Hume preferred its moral teaching to that of any Christian manual of behavior. When exactly did this book enter the English school curriculum? A better question might be, when was it not there? It was the first classical text ever printed, at the Monastery of Subiaco in Italy in 1465. Erasmus prefaced and annotated an edition of it in 1501. The British Museum Catalogue lists eleven printed editions of it before 1600--eight interlinear translations, one English without Latin, and two in Latin. Eighteen more editions were published before 1700. Sir Thomas Elyot, in his popular Governour (1531), which nowadays we would shelve with books on leadership, lists three essential texts for bringing up young gentlemen: Plato's works, Aristotle's Ethics, and De Officiis. "Those three books," he says, "be almost sufficient to make a perfect and excellent governour." King James I's own version of De Officiis, Basilikon Doron (1603), in which he tells his son Prince Henry his duties as man and ruler, refers him to Cicero fifty-five times, sixteen of them to De Officiis. In The Complete Gentleman (1622), Henry Peacham implies that De Officiis is a standard beginning Latin text (29). T. W. Baldwin, after exhaustive researches into Shakespeare's learning, could be certain that he read only one classic, and that, of course, was De Officiis. * When you consider that the interpretation of plays consists mainly of judging the behavior of characters, you would suppose that literary scholars would want to immerse themselves in the behavioral medium in which in which the playwright, his audiences, and perforce, his characters, lived, moved and had their being. You would assume, for example, that an unwaivable pre-requisite for study of Shakespeare would be a thorough knowledge of De Officiis. Believe it or not, in twelve years of reading Shakespeare criticism in preparation for writing this book, I have not found a single reference to De Officiis, even though books and articles on Shakespeare are coming out at a rate of 5500 titles a year. This phenomenon is all the more difficult to understand when you consider the wholesale rejection in the last fifteen years of interpretation of literature by textual analysis in favor of interpretation by means of the historical and cultural matrix. [Skip to last paragraph of the chapter.] In the book that follows I shall try to establish that reading Shakespeare as an extension of Stoicism produces a better fit to what's on the page than reading him as an extension of USA today. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 22:11:25 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0526 Refining Searches in SHAKSPER MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0526. Saturday, 3 May 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Saturday, May 3, 1997 Subject: Refining Searches in SHAKSPER Dear SHAKSPERans, I have been experimenting with the new search function. Like the old Database Function, there are a number of ways to refine your searches. The basic method is to send to listserv@ws.bowiestate.edu the command (filling in the KEYWORD you wish without the square brackets): Search [Keyword] in SHAKSPER For example, if you wished to see all occurrences of "Pericles," you would send the following message: Search Pericles in SHAKSPER As of today, that search would result in 81 "hits" or "matches." You can also search using the BOOLEAN operators AND, OR, NOT: Search Pericles AND Kinsmen in SHAKSPER As of today, that search would result in 10 "matches." Further, you can limit your search by DATES: Search Pericles from 93/1/1 to 96/12/31 in SHAKSPER (55 "matches") Search Pericles since 96/1/1 in SHAKSPER (34 "matches") Is this fun or what? Hardy PS: Coming next the SHAKSPER web page with dynamic links and its own search engine. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 22:18:23 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0527 Re: Flowers; Shrews; Welshmen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0527. Saturday, 3 May 1997. [1] From: Frank Whigham Date: Friday, 02 May 1997 08:56:02 +50000 Subj: Re: Flowers [2] From: Bill Liston <00wtliston@bsuvc.bsu.edu> Date: Friday, 02 May 1997 10:10:48 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0515 Q: Shrew [3] From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Friday, 02 May 97 12:05:00 0BS Subj: Shrews and Welshmen [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frank Whigham Date: Friday, 02 May 1997 08:56:02 +50000 Subject: Re: Flowers For an amazing global meditation on flowers, see Jack Goody, The Culture of Flowers (Cambridge 1993). Frank Whigham [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Liston <00wtliston@bsuvc.bsu.edu> Date: Friday, 02 May 1997 10:10:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0515 Q: Shrew The Bloomsburg Theatre Ensemble in Bloomsburg, PA, produced a cross-dressed SHREW about two years ago. Apparently they found it not a successful experiment. Reviews should be available, probably in Shakespeare Bulletin. Bill Liston [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Friday, 02 May 97 12:05:00 0BS Subject: Shrews and Welshmen To Dom Saliani: About twelve years ago I saw the Mediaeval Players do _The Taming of the Shrew_ with a woman playing Petruchio and a man playing Katherina. It was very funny and very well received. To Gabriel Wasserman: The usual explanation for why Henry V claims a Welsh identity is that he was born in the Gatehouse Tower of Monmouth, a town just inside the Welsh border. Lisa Hopkins Sheffield Hallam University L.M.Hopkins@shu.ac.uk ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 22:29:15 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0528 Re: Subtext (Character) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0528. Saturday, 3 May 1997. [1] From: Dale Lyles Date: Friday, 2 May 1997 12:02:40 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0519 Re: Subtext [2] From: Jane A Thompson Date: Friday, 2 May 1997 19:12:12 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0519 Re: Subtext (Character) [3] From: Kurt Daw Date: Friday, 2 May 1997 23:07:23 -0500 Subj: Subtext [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Friday, 2 May 1997 12:02:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0519 Re: Subtext Professor Hawkes: While I'm quite clear on the 20th-century's critical stance on texts, I'm not sure you're as clear on what it means to transform one of these texts into a performance for an audience. At least, none of these ideological/critical discussions has ever attempted to explain how their entirely valid approaches to "text" is applicable to the quite-different task faced by an actor. You may smirk about "seeing" Hamlet smirking, but we *must* see him smirk. We must *make* him smirk. Reminding us that Hamlet is nothing more than a collection of words on a page, and words that have no reliable meaning between readers, is not useful in this context, and makes you look condescending, a charge I am loath to make of someone for whose wit and wisdom I have a high regard. If the discussion on subtext has faltered through this group's usual equivocal use of a term, then say that. Or maybe I'm being more provincial than usual: is it possible that the destructuralists, et al., say that not even actors should attempt to impose an inner life on a character they're performing in a play? Respectfully, Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jane A Thompson Date: Friday, 2 May 1997 19:12:12 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0519 Re: Subtext (Character) Terence Hawkes wrote: > David Jackson observes that a lot of 'issues' are always churning around > in the 'minds' of Shakespeare's characters. Yes, I thought I caught a > slight smirk on the face of that Hamlet only the other day. Which Hamlet was that? I'd like to check. > I blame his mother myself. Do they ever think about us? Heavens, no. Don't be silly. We are fictional. --Jane [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kurt Daw Date: Friday, 2 May 1997 23:07:23 -0500 Subject: Subtext I couldn't agree more with David Jackson that whenever an actor is engaged in performing Shakespeare, or anything else for that matter, there is something going on inside the actor ALL THE TIME (his emphasis). I think this so completely that I have written a book on the subject (forthcoming in about a month from Heinemann, plug, plug) trying to say what that something is. I am keenly interested in the actor's creative process, but I stand by my definition of "subtext" as something quite different. One reason I continue to use the term "subtext" narrowly, meaning the buried plot points of a play which are not revealed through dialogue, is because that is what was meant by the originators of the term. To them, it was something implied by the text, rather than invented by the actor. A bigger reason I resist the identification of the actor's internal process with the term "subtext," however, is because it seems to me to blur our ability to think clearly about issues of both text and performance. If we use the term "subtext" to mean everything the actor thinks and feels while performing, then (to reverse Jackson's question) what do we call important plot points revealed through some method other than dialogue? That is a very crucial issue for both actors and textual scholars, who need a term of some precision in order to talk about this specific phenomenon in modern and contemporary drama. There are other terms available to talk about "what is going on inside the [actor]." To label as "subtext" everything the actor is thinking and feeling while performing is to lose the distinction between actor and character, as Terry Hawkes' posting reminds us. Likewise, to instantly conflate all the actor's thoughts and intentions with the character comes dangerously close to eliminating all distinction between actor and playwright. I began to lean toward this perhaps "extreme" opinion, while thinking about Dale Lyles' question and example. Oberon's speech "Thou remember'st/Since once I sat upon a promontory..." is, indeed, a pretty long way of saying, "Go get that flower." I could concede that the actor may need to do something special to hold the audience's interest while performing this piece. Nonetheless, I still think it is awfully dangerous to solve this problem by introducing new plot lines of the actor's own invention. (I'd prefer to hear it well-spoken, and see it intriguingly physicalized, in order to hold my interest.) The last time I saw MND performed, I will confess, this particular speech seemed to mean something much more like, "Hey, Puck, you are a pretty handsome young man and I hope you will save some quality time for a brief sexual encounter with me later this evening." I don't mean to sound "schoolmarmish," objecting to this not being "what Shakespeare wrote." I was just troubled because this piece of invention on the part of the actor playing Oberon, while adding some spice to the moment, created an expectation in the audience of plot developments that never came. The show became confusing. The important plot information in the scene is that Oberon needs to get this flower. In this, as in most Shakespeare scenes, the plot information is conveyed through the dialogue, and it is misleading to subordinate that to some other (invented) interest being introduced through non-verbal methods. That is all I meant by saying that I think it is sound advice for young actors not to seek Chekhovian solutions to early modern challenges. They are apt to create more problems than they solve. Kurt Daw Kennesaw State University ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 22:42:18 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0529 Re: Cordelia; Leontes; Riverside MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0529. Saturday, 3 May 1997. [1] From: David Evett Date: Friday, 02 May 1997 11:22 ET Subj: SHK 8.0521 Re: Cordelia [2] From: Jay Johnson Date: Friday, 2 May 1997 11:38:47 -0600 Subj: Leontes' Illness [3] From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Friday, 2 May 1997 09:58:12 -0400 Subj: Riverside [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 02 May 1997 11:22 ET Subject: SHK 8.0521 Re: Cordelia Some recent contributors perceiving in *Lr* 1.1 a "priggish" Cordelia have called on her statement that after marriage her husband will carry "Half my love with him, half my care and duty" (102) to claim that she shares Lear's corrupt view of love as quantifiable. Whatever may be said of love the concept or emotion, love enacted, in the form of "care and duty," must be subject to the iron constraints of time and thus quantified in terms of time spent. Cordelia or any other child looking after her husband in France cannot also at that same time be looking after her father in England: she shows us this in the clearest possible way by choosing to look after her father in England rather than her husband in France at moment of crisis, when the needs of the father seem more urgent than those of the husband. This strikes me as practical, not priggish. I might add that one of the duties of love, imposed by early modern commentators on such loci as Eph. 5:21-6:9 (a passage that surely underlies Cordelia's whole speech) was to resist actions of their parents and masters that ran counter to divine or human law; Kent, of course, repeats the attempt from his position as servant in the sequel. Both of them are challenging the mockery that Lear's demands and Goneril's and Regan's responses make of the mystery of love, paternal, filial, and spousal. Priggishly, Dave Evett [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jay Johnson Date: Friday, 2 May 1997 11:38:47 -0600 Subject: Leontes' Illness I find Syd Kasten's discussion of Leontes' illness in terms of Conjugal Paranoia fascinating and largely convincing, but when he says, "His premorbid personality seems to have been without blemish," I wish to take a small exception. It is true that to a great extent we witness this condition flare up out of nowhere, but there is one small glimmer of Leontes' personality or character from the past that shows at least a hint of a root from which this morbid growth springs. In I:ii (101-5) Leontes responds to Hermione's jocular request to say when was the first time she "said well." The second time was her persuasion of Polixenes to extend his visit, but "What" she asks "was my first?". Leontes replies: Why, that was when Three crabbed months had soured themselves to death, Ere I could make thee open thy white hand And clap thyself my love; then didst thou utter, "I am yours forever." This account of the courtship period between Leontes and Hermione suggests anything but idyllic romantic submersion. Rather it implies an egoistic campaign not to win over and persuade a desirable love-object but to overwhelm and dominate, a campaign which was not pleasant but "crabbed" and "sour." Is there not a possible connection between the young Leontes courting Hermione in this frame of mind and the older Leontes descending into the pit of morbid paronoia? Cheers, Jay Johnson Medicine Hat College [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Friday, 2 May 1997 09:58:12 -0400 Subject: Riverside Dear Gabriel, Like David, I've also had no problem finding the new Riverside. Not only does Barnes and Noble have it (including most of its various incarnations here in Boston) but Wordsworth, the Harvard Bookstore, both branches of Borders, Waldens, etc. Did you or your friend try Amazon.Com. Given that the book only came out this year, I doubt you would find it in Books in Print. Did you look in the latest CD-Rom edition of Books in Print or did you look at the book? A word of warning: I've noticed that each bookstore has adopted a creative pricing strategy: Barnes & Noble $85.00 Wordsworth: $75.00 (Give or take a dollar.) Harvard Bookstore: $45-$65 (I'm not kidding - they seemed to have changed their prices from one week to the next, now opting for the more expensive tag.) > >And on a related subject: Are the older King Lear > You mean *Leir*? [or do you mean Q1?] I mean Leir. Is it seriously being touted as Shakespeare's? Who's to say which of the two *Lear* texts are older? - Q1 or the folio? Arguments are made but in the end one can only surmise. Steven Urkowitz makes an argument in favor of Q1 being older, as you seem to assume, but the whole question is still up for debate. Patrick ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 23:01:59 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0530 Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival 97-98 Season MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0530. Saturday, 3 May 1997. From: Jasson Minadakis Date: Friday, 02 May 1997 20:45:35 Subject: Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival 97-98 Season I thought that there might be some SHAKESPERians that might be interested in the Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival's 1997-98 Season. MAINSTAGE Season HAMLET - 9/18/97 - 10/12/97 directed by Jasson Minadakis dramaturg - Dr. William Godshalk Partial Cast Hamlet - Marni Penning Hamlet Sr./Player King/Gravedigger/Captain - William Sweeney Claudius - Jay Apking Gertrude - Nicole Franklin-Kern The ALCHEMIST - 11/20/97 - 12/7/97 directed by Michael Burnham dramaturg - Dr. Jonathon Kamholtz CORIOLANUS - 2/5/98 -2/22/98 directed by Jasson Minadakis dramaturg - Dr. Jonathon Kamholtz Partial Cast Coriolanus - Todd Douglas Aufidius - William Sweeney Menenius - Daniel Kenney Volumnia - Gina Cerimele MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING - 4/2/98 - 4/26/98 directed by Jasson Minadakis Partial Cast Benedick - Khristopher Lewin Beatrice - Marni Penning Pedro - William Sweeney Claudio - Ceeko Scheeren Dogberry/Ursula - Gina Cerimele The THREE MUSKETEERS - 6/4/98 - 6/21/98 adapted and directed by Warner Crocker All Mainstage Performances at the Fifth Third Bank Theater, Aronoff Center for the Arts, Cincinnati, OH. The CHERYL L. HEATH MEMORIAL READING SERIES "Shakespeare's Maybe Plays" These plays will receive 6-9 rehearsals and then wil be presented in staged reading format. Discussions will follow with the audience and we will try to answer the authorship question of each play from the evidence presented. l SIR THOMAS MORE - 10/7/97 CARDENIO, or The Second Maid's Tragedy - 12/2/97 directed by Dr. Jonathon Kamholtz, U of Cincinnati EDWARD III - 2/17/98 THE BIRTH OF MERLIN - 4/21/98 EDMUND IRONSIDES - 6/16/98 directed by Dr. William Godshalk, U of Cincinnati All Reading Series Performances at the Fifth Third Bank Theater, Aronoff Center for the Arts, Cincinnati, OH. SHAKESPEARE ON TOUR - 7 actor / 2 HR versions, please contact for pricing and availability. MACBETH JULIUS CAESAR Subscriptions to the entire season are $76 for 6 anytime/any combination tickets. Single tickets for all Mainstage shows are $12-$15. The Reading Series performances are free events. For more information, e-mail can be sent to the company at . Specific questions can be addressed to me at . The company's webpage can be found at . Snail mail: CSF P.O. Box 140734 Cincinnati, OH 45250-0734 Hope to see some of you in Cincinnati! Regards. Jasson Minadakis Executive Director ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 23:07:14 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0531 Re: Ideology and Genes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0531. Saturday, 3 May 1997. [1] From: David Evett Date: Friday, 2 May 97 10:49:14 EST Subj: Ideology [2] From: Arthur C. Neuendorffer Date: Friday, 02 May 97 14:07:00 -0500 Subj: The UNselfish genes in Hamlet. [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 2 May 97 10:49:14 EST Subject: Ideology Robert Appelbaum (with whom I usually find myself agreeing) accuses Tom Bishop and me of working at "undermining Marxism, constructivism, humanism, poetry, and maybe even Hamlet's soliloquies" by introducing sociobiological arguments into SHAKSPER's protracted discussion of ideology and related issues, I won't offer to speak for Tom, but I know that it was certainly not my intention to "undermine" anything-certainly not those five items, all of which have contributed substantially to our ways of reading, thinking, talking, and writing. I believe that a conscientious effort to understand the things people do and say, calling on all the sources of available knowledge, is a generally constructive not an "undermining" enterprise; if sociobiology has things to tell us about why humanism, poetry, or Hamlet's soliloquies are the way they are and work the way they work then it behooves us to listen. And if what we hear makes us reconsider what we think we already know, that's the way knowledge has always evolved, in individual thinkers and in cultures. In the same post Applebaum derides the idea of the "selfish gene" as "anthropomorphosis." Is it just naive of me to see the phrase as an instance of what we used to call personification-a figure of which there are several examples in Applebaum's own discourse? The phrase was given wide currency by Peter Dawkins, whose eminence as a writer about science owes much to a gift for figurative language that many poets I know would envy. Somehow I doubt that Dawkins- or any of the scholars and writers who have followed him in this field-ascribes the sort of human self-consciousness that Tom and I are actually hoping to confirm to individual genes. (Dawkins is on record as doubting that "our emotional nature is, as a matter of fact, selfish.") Nor does it seem appropriate to me to term the work of Richard Alexander, Jerome Barkow, Franz de Waal, Matt Ridley, and others as "Whiggism," assuring us with Panglossian smugness that whatever has survived has shown, by surviving, that it is not only efficient but also therefore good. All of them are at work revising the sort of primitive social Darwinism that produced *The Fountainhead*; most of them suppose that the better we can understand the way psychological and social processes of all kinds really work, the more likely it will become that we can learn to control the ones that eventuate in destructive or repressive behavior. Finally, as to Appelbaum's sneer about the "circularity" of evolutionary analysis. As Dawkins has shown in *The Blind Watchmaker*, "The evolution of adaptations by natural selection is one of the few cases in which the consequences of something can be properly used to explain its existence" (unsigned headnote in Barkow, et al, eds., *The Adapted Mind* [1992], 625). Still evolving, Dave Evett [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Arthur C. Neuendorffer Date: Friday, 02 May 97 14:07:00 -0500 Subject: The UNselfish genes in Hamlet. I wish to bring the interesting discussion concerning evolutional processes back into the realm of Shakespeare. This week, PBS broadcast a marvelous show on Patagonia. Besides beautiful scenery and soaring condors, "Patagonia" showed some very disturbing scenes: young male sealions who had been excluded from mating (by the dominant "king" sealion) and who took their pentup (sexual?) frustrations out upon cub sealions by attempting to murder them. This "selfish gene" behavior has been observed in a number of animals including (I believe) chimanzees. Macbeth's murder attack on Banquo and Fleance comes to mind here. Richard III and Othello were probably also driven partly by "selfish genes." Claudius, for all his faults, appears to embrace Hamlet and to accept him as heir to the Danish throne, at least initially. Only after Hamlet mades his intentions quite clear does Claudius conclude that he must have Hamlet executed for his own self preservation. (At least that is how I perceive it.) It is remarkable how little importance is given by anyone in Hamlet as regards to continuing their own bloodline: people's "selfish" motives are concerned primarily their own status or, perhaps, their own personal place in history. Were these Shakespeare's own primary "selfish" concerns (whoever he was)? Arthur C. Neuendorffer ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 23:10:29 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0532 Q: Peripety in Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0532. Saturday, 3 May 1997. From: Jeff Barker Date: Friday, 2 May 1997 15:23:54 CST Subject: Q: Peripety in Shakespeare Qs: What has been written on the subject of "peripety" in Shakespeare? What are some of your favorite "peripeties" in Shakespeare's plays? I am a sometime director of Shakespeare and a faithful reader of this list, but I am also a playwright. I have been taken recently with the notion of "peripety" which I came upon in Kathleen George's introductory text: Playwriting - The First Workshop. Turns out that Professor George's work derives from Bert O. States and a look at Professor States' book (Irony and Drama) led me back to Aristotle's "peripeteia". States claims that "drama simply IS peripety." I am so struck by the value of peripety for the playwright, that I have been doing a great deal of thinking about it. Is anyone else out there thinking about it and/or writing about it? By the way, peripety, as I currently understand it, is a reversal of intent - a character sets out to accomplish one thing, and in so doing, accomplishes the opposite. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 23:14:29 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0533 Q: Welles as Lear MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0533. Saturday, 3 May 1997. From: Martin Jukovsky Date: Saturday, 3 May 1997 17:19:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Welles as Lear A flyer I just got from the Quality Paperback Book Club offers for $19.95 a videotape of Welles as Lear, directed by Peter Brook, with supporting cast of Beatrice Straight and Natasha Parry. Is this the 1953 TV production of KING LEAR that appeared on the CBS series OMNIBUS? Martin Jukovsky Cambridge, Mass. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 09:29:39 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0534 Re: Subtext MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0534. Monday, 5 May 1997. [1] From: Harry Hill Date: Sunday, 04 May 1997 08:40:55 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Checkovian Solutions to early modern challenges [Subtext] [2] From: David Jackson Date: Sunday, 4 May 1997 21:39:46 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0528 Re: Subtext (Character) [3] From: Scott Crozier Date: Monday, 5 May 1997 12:36:02 +1100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0528 Re: Subtext (Character) [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Sunday, 04 May 1997 08:40:55 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Checkovian Solutions to early modern challenges [Subtext] Kurt Daw openly revives the irresolvable Stage vs. Study business by pointing out that of course non-verbal methods are bound to be present in performance. Most of us have bodies, however much the young John Gielgud acted from the neck up; Donald Wolfit and Flora Robson provided a great deal of augmenting meaning with their eyes, Andrew Cruickshank with his celebrated back, Paul Rogers with his eloquent fingers. Perhaps my blind student, in his disappointed reaction to the recent Leontes in Montreal, came close to an old ideal where such physical characterization was less visible to an audience in a large theatre and the emotional effect was more attributable to the actor's vocal behaviour. This student is seventy-six years old and in addition to the heightened hearing provoked by his blindness, his earlier upbringing had a greater auditory component than is now usual; his ears see the text. When I am booked for a radio drama or a dubbing session, I still rely on `subtextual' realities and imaginings to influence my auditors' visceral and intellectual responses, and in some ways the performances are `purer' than their onstage versions would be. It seems to me that is good, interesting and salutary for us to remember that these plays are indeed poems which exist to a great extent in the imagination, and that to reduce them to visual feasts and revels is to neglect or even negate a thirsty part of the public, rendering audiences spectators. There is enormous truth in Terence Hawkes' insistence on characters as emblems rather than realities, and I am convinced that the `stage versus study' dilemma remains to be clarified by the actor's voice. Harry Hill [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Jackson Date: Sunday, 4 May 1997 21:39:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0528 Re: Subtext (Character) I am prepared to accept Kurt Daw's "narrow" definition of "subtext", but what common word should be used to describe all the other stuff? It's definitely something lying beneath the text, so how about "epitext"? Whatever, I want to emphasize that I was talking about what was going on in the mind of the CHARACTER, not the actor playing the character. As long as the actor is doing his or her job, there is always a delineation between the two. As regards the Oberon example, my question is: Why does he want the flower? And then: why does he want to cast the spell on Titania? And then: Why does he want the Indian boy? And then: Why did he behave the way Titania says he did (or did he? The text never actually confirms all of her accusations)? My point is that the concept of a character "meaning what he says" is inherently unreliable. Since everything a person says-even if not intended to decieve and stated on the basis of the declarent's honest perception-is derived from subjective interpretation of stimuli and is the product of the process of translation of thought into words (which are then subject to the specific interpretation of the listener), it is necessary to look far beyond the printed words to ascertain what the "meaning" of what the character "says" is. Call it epitext if you will, but then I want to know the point where such stuff becomes "subtext". If there's no clear point of demarcation, do we really need two terms? [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Monday, 5 May 1997 12:36:02 +1100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0528 Re: Subtext (Character) Kurt Daw wrote: " That is all I meant by saying that I think it is sound advice for young actors not to seek Chekhovian solutions to early modern challenges. They are apt to create more problems than they solve" As I see it, the problem with this approach is that it denies that the performance of this "early modern challenge" does in fact occur after "Chekhovian solutions" were first mooted. The performance is modern whether the drama is or not. To this end, I would expect actors to find "impulses" for everything that they utter. Oberon's speech "Thou rememberset / Since once I..." is, as Kurt Daw suggests, a very long winded way of saying "Get that flower." Nevertheless, it is a speech of immense beauty. The beauty is word based and a character says the words. Why? As a director, I would want the actor playing Oberon to consider very deeply the impulses that triggered the words. It is these impulses which give the "long winded" speech life and purpose on the stage. Regards, Scott Crozier ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 09:41:44 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0535 Re: Leir MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0535. Monday, 5 May 1997. [1] From: David J. Kathman Date: Sunday, 4 May 1997 00:34:00 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0529 Re: Cordelia; Leontes; Riverside [2] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Sunday, 04 May 1997 14:52:34 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0529 Re: Riverside [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David J. Kathman Date: Sunday, 4 May 1997 00:34:00 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0529 Re: Cordelia; Leontes; Riverside Patrick Gillespie writes: >> >And on a related subject: Are the older King Lear > >> You mean *Leir*? [or do you mean Q1?] > >I mean Leir. Is it seriously being touted as Shakespeare's? Not by anybody I know of, except possibly Eric Sams, who believes that much of the anonymous drama of the 1580s and 1590s is by Shakespeare. >Who's to say >which of the two *Lear* texts are older? - Q1 or the folio? Arguments >are made but in the end one can only surmise. Steven Urkowitz makes an >argument in favor of Q1 being older, as you seem to assume, but the >whole question is still up for debate. Actually, Don Foster's SHAXICON provides some pretty convincing evidence that the Q1 text is older, from around 1605, and that the F1 text represents a revision by Shakespeare from around 1611-12. He has a section in his SHAXICON Notebook on this question, but unfortunately it's not yet publicly available. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Sunday, 04 May 1997 14:52:34 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0529 Re: Riverside I found it today in a big ("superstore") Barnes & Noble. However, it wasn't in any of the "little" Barnes & Nobles. In answer to your question >Concerning [Edward III]..., I was curious by whom they >were persuaded. Was it Eric Sams (thinking of his latest book) or does >this decision go back to Muir and others. If it was Sams, I wonder now >at the status of Edmund Ironside. It wasn't Sams. They themselves say that his book came out too late to have any influence on them. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 09:46:38 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0536 Qs: Multiplying Time in Othello; *Fratricide Punished* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0536. Monday, 5 May 1997. [1] From: C. David Frankel Date: Saturday, 3 May 1997 23:22:45 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Multiplying Time in Othello [2] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Sunday, 04 May 1997 19:18:23 -0400 Subj: *Der Breschrafte Brudermore* [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Saturday, 3 May 1997 23:22:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Multiplying Time in Othello As a relative amateur in Shakespearean scholarship I don't know if my questions ever been addressed before. If it has, I'd be grateful for any pointers to sources; if not, I'd be grateful for any discussion. In Othello (I.1.306 or so) Iago gives his age by saying "I have looked upon the world for four times seven years. . . ." Later in the play (III.iv.171-173) Bianca reports the passing of time by saying: What, keep a week away? Seven days and nights? Eightscore eight hours? And lovers' absent hours More tedious than the dial eightscore times? I have a few questions: 1) Does anyone know if this kind of telling time by multiplication show up elsewhere in Shakespeare? 2) Does anyone know if this is an idiosyncratic usage, or does it show up in other plays of the period? 3) If the latter, does anyone know if there's any record (or any way to tell) if this kind of formulation was in use in daily language (as a fad, perhaps)? 4) If it's only in Shakespeare (or only in _Othello_), what function is served by this kind of formulation? (It's worth noting, I think, that Iago's line comes from a prose passage, so it's not *just* a way of filling our a line). C. David Frankel University of South Florida [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Sunday, 04 May 1997 19:18:23 -0400 Subject: *Der Breschrafte Brudermore* What is the current consensus on *Fratricide Punished*? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 21:09:50 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0537 Re: Subtext (Character) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0537. Tuesday, 6 May 1997. [1] From: Cary M. Mazer Date: Monday, 5 May 1997 11:12:42 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0534 Re: Subtext [2] From: David M Richman Date: Monday, 5 May 1997 11:25:42 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0534 Re: Subtext [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cary M. Mazer Date: Monday, 5 May 1997 11:12:42 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0534 Re: Subtext As usual, I find Harry Hill's wisdom and experience illuminating and (I say this respectfully) infuriating. Yes, his blind student's experience, and Hill's own experience in Radio Drama, might suggest that an audience member's perception of an actor's embodiment of a character does not lie exclusively in that actor's body, as Hill's descriptions of Gielgud, Wolfit, Cruickshank, and Rogers confirms. But I can't agree with him when he concludes that: >There is enormous truth in Terence Hawkes' insistence on characters as >emblems rather than realities, and I am convinced that the `stage versus >study' dilemma remains to be clarified by the actor's voice. Whether we experience the actor's performance via sight, sound, or (all too often, in smaller fringe venues) smell, what we are experiencing of the character is the *actor*. Hawkes may very well be right when he repeatedly reminds us not to treat the characters of the play on the page as anything more than rhetorical constructs. But when we experience an actor's performance of that character (Hill uses the word "embodiment"; I prefer the Elizabethan word "personation"), we are experiencing much more than the words she or he speaks, or the emblematic function of the dramatis persona in the overall structure of the dramatic (i.e. literary) work; we regard the character, via the person of the actor, *as a person*. Now the relationship between our perception of the person of the playscript and that person as "personated" by the actor is a complicated one; and this relationship no doubt varies from one period and place to the next, both with the histrionic conventions of the day and (more to the point here) with how a culture defines what constitutes "person"ness. I make no assumptions about how an Elizabethan audience, viewing an Elizabethan actor's performance, understood the actor, nor (more to the point here) how the Elizabethan spectator understood the person the actor was personating; I strongly doubt that psychological matters of biography and motivation pertained in the same way they do now, if at all. But when we, today, experience an actor's performance, the *only* thing we understand about the person of the script (aside from the intertexutal preconceptions and expectations that we bring from other performances we have seen, from our reading of the script, and from the cultural iconicity that has accrued to the character through the centuries) is what we experience of the actor playing the part. It may be a mistake to psychologize or to ironize that actors' performance excessively, or to overcomplicate the intentionality behind a speech utterance in relation to the surface meaning of the words (which I gather is the issue on the table in this whole "subtext" thread). But we cannot wish away the personness of the actor, or the audience's willingness to perceive the character-personated-by-the actor *as* a person. David Jackson inadvertently helps me make my point, when he writes, in the same SHAKSPER posting: >I want to emphasize that I was talking about what was going on >in the mind of the CHARACTER, not the actor playing the character. As >long as the actor is doing his or her job, there is always a delineation >between the two. I don't have a clue what's happening in the mind of a character; and I'm quite prepared to join Terry Hawkes in questioning whether a character has a mind at all. I *only* know about a character-that character only *exists* as a person-when that character is played by an actor. And I am only prepared to talk about issues of intentionality, action, motivation, biography (or the lack of any or all these things) as they pertain to a particular actor's personation of that character. Cary [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Monday, 5 May 1997 11:25:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0534 Re: Subtext As always, excuse typos resulting from eccentricities of synthetic speech. A few curmudgeonly reflections on the subtext debate: As a blind director, I would agree with Harry Hill's blind student. If the passion is not properly and intelligently in he voice, then it has not been properly displayed to the auditory. (Deliberate sinesthesia-some of us do indeed see with our ears.) Oberon is saying a great deal more than "get the flower." He is telling an important tale and infusing his auditors with power similar to the power he is describing. "Long-winded" as an adjective descriptive of his speech does diminishing damage. I would suggest that the question for performers is: Why must he tell this particular story, in these especial rhythms and figures. For me "long-winded" does not describe: That the rude sea grew civil at her song And certain stars shot madly from their spheres To hear the sea-maid's music. "Conjuration" or "spell" or "incantation" may be more useful terms. Two cheers for the ear and the voice: David Richman ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 21:13:39 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0538 1997 SCSC Panel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0538. Tuesday, 6 May 1997. From: Chris J. Fassler Date: Monday, 5 May 1997 17:59:27 -0400 Subject: 1997 SCSC Panel PLEASE CROSS-POST As some of you already know the Sixteenth Century Studies Conference will be held in Atlanta, October 23-26, 1997. The SCSC is an interdisciplinary conference and usually very lively. Running behind as usual, I'm nevertheless trying to put together a panel of three papers for the conference with the following (abbreviated) topic: *Urban, Rural, and Suburban Geographies on the London Stage* I invite abstracts for papers treating the constructions of urban, rural, suburban, and theatrical spaces, especially papers attempting to treat two or more types of socio-political spaces. I envision papers that re-examine some of the terrain well trod by Steven Mullaney and others, but also papers that attempt some new appraisal of the theater and its perspective on the English landscape. Unfortunately, I will need to have abstracts in hand by May 20th. I'd also be pleased if one of you already planning to be there would offer to chair this session. Please feel free to send abstracts or questions by e-mail to FASSLERC@winthrop.edu. Snail mail to: Chris Fassler 10227 Bon Meade Lane Cornelius, NC 28031 Cordially, Chris Fassler ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 21:24:55 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0539 Re: Ideology/Biology; Leontes' Illness; Peripety MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0539. Tuesday, 6 May 1997. [1] From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Monday, 05 May 1997 08:42:29 -0500 (EST) Subj: Ideology [2] From: Syd Kasten Date: Tuesday, 6 May 1997 16:19:59 +0200 (IST) Subj: Leontes' Illness [3] From: Harvey Wheeler Date: Monday, 5 May 97 18:10:42 UT Subj: Peripety [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Monday, 05 May 1997 08:42:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: Ideology I am grateful to everyone who responded to my remarks on sociobiology; they dignified my remarks by taking them seriously, and raising thoughtful objections to them. I'm afraid I gummed up the issue a bit out of laziness by sometimes using "evolutionary biology" as a synonym for "evolutionary sociobiology." They are not quite the same thing; and my objections were and are against the latter only. At this point in time it is silly, I think, for anyone to object to evolutionary biology. And I agree with Benkert-Rasmussen that Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionary biologist but not a sociobiologist, is a very fine writer. Gould is probably a better writer than most English professors, present company included. Certainly he's more productive than most of us. But sociobiology still seems to me to be oxymoronic; and if I remember correctly Gould himself, a rigorous anti-teleologist, has argued much the same thing. What is social in us is precisely what biology cannot fathom; biology can only fathom what is biological in us. Now some will say that it is important to use the tools of biology to find out where biology ends and sociality begins; and the general notion is that we will find that a lot of what we take to be social is actually biological. But I remain skeptical. My reading on the subject, as I've indicated, is slight, yet everything I've seen so far has suffered from crass reductionism and circularity. Everything I've seen begins with assumptions about social behavior which are themselves social rather than biological, and therefore invested in a particular ideological framework, although the claims the sociobiologists are trying to make are exactly that what they are finding is pre-ideological, biological truth. I still stand by my original position: there is no selfishness in nature, nor is there altruism in it either, since both terms demand a moral agent, which is to say (among other things) a social being. I am not bothered by the implication that cats and dogs might be considered moral agents and social beings; certainly they are not lumps of matter. We know that they are sentient and communicate by signs. We allow ourselves the luxury of experiencing empathy for cats and dogs and of assuming moral responsibility for their welfare. We suspect that cats and dogs, in their own way, form moral attachments to us. As far as I can see, the position of social constructivism does not require an absolute separation between humans and animals, or the limiting of morality to human interaction only, although on analysis it might be found meaningless to apply the moral categories of human behavior to animal behavior. But constructivism does require resistance to the notion that what is social can be reduced to the biological. (On this I follow Levi-Strauss and some his haunting passages about "natural man" in _The Savage Mind_ and _Tristes Tropiques_.) But one last point, which may help explain my position: I don't think appeals to Chomsky help. Most linguists, I believe, will tell you that Chomsky's attempt to find a "universal grammar" has failed-indeed it failed a long time ago. And if, as the evidence then suggests, there is no universal grammar, there is therefore no universal linguistic structure of the mind. All humans have language, yes. And all humans therefore have a certain kind of mental potentiality. But it is in the nature of human language, as it were, that it is always realized under conditions of social contingency, and always socially constructed, a non-social language being unthinkable. The mind that thinks and speaks, in and through language, is a social mind. I sincerely believe that we will never find the natural apparatus subtending human language that Chomsky once thought we could find (I doubt that even he still believes this anymore) since we have never been able to find the natural language being subtended. It's elephants all the way down. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Syd Kasten Date: Tuesday, 6 May 1997 16:19:59 +0200 (IST) Subject: Leontes' Illness Thanks to Jay Johnson for his kind response to my letter on Leontes, and for highlighting the passage in which Leontes refers to his courtship of Hermione: > Why, that was when > Three crabbed months had soured themselves to death, > Ere I could make thee open thy white hand > And clap thyself my love; then didst thou utter, > "I am yours forever." He observes that >This account of the courtship period between Leontes and Hermione >suggests anything but idyllic romantic submersion. Rather it implies an >egoistic campaign not to win over and persuade a desirable love-object >but to overwhelm and dominate, a campaign which was not pleasant but >"crabbed" and "sour." Is there not a possible connection between the >young Leontes courting Hermione in this frame of mind and the older >Leontes descending into the pit of morbid paronoia? I don't read this passage as a description of the "campaign" but rather as a description by Leontes of his subjective emotional state over the period of courtship. Nor do I see in the language anything strong enough to justify the terms "overwhelm" or "dominate". I take the metaphor to be botanic rather than military: "crabbed" implies to me crab apple tree, whose abundance of pink blossoms yield sour fruit. (The "crabby" person is a sourpuss not a crustacean.) For some reason the image that is evoked for me is that of the frame of mind of Jane Austen's Darcy during his courtship of Eliza Bennett to the time she was able to give him some indication of regard. Leontes is telling Hermione now how much he suffered then until he could *make* her open her white hand. Surely not "make" as in struggle but rather as the sun "makes" a blossom open. " "Clap" thyself my love" - surely not applause at victory. Perhaps someone out there can confirm the sense of the word. "Cleave", in the sense of adhere closely (kleb in the germanic? or "name"? - (all those knights who were yklept Sir this or that). Leontes rhetoric certainly contains a kind of reproach to Hermione for keeping him in such painful suspense, but no less admiration for her not being a pushover. I would agree that Leontes might just as easily have experienced the period as peaches had he been a more optimistic person at the time. Instead he remembers his mood as having suffused the very space and time in which he existed, but take note that the mood was deeper than sour. The line ends in the word "death" - an endogenous (not aggressive) death. I would say that Jay has certainly picked out an element missing in my analysis, but present in the text, namely a preexisting depressive tendency. Note should be taken as well that the lines are spoken in the plays present. The first thought that I would like to share in this regard is that the very comparison of the Hermiones' convincing Polixenes to extend his stay another week, a trivial matter at most to the observer, with her recalled declaration of devotion seemed to me a gross overvaluing of Polixenes presence by Leontes. I can't see it as sarcasm; I see it as consistent with a lessening of his ability to modulate emotion. Secondly, the reproach implied towards Hermione in the dark first line of the passage for cruelly allowing him to remain in suspense, is followed by the light cast by "thy white hand". I can make out a tension between the germinating depression and the ultimately short-lived ability to temper it. Thirdly, on reading this short passage I am impressed with the repetitions of the "th" sound and the closing with the word "forever", that to my ear lends the passage a softness and tenderness that can only come from the heart. I wonder if any actor could utter these lines with other than heartfelt tenderness. Best wishes Syd Kasten [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harvey Wheeler Date: Monday, 5 May 97 18:10:42 UT Subject: Peripety I am very much interested in Peripety and would like to be in your loop on the replies. Harvey Wheeler (If you don't know them you might want to look into the "Cambridge Ritualists" - at least I've found them very helpful concerning dramatic structure.) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 21:28:53 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0540 Qs: Riverside Milton; Norton Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0540. Tuesday, 6 May 1997. [1] From: Simon Malloch Date: Monday, 05 May 1997 21:48:59 +0800 Subj: Q: Riverside Milton [2] From: Tad Davis Date: Tuesday, 06 May 1997 13:33:29 -0400 Subj: Norton Shakespeare? [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Malloch Date: Monday, 05 May 1997 21:48:59 +0800 Subject: Q: Riverside Milton Speaking of the Riverside Shakespeare, does anyone know when the new Riverside Milton is to be published? Last year I heard on the Milton Listserver, which I am no longer subscribed to, that it was due out this year. Does anyone have anymore news (or could provide me with the Milton list's subscription address, so I can check)? Thanks in advance, Simon Malloch [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Davis Date: Tuesday, 06 May 1997 13:33:29 -0400 Subject: Norton Shakespeare? Does anyone have inside word on when the Norton Shakespeare will appear? I've actually started having dreams about it. (This has never happened to me before.) In one dream, I found it in a local Barnes & Noble and sat in the coffee bar, happily thumbing through the pages and checking out the format. In another, I found a volume that looked like it, but it turned out to be another Norton book about Shakespeare. (The expense of spirit in a waste of shame ... ?) Tad Davis ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 21:09:53 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0541 Shakespeare Magazine - Spring '97 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0541. Wednesday, 7 May 1997. From: Michael C LoMonico Date: Tuesday, 06 May 1997 21:03:32 EDT Subject: Shakespeare Magazine - Spring '97 Shakespeare Magazine announces the publication of its Spring Issue. Here are a sampling of the articles: *The Opening of the Globe* In an exclusive interview with Shakespeare editors, Artistic Director Mark Rylance talks about the struggles to get the Globe open, and about the thrill of performing Shakespeare's plays as they might have been performed on Bankside in the late 1500's. *The Dark Pleasure of Trevor Nunn's Twelfth Night* In all the hoopla over Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet, it's easy for the new Twelfth Night to get lost. But don't miss it, says Peter Holland, for this film does what other comedies on film have failed to do-it shows the delicious dark humor that Shakespeare does so well. *Shakespeare with Tears* In a brilliant and moving essay, noted scholar Russ McDonald talks about why at the end of comedies, with joyful reunions taking place all over the stage, he feels like crying. *Rely on What You See* Teacher William Hill talks to University of Iowa professor Miriam Gilbert about the art of performance criticism, which "compels an individual to talk about the production values-the acting, directing, and designing choices-of a given performance." *Teacher Favorites: Comedies in the Classroom* Expert teachers Ann Boone (California), Jan Pope (Kansas), Lynne Rainwater (Oregon) , Ellen Doss (Michigan), Siobhan Berry and Mary Pittman (France), and Mary Ellen Dakin (Boston) give step-by-step instructions and offer reflections on teaching the classroom hits Twelfth Night, Much Ado about Nothing, As You Like It, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Measure for Measure, Taming of the Shrew, and Merchant of Venice. *Coriolanus: Shakespeare's Primer for Political Rhetoric* Oregon Shakespeare Festival actors Derrick Lee Weeden, Karl Backus, and Aldo Billingslea connect what they learned from doing a long run of Coriolanus with what they hear on the nightly news. *Review: The Bedford Companion to Shakespeare-A Classroom Necessity* We're not exaggerating. This is the best book about Shakespeare to come along in years. Janet Field Pickering, head of education at the Folger Shakespeare Library, describes its splendors. *Broadsheet* The take-it-to-the copier feature for this issue is an exercise in which participants use exit lines from the comedies to do a 30-second performance. Fast and funny Shakespeare warm-ups. *News on the Rialto* This issue contains information about 21 Shakespeare festivals for the summer of 1997 featuring the Stratford, Ontario and Kentucky Shakespeare Festivals. In addition we review the video of Richard Burton's Hamlet and "The Great Hamlets" compilation video. For information about submissions or subscriptions write editors@shakespearemag.com or htttp://www.shakespearemag.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 21:21:40 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0542 Re: Norton Shakespeare; Riverside Milton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0542. Wednesday, 7 May 1997. [1] From: C. David Frankel Date: Tuesday, 6 May 1997 23:42:01 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0540 Qs: Riverside Milton; Norton Shakespeare [2] From: Roy Flannagan Date: Wednesday, 07 May 1997 06:12:53 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0540 Qs: Riverside Milton; Norton Shakespeare [3] From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 7 May 1997 09:53:06 CST6CDT Subj: SHK 8.0540 Qs: Norton Shakespeare [4] From: James Marino Date: Wednesday, 07 May 1997 09:31:40 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0540 Q:Norton Shakespeare [5] From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Wednesday, 7 May 1997 15:26:40 -0400 Subj: Norton Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Tuesday, 6 May 1997 23:42:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0540 Qs: Riverside Milton; Norton Shakespeare I've received a copy of the Norton Shakespeare. Although it looks very impressive, I think it suffers (as do the other Norton Anthologies) from the very thin paper that reveals the print on the page underneath and makes every not one writes in the margin visible from the obverse. I haven't played with the CD-ROM yet, but I'm looking forward to it. cdf [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roy Flannagan Date: Wednesday, 07 May 1997 06:12:53 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0540 Qs: Riverside Milton; Norton Shakespeare I am sure many people will answer the question about the Norton Shakespeare: it is out (mine was still shrink-wrapped but it is now out of its wrap and in my lap, so I know it exists). It comes with a CD-ROM demo disc of the Mark Rose Shakespeare Workshop; it is about the size of the Norton Anthology of English Lit, vol. 1; it is illustrated with many B/W cuts; and it has a Shakespeare Genealogy (kings and queens) in its endpapers. As for the Riverside Milton, it is due out for MLA this year. I know, because I am its editor, frantically trying to get a draft done by late July so that pages can be counted and an index generated between July and October. The book will be roughly the size of the Riverside Chaucer, about 1200-1300 pages, and it will be designed to be as useful as Merritt Hughes's old Odyssey Press edition, with wide margins for notes. Texts will be old-spelling texts, mimicking the look of the original printed and manuscript versions, when that is possible within the modern page format. There will be marginal definitions and footnotes; annotation will acknowledge the huge mass of scholarship done in the last thirty years (as well as all previous scholarship) in head-notes and footnotes. A chronology will be provided in the endpapers, and there should be a color cover and a number of B/W illustrations. For general methodology and appearance, take a look at my Paradise Lost, edited originally for Macmillan and now published by Prentice-Hall. I would be happy to try to answer any quick questions about the edition. Best wishes, Roy Flannagan Ohio University [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 7 May 1997 09:53:06 CST6CDT Subject: SHK 8.0540 Qs: Norton Shakespeare Desk copies of the Norton Shakespeare arrived at the University of Minnesota English Department in early April; I have not seen it in any bookstores yet. And regarding the subtext/character discussion: thanks to Cary Mazer for his eloquent description of the personation of character, something I had the opportunity to experience during a workshop and which I encourage all scholars to try; it will be harder after such an experience to imagine characters as merely rhetorical constructs, even if your name is Terry Hawkes. --Chris Gordon [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Marino Date: Wednesday, 07 May 1997 09:31:40 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0540 Q:Norton Shakespeare The Norton may not be in bookstores yet, but I've had an examination copy for about a month, had students evaluate it, and have ordered it. Aside from the pedagogical apparatus, which is painstaking and user-friendly, the students liked the price; it is not only electronic media which price themselves outside a student's budget. I like the interleaved Q1 and F1 editing of Lear, and the inclusion of a conflated edition following. I also have the demo of Mark Rose's Workshop CD but have not looked at it. Is there a review of the complete CD somewhere? Regards James [Editor's Note: I plan to review the CD for SHAKSPER and *The Shakespeare Newsletter* as soon as it is available. -HMC] [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Wednesday, 7 May 1997 15:26:40 -0400 Subject: Norton Shakespeare I have a desk copy and the sampler for the CD which is quite impressive. Given price and the potential of the CD - and the fact that Riverside didn't tell me they had a new edition going ( I found out by accident after the book order went in), along with my colleagues in English I've switched to the Norton. The paper is lighter, the print pretty small,( but not for young eyes of undergrads) and the apparatus, inclusions and articles are very useful. Mary Jane Miller Dept. of Film Studies, Dramatic and Visual Arts Brock University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 21:35:34 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0543 Re: Subtext (Character) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0543. Wednesday, 7 May 1997. [1] From: C. David Frankel Date: Tuesday, 6 May 1997 23:34:09 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0537 Re: Subtext (Character) [2] From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 07 May 1997 08:35:27 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0537 Re: Subtext (Character) [3] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Tuesday, 06 May 1997 21:59:34 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0537 Re: Subtext (Character) [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Tuesday, 6 May 1997 23:34:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0537 Re: Subtext (Character) I'd like to add a comment to this thread, taking off now on the question of whether or not characters have minds and what it is that audiences experience in the presence of the actor. I agree with much of what Cary Mazer says in that regard: the audience experiences the character through the "personation" of the actor and, in that respect, probably attributes to the character (and actor) whatever notions of "person-ness" may be current in that audience member's mind (even if contradictory or contested). As far as the play goes (and now I'm primarily talking about how, as a theatre practitioner, I think about these things) I tend to talk about it in terms of three different "worlds": 1) the fictive world in which we pretend that the characters are human beings. Questions about this world might include things like "What will Nora do now that she's left the doll house?" "How did Hamlet feel when he sent R&G to their death?" and so on. 2) the dramaturgical world in which we can look at characters (and other aspects of the play) from a functional perspective. Questions about this world might include things like "Why does Romeo have two best friends with contrasting qualities?" "What is the scene between the 2 guys sent to the oracle in Winter's Tale doing in the play" and so on. 3) the theatrical world of specific productions. Questions here will overlap with the fictive and the dramaturgical worlds, but they will always be answered by reference to the choices made by directors, actors, designers and others in specific circumstances. Some questions might be "how does this particular spatial arrangement affect the reception of the play?" "What difference does it make if I play this part as a tired man?" and so on. I'm sure these distinctions have been made before, and probably better. They help me, though, and they provide a framework for my students to think about plays in a somewhat different way than they are used to. C. David Frankel University of South Florida [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 07 May 1997 08:35:27 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0537 Re: Subtext (Character) Cary Mazer's infuriation can only be palliated at length, and perhaps best by a new paper coming out in *Performing Arts International* that I may not promulgate except privately. *`The Motion Of Our Human Blood Almost Suspended': The Desirable Consciousness of the Actor* is available to those interested, by e-mail at my address above. Harry Hill Montreal [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Tuesday, 06 May 1997 21:59:34 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0537 Re: Subtext (Character) > David Jackson wrote: > >I want to emphasize that I was talking about what was going on > >in the mind of the CHARACTER, not the actor playing the character. As > >long as the actor is doing his or her job, there is always a delineation > >between the two. Are you sure? > I don't have a clue what's happening in the mind of a character; and I'm > quite prepared to join Terry Hawkes in questioning whether a character > has a mind at all. What do you think of this quote from Leonard Bernstein? "Doug Hofstadter ( http://www.cs.indiana.edu/people/d/dughof.html ) is rapidly becoming the Hamlet of our times: whatever he says is both exact and double-edged, reassuring but provocative, poetic and self-challenging. His scariest insights and most agonizing intellectual probings are graced like Hamlet's, with humour, affection, and a kind of mad musical charm." But remember--Hamlet doesn't have a mind, right? >I *only* know about a character-that character only > *exists* as a person-when that character is played by an actor. Would you say that that character is the *same* character when being played by two different actors? By the same actor under two different directors? What about when we read a play? Is Oberon just saying "Get me that flower" when we read, but talking about something else [Q.E.I, or perhaps something else?] when we see a performance? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 21:39:28 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0544 Q: Stylometry and SHAXICON MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0544. Wednesday, 7 May 1997. From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Tuesday, 06 May 1997 22:28:22 -0400 Subject: Stylometry and SHAXICON 1. What's the difference between 'stylometry' and SHAXICON? 2. Why do you need a computer to "do" 'stylometry' or SHAXICON? Why couldn't you just use statistics on paper? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 21:43:28 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0545 Mary Vincent MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0545. Wednesday, 7 May 1997. From: Don Foster Date: Wednesday, 07 May 1997 10:35:02 -0500 Subject: Mary Vincent / cross-posted to WWP Listserv Friends: In 1978, Larry Singleton picked up Mary Vincent-then a 15-year-old runaway-and offered her a ride to Los Angeles. Instead he raped her repeatedly, chopped off her forearms with an axe, and left her for dead. Mary survived to testify against him, but he received early parole for "good behavior," serving only 8 years, 4 months. When Singleton was released from prison, several California communities refused to accept him as a resident, which led to a spate of "man-without-a-country" stories in the popular press, with Singleton being represented as a tragic figure. In 1988, he moved to Tampa. In Florida, Singleton has had repeated scrapes with the law, with multiple shop-lifting offenses and various attempts to pick up teenaged girls. Then, in February of this year, Singleton murdered Roxanne Hayes, the mother of three children. (Police arrived 34 minutes after a 911 call alerted them that Singleton was beating Hayes in his home.) Journalists writing about this story sought out Mary Vincent for comment and found her, nearly destitute, in Washington state. She lives in a travel trailer with her 10-year-old son, Luke. (A second child lives with her former husband.) Her artificial limbs are obsolete, one of which has been held together with yarn for the past year. Years ago, Mark Edwards (a California attorney) assisted Mary in a civil suit against Singleton. She was awarded $2.56 million but never collected. For most of the past twenty years she has been silent and invisible, reduced to a Lavinia-like existence, fearful that Singleton would come back "to finish the job." For a time she spent much of her money on bodyguards while living in her car. A trust fund has been set up for Mary and her children by Mark Edwards: The Mary Vincent Fund c/o Mark E. Edwards Trust Account 1800 E. 17th St., Suite 101 Santa Ana, CA 92705-8604 I hope that members of the SHAKSPER discussion group will not think this an inappropriate use of the Listserv. Please give generously. Our own cultural traditions, from Shakespeare to Hollywood, helped to write this sad story-but we can help, at least, to rewrite the ending. Don Foster Vassar College========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 09:10:10 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0546 Complete Editions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0546. Friday, 9 May 1997. [1] From: David Dyal Date: Thursday, 08 May 1997 08:04:20 -0700 Subj: Newer Editions of WS [2] From: Jeff Myers Date: Thursday, 08 May 1997 13:18:01 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0542 Re: Norton Shakespeare [3] From: William Proctor Williams Date: Thursday, 08 May 97 10:30 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0542 Re: Norton Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Dyal Date: Thursday, 08 May 1997 08:04:20 -0700 Subject: Newer Editions of WS I've noticed on the list that a couple of new editions of Shakespeare are available. I have the old '74 Riverside. The '92 Harper-Collins (4th ed), edited by Bevington, has a great bibliography, but it's old now. On the list, I see that there is a new Riverside and a new Norton edition. Which of these has the best bibliography in the list's opinion? Is there a better new edition? Sorry if this has been re-hashed already. David Dyal [Editor's Note: In the Fall 1996 issue of *The Shakespeare Newsletter* I reviewed *The Riverside Shakespeare* second edition in the Table on Contents column. In the upcoming issue I will be reviewing the *Norton Shakespeare* and the Bevington fifth edition. HMC] [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Thursday, 08 May 1997 13:18:01 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0542 Re: Norton Shakespeare >The Norton may not be in bookstores yet, but I've had an examination >copy for about a month, had students evaluate it, and have ordered it. >Aside from the pedagogical apparatus, which is painstaking and >user-friendly, the students liked the price; it is not only electronic >media which price themselves outside a student's budget. What price did you find? At my bookstore, the price was almost the same as Bevington's, which I like. If there were a big price break, however, I'd order the Norton. >I like the >interleaved Q1 and F1 editing of Lear, and the inclusion of a conflated >edition following. I also have the demo of Mark Rose's Workshop CD but >have not looked at it.=20 The demo isn't really very impressive as a demo, but if the product does what the demo says it will do, it could be useful. >I have a desk copy and the sampler for the CD which is quite >impressive. Given price and the potential of the CD=20 How much extra is the CD? [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Proctor Williams Date: Thursday, 08 May 97 10:30 CDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0542 Re: Norton Shakespeare Mary Jane Miller, You must be using a MAC version because the CD I got with my DOS version was certainly LESS than impressive. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 09:15:27 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0547 Re: Subtext (Character) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0547. Friday, 9 May 1997. [1] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 8 May 1997 12:48:17 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0537 Re: Subtext (Character) [2] From: Cary M. Mazer Date: Friday, 9 May 1997 08:12:10 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0543 Re: Subtext (Character) [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 8 May 1997 12:48:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0537 Re: Subtext (Character) Not meaning to put too fine a point on it, but there has been discussion of Gielgud's emphasis on the auditory quality of performance. This indeed is the case, but leaves out the fact that as a producer, he placed an equal emphasis on the visual quality of the performance as well. Having spent the last two years researching his work with the design team Motley in the 1930's, I can confirm that Sir John insisted on settings and costumes that were colorful, directly related to his concept of the character and mood of the play, and above all exciting and interesting to watch. He also made sure that design elements-even the more decorative stuff-were produced on a scale that enabled even the cheapest seats, high up in the "gods" to make them out. What this leads to, with regard to subtext, is that for Gielgud at least, not much in the way of subtext was left to chance or the individual actor's spontaneous reaction to "the moment". Questions of characterization were established early on, and while Sir John was notorious for making thousands of adjustments in blocking, etc. (see Sir Alec Guinness' Blessings in Disguise for a good chapter on that) his vision of the play was concrete. Everything from the actor's hair style to his shoes was deemed essential, and the settings harmonized with the costumes so as to form a comprehensible whole. A long-winded way of saying that for Gielgud's productions at least, "subtext" was a highly defined thing, and consisted of the actor's seemingly spontaneous re-creation of a character already well defined and plotted out. Andy White Arlington, VA [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cary M. Mazer Date: Friday, 9 May 1997 08:12:10 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0543 Re: Subtext (Character) Gabriel Wasserman asks: >Would you say that that character is the *same* character when being >played by two different actors? By the same actor under two different >directors? Nope: same "character," different *person*. Each actor's Hamlet is a distinct person, who lives and dies, over the course events of the story enacted in the theatre piece, reacting to the same given circumstances, speaking the same words as other people calling themselves Hamlet, kvetching about a mother named Gertrude and an uncle named Claudius, in other theatre pieces similarly advertised as being "_Hamlet_, by William Shakespeare." >What about when we read a play? I'll leave that to others to answer. I suspect that you and I don't meant the same thing when we each say "read." Cary ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 09:18:01 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0548 Q: Vassar Electronic Text Archive MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0548. Friday, 9 May 1997. From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Wednesday, 07 May 1997 21:30:59 -0400 Subject: Vassar Electronic Text Archive Can SHAKSPERians access VETA? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 09:20:53 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0549 REED Newsletter MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0549. Friday, 9 May 1997. From: Helen Ostovich Date: Thursday, 8 May 1997 11:19:57 -0400 Subject: REED Newsletter The REED Newsletter is converting to the status of peer-reviewed journal, a process that should be complete by 1998. The editorial board at present includes: Lawrence Clopper, Indiana University JoAnna Dutka, Past Editor, Erindale College, Unversity of Toronto Alexandra Johnston, REED and Victoria College, University of Toronto Sally-Beth MacLean, REED, University of Toronto Anne Lancashire, University College, University of Toronto Robert Tittler, Concordia Unversity William Streitberger, University of Washington We will also be switching to annual publication under a new name: Early Theatre: A Journal associated with the Records of Early English Drama. Early Theatre welcomes research in medieval or early modern drama and theatre history, rooted in the records and documents of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. We likewise encourage articles or notes on related materials either in Europe, or in other parts of the world where English or European travelers, traders, and colonizers observed performances by other peoples. Although we have been primarily interested in the performance history of any art, entertainment, or festive occasion of the period, we also invite submissions of interpretive or literary articles relating to the performances themselves. We are now considering articles and notes for publication in 1998. Submissions, written in English, may range from 250-7000 words, in Chicago or MLA style. Style information will be available by e-mail on request. Copy must be double-spaced, including endnotes, and accompanied by a diskette. For returns, include a self-addressed envelope and sufficient postage. Address correspondence and submissions to Helen Ostovich, Editor, REED Newsletter / Early Theatre, Department of English, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L9. For further information by e-mail, write to ostovich@mcmaster.ca Helen Ostovich, Editor ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 09:23:12 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0550 Re: Multiplying Time in Othello MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0550. Friday, 9 May 1997. From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 8 May 1997 12:25:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0536 Q: Multiplying Time in Othello This is a late reply, I've been busy on the diaper detail, so unable to log in: As for the use of multipliers in telling time, others may have already mentioned Ophelia's "Twice two months, my Lord" in Hamlet. This is a crucial detail, in that it mentions in passing that the Prince's mad-act has been going on for some time, perhaps as long as two months, before R&G are summoned to court and the Players arrive. Chronologies are very useful in constructing the logic of scenes, and Othello and Hamlet are prime examples. Whether they mattered much to Shakespeare's audiences, however, I couldn't say-in the hubbub and chaos of the pit, I'd bet the groundlings could care less how much time has really passed on stage. As for "Der Bestrafte Brudermord", I read that Poel produced it in Edinburgh as a satire of Hamlet, and it met with great success. Certainly looks like a burlesque (what with Hamlet ducking between two pistols, and Ophelia chasing after a most unwilling Osric ...) Andy White ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 09:25:51 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0551 Associates for the Shakespeare Data Bank MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0551. Friday, 9 May 1997. From: Louis Marder Date: Wednesday, 19 Mar 1997 14:39:17 PST Subject: Associates for the Shakespeare Data Bank Volunteerism has become an important word during April. It has been an important word for the Shakespeare Data Bank for a few years. The SDB is a cooperative educational non-profit project to compile, condense, organize, simplify, and computerize for universal and permanent use all that is important in Shakespearean scholarship for scholars, teachers, students, librarians, editors, Shakespeare club members, casual readers et al The SDB needs your expertise. Please e-mail Louis Marder at avon4@juno.com. for a topic or make one that fits the plan. Let us get together and cooperate. Thank you. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 09:28:03 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0552 Re: Ideology MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0552. Friday, 9 May 1997. From: Paul Hawkins Date: Friday, 9 May 1997 09:22:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Ideology As far as I'm aware, Universal Grammar is alive and well, and an anatomy of the two super-rules that describe "all phrases in all languages" is living in Steven Pinker's *The Language Instinct* (pages 106-112). Pinker makes clear that "universal grammar and abstract phrase structures seem to be permanent features of grammatical theory" (120-121). Further, when Robert Appelbaum says that "there is no universal linguistic structure of the mind" (I think he means "in") but instead simply "a certain kind of mental potentiality," he is simply substituting one phrase for another: the mental potentiality is the language structure in the mind. I imagine that two or three need to be gathered together to participate in a language, and that language to that extent is social. But what exactly is this conceding? Certainly not that language is invested in ideology. Appelbaum is confident that the "mind that speaks in and through language is a social mind." Interestingly, Pinker insists that "the design of grammar is . . . a code that is autonomous from cognition. . . . A grammar specifies how words may combine to express meanings; that specification is independent of the particular meanings we typically convey or expect others to convey to us" (87). This would seem to undercut claims of the essential sociality-not to mention the ideology of the sociality-that speaks through language. Robert Appelbaum's post is an honest presentation of the ideological underpinnings of his view: he makes clear that he is committed to constructivism, and that while constructivism does not exclude certain things, it does "require resistance to the idea that the social can be reduced to the biological." Robert Appelbaum is self-confessedly steeped in an ideology. But it is not clear to me that the opposite position is "ideological" in the same way. I don't think that responsible evolutionary sociobiological opinion would seek to *reduce* the social to the biological, but the only reason to try to demonstrate that the social is more biological than we may think is that one thinks it may be true-at the very least it's tenable and evidence exists to support it. One will believe it as long as the weight of evidence tends in that direction, but one's belief is always provisional, and can be discarded or amended when evidence requires it. When one is in the grip of an ideology, however, one requires specific conclusions, as Appelbaum acknowledges he does. Chomskyans, evolutionary biologists, evolutionary sociobiologists, or readers of the aesthetic do not seem to me to be ideological in this way. Paul Hawkins ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 09:19:00 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0553 Early Theatre MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0553. Monday, 12 May 1997. From: John Cox Date: Friday, 09 May 1997 10:09:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Early Theatre Thanks to Helen Ostovich for her posting about EARLY THEATRE. While the notice is informative about submissions, it omits information about subscriptions. This is a journal I'd like to recommend to my college library. What will subscription cost? How does one subscribe? John Cox ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 09:21:37 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0554 Re: Norton CD MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0554. Monday, 12 May 1997. From: Ron Macdonald Date: Friday, 09 May 1997 10:49:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Norton CD Jeff Myers asks how much the CD accompanying the Norton Shakespeare will cost. A Norton sales rep tells me $15, making the combined price of book and CD less than the Riverside alone. --Ron Macdonald ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 09:31:04 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0555 Stoic Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0555. Monday, 12 May 1997. From: Ben Schneider Date: Friday, 9 May 1997 15:08:53 +0000 Subject: Stoic Shakespeare Dear SHAKSPEReans, I have made my book in progress on Shakespeare's Morality available on the SHAKSPER fileserver partly to stake a claim to this territory that I seem to have discovered, but more importantly in the hope that you generous people will tell me where I have gone wrong or gone too far. Frankly, the whole product seems too good to be true. Too neat, too unambiguous, too simple, too logical. Not our Shakespeare. Please help me see where I have erred and save me from assuming (hard to believe) that you unquestioningly accede to my Stoical version of Shakespeare. I post the following synopsis to help you pick and choose. Yours ever to command, BEN SCHNEIDER * * * * * Synopsis of Book on Shakespeare's Morality Chapter I: Why Stoicism? Fileserver MORAL.SHAKES-1 Stoicism is clearly the moral basis of Shakespeare's plays; why has it been dismissed by Shakespeare scholars? Possible answers: 1) morals are not a popular topic in our non- judgmental, feeling-oriented society; 2) we don't know what Stoicism is, a complete manual of human conduct; 3) the Renais- sance is now identified mainly with the "rise of individual," and therefore the fact is little known that it also fostered the foundation of an educational system on the model of Plato's _Republic_ whose main function was to educate leaders for public service, and for which classical Stoicism provided the main texts (annotated bibliography). The immanence of death and the prev- alence of chance in Shakespeare's time inclined individuals to seek the good opinion of posterity. With those pressures at a distance, we pursue material happiness instead. Marx and other social historians agree that capitalism has utterly changed the ethical landscape, reversing the ancient priority of society's interests over those of the individual. In the dark about Shake- speare's morality we read his plays by the light of our own, and since ours is the reverse of his, we read him upside-down and backwards. Chapter II. _The Merchant of Venice_: Shylock Is Us. Fileserver MORAL.SHAKES-2 Our understanding of this play is badly skewed by our consciousness that Shylock is a member of a persecuted minority, a fact which was not important to Shakespeare, at least in this play. What is for us an occasion for compassion would have been for the Stoics (and Shakespeare) an occasion for moral outrage. There were two ways of using wealth in Shakespeare's day: give it away (in the Stoic manner) or rent it out (in the Puritan- capitalist manner), and that is what every line of every page of _The Merchant_ is talking about. The play begins with a demon- stration of how a friend lends money to a friend (gladly and instantly) and proceeds immediately to a demonstration of how a capitalist lends money (reluctantly and with calculation). Bas- sanio is then tested by the caskets: he wins Portia by choos-ing the lead casket having the motto that requires ultimate sacri- fice, thus proving he is a better man than Arragon who "assumes desert" without sacrificing a thing. In a world that fortune commands, assuming desert is fatuous. Shylock, who goes to court to get what he deserves, gets what he deserves. It is the same prize as Arragon's: "a blinking idiot." Shylock's trial is also Antonio's trial, in which his near death is punishment for his sin of anger against Shylock, and in which he is chastened so much that he can administer clemency to his mortal enemy. In deference to feminism we nowadays read the last act as Portia's stratagem for dislodging her husband's best friend. But the play began with a merry bond that proved to be serious, and it now ends with a serious bond that proves to be merry. The final act actually shows how differently from Shylock friends who trust each other treat a defaulting debtor--with gales of laughter. Chapter III. _King Lear_ and the Culture of Justice. Fileserver MORAL.SHAKES-3 Twentieth century critics of _Lear_, apparently motivated by a need to display compassion for victims and to avoid the stigma attached to being judgmental, conveniently overlook Lear's incompetence as a king and focus on his heroic suffering. My highly judgmental Stoic approach, which recognizes that Lear is a good man, blames his initial burst of anger for all ensuing disasters. In our haste to reserve judgment on Lear, we have disregarded Kent's function in the play as a standard of true gentility against which to measure everyone else. He is a para- gon of all the Stoic virtues--mainly courage, constancy, gener- osity, and plain dealing. Against his example, Gloucester stands out as trimmer, Edmund a plain-dealing villain, the sisters double-dealing villains, Oswald a pander, Albany a right-thinking non-actor, and Cordelia a better man than anyone, though cer- tainly feminine. It is customary to say, in rebuttal of the so- called "Christian interpretation," of _Lear_ that the ending is completely negative: the virtuous Cordelia is dead. But Christ is not Pollyanna, and Stoicism thrives on bad endings. The ending of _Lear_ is a testimony to Lear's greatness in Stoic terms: his acceptance of his common humanity, his recognition of the horror of his crime, and above all his refusal to give in to despair (as Gloucester does) turn his death into a victory. Chapter IV. _Henry IV 1&2_: The Education of a Prince. Fileserver MORAL.SHAKES-4 You can't read the Hal/Henry V cycle sensibly if you start with the assumption that war is categorically immoral, and that is where most academic critics start today. Their general agree- ment with Falstaff's cynical attitude toward honor has made it difficult for them to appreciate the achievement of Prince Hal. Actually, in Stoic terms, Falstaff is a symbol of the appetite- indulging society that a weak government breeds. He is "out of all compass" and flouts justice gleefully. The play makes a three-way comparison based on Falstaff's famous line, "The better part of valor is discretion" (actually a Stoic precept). At the extremes are Hotspur and Falstaff, having too little and too much discretion respectively and in the middle is Hal who conducts himself with a sane balance of both valor and discretion. In the division of the spoils at the end of Part 1 Hal gives a splendid display of Stoic generosity. The critics are much dismayed when in Part 2 Hal banishes his "friend" Falstaff from his sight forever, as soon as he becomes king. Of course, if we don't get Falstaff's significance as a metaphor, we won't get the meaning of the new king's act. It means that justice, after a long struggle to take charge of the land, well documented in both parts 1 and 2, is at last triumphant over license, and England is off to a new start. Stoic literature on friends disqualifies Falstaff for that honor; to Hal he was not a Bassanio; he was never more than a joke. Chapter V. _Henry V_: "O, 'tis a gallant king!" Fileserver MORAL.SHAKES-5 In their eagerness to enlist Shakespeare in the pacifist cause, recent critics have taken to concentrating their attention on those acts of Henry that might be considered unheroic. Shakes- peare, they claim, was slyly subverting the legend of England's greatest king. However, there are better explanations for these acts than Machiavellian villainy: 1) Henry's flimsy excuse for going to war with France: every war in this period had a "just cause" and Henry made his bishops totally responsible for the justness of this cause. But when the Dauphin made him a present of tennis balls there was no backing down; national honor was itself a just cause. There was also a widespread belief, statedV at the beginning of part 1, that war is good for a country. 2) Henry's threats to the besieged Harfleur of the horrifying atrocities they may expect if they don't surrender: copious evidence shows that Henry's speech was perfectly conventional after a breach had been made in the walls of a city. Commanders apparently had little control of what vengeful soldiers did to cities that resisted them, even in Tasso when the city was Jeru- salem and the soldiers were crusaders. 3) When the French rallied after losing the field of Agincourt, Henry instantly ordered the prisoners killed: A necessity; the king's duty is to save his own troops. The point is, he did not hesitate. "O, 'tis a gallant king!" remarked a spectator. 4) Henry orders the execution of his "friend" Bardolf for robbing a church when he had specifically forbidden looting. According to Cicero friends should have no status in a court of law. The administration of justice is the most important duty of a king. 5) Henry's order to sing the psalm "non nobis" after the victory is an attempt to make the war against France a holy war. Thanking God for one's success simply expresses the truth. No success gives anyone the right to "assume desert" (as do Arragon and Shylock). 6) The wooing of Catherine at the end of the play is a hypocritical farce, because she must marry Henry whether she likes it or not. It was kind of him nevertheless to take the trouble to persuade her as a free agent, and I think he did. His proposal is a beau- tiful example of the plain-dealing style, not a flowery formal- ity, and in it he makes promises that he will undoubtedly keep, having now fulfilled the promises he made at the beginning of part 1. Chapter VI. _The Tempest_, or Lear's Lesson Learned. Not on Fileserver: Early version published as "'Are We Being Historical Yet': Colonialist Interpretations of Shakespeare's _Tempest_" in _Shakespeare Studies_ Fall 1995. This play has run afoul of two academic fashions. At first the fantasy world of Prospero's island, evoking poetic places like Coleridge's Xanadu, appealed to residual romanticism. Prospero became Shakespeare the poet and his island was the product of his magisterial creative imagination. But in the 1980's, when victimology rose to prominence, it became evident that the play discoursed of colonialism, with Prospero as imperial exploiter and the island as his empire. Interpret- ations, just as in the Hal plays, take the form of finding flaws in the character of the hero, and tacitly or not, crediting Shakespeare with subversive intent. The eight recent readings treated here find very much the same problematics. They find the storm scene with which the play begins, in which sailors rail at kings and dukes, delightfully "subversive." But storms in Shake- speare (see _Lear_) are a reflection of the disorder that pre- vails in a realm whose ruler is incompetent; and Prospero, who devoted himself to abstract study and ruled by proxy was cer- tainly incompetent. The critics also think that in his long expository prelude Prospero attempts to mask his own complicity in his overthrow by the anger he shows over his "betrayal." Here, the crux of the play is presented as an example of auto- cratic duplicity. Then the critics gleefully identify Caliban's attempted rape of Miranda with the imperialist's classic excuse for persecuting native people, thus nullifying Caliban's obvious function as an incipient form of Yahoo. The critics also point to Prospero's frequent outbursts of anger, overlooked by romantic critics, as evidence of an oppressor's suppressed guilt. On this point I heartily agree: the romantic version of Prospero is just as shortsighted as the postcolonialist one. Finally, these critics find that the ending, superficially happy, masks a particularly flagrant use of power, in which Prospero, having regained his dukedom and acquired the kingdom of Naples via marriage, has gained his nefarious ends and can without risk "renounce" magic. Here the critics nullify the play's obvious climax, in which Prospero, prompted by his good spirit Ariel, relents his anger at the conspirators. The play is really about the damage done by anger, one of the Stoics' two most destructive passions (the other is lust), and Prospero relents just in time to prevent another _King Lear_. The Caliban and Ferdinand-Miranda plots make the point that freedom (the topic on which four acts of the play conclude) can be obtained only by service to others, and that's what Prospero offers in his epilogue to the audience. B. R. Schneider, Jr English/Emeritus Lawrence University Appleton, WI 54912 [Editor's Note: To retrieve the files mentioned in the posting above, send the following commands to listserv@ws.BowieState.edu MORAL.SHAKES-1 MORAL.SHAKES-2 MORAL.SHAKES-3 MORAL.SHAKES-4 MORAL.SHAKES-5 --HMC] ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 09:32:03 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0556 Reminder (UNSUBing and NOMAIL Options) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0556. Tuesday, 13 May 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Tuesday, May 13, 1997 Subject: Reminder (UNSUBing and NOMAIL Options) Dear SHAKSPEReans, Today, is the last day of classes for the spring semester here at Bowie State, so it is time that I send the seasonal message regarding your SHAKSPER account options. If you will be away from your account for some time, please use either of these options: UNSUBscribing and SETting NOMAIL. UNSUBscribing: If you have joined SHAKSPER as part of a class or on a short-term basis or if you will be losing your account, please UNSUBscribe. To do so, send this -- UNSUB SHAKSPER to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu leaving the subject line blank. SETting NOMAIL: If you are going to be away from your account for a time, then SET your SHAKSPER account to NOMAIL. To do this, send the following message -- SET SHAKSPER NOMAIL to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu again leaving the subject line blank. When you want to resume your SHAKSPER mailings, send -- SET SHAKSPER MAIL -- to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu To order a list of LISTSERV commands, send -- GET LISTSERV COMMANDS -- to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu If you have other questions or problems, contact me at SHAKSPER@ws.BowieState.edu or at editor@ws.BowieState.edu. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 09:27:48 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0558 Re: Early Theatre Comments: cc: fix@WS.BOWIESTATE.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0558. Wednesday, 14 May 1997. From: Helen Ostovich Date: Monday, 12 May 1997 13:48:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0553 Early Theatre Re: John Cox's question about subscription. For 1997, the subscription is $10, in US funds for Americans, or Canadian funds for Canadians. For 1998, individual subscribers pay $12 US, and institutions / libraries pay $15 US. Canadian subscribers pay $12 and $15 Canadian. International subscribers pay $15 / $18.50 Canadian. The prices reflect increases in printing and mailing costs. Subscriptions are handled in the REED office, 150 Charles St W, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1K9. Address your letter to Arleane Ralph; or e-mail aralph@chass.utoronto.ca My original posting was to encourage submission of articles and notes. But I welcome new subscribers as well! E: Helen Ostovich Department of English / Editor, _REED Newsletter_ McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L9 (905) 525-9140 x24496 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 09:24:58 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0557 Q: Heartsease Comments: cc: fix@WS.BOWIESTATE.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0557. Wednesday, 14 May 1997. From: Heather Stephenson Date: Monday, 12 May 1997 10:12:51 +0100 Subject: Heartsease Help! I bought a packet of flowers the last time I was in Stratford. Each of the flowers included was (supposedly) mentioned in one of Shakespeare's plays. Now, I am giving the flowers as a gift and would really like to include the quote with the gift. Since I do not have the Norton CD-ROM or a directory in which to look this up, can anyone direct me to the passage that refers to "heartsease?" (It's not in Perdita's flower speech in WT). You can respond directly to me if you'd prefer -- thanks in advance, Heather Stephenson heather_stephenson@anlsf.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 14:32:28 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0560 Possible Project Entering Renaissance Texts and Shakespeare Sources Comments: cc: fix@WS.BOWIESTATE.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0560. Wednesday, 14 May 1997. From: Greg Crane Date: Tuesday, 13 May 1997 10:00:39 -0400 Subject: Possible Project Entering Renaissance Texts and Shakespeare Sources A New Library of Renaissance Source Materials Preliminary Notice: May 9, 1997 Send comments to: shake@perseus.tufts.edu PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REPOST WHERE APPROPRIATE For an HTML version of this announcement and the preliminary list of source materials, see: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/sources.html The Perseus Project has spent the last ten years developing a digital library of ancient materials. In the past year, we have begun to work on Latin and English texts as well. We are currently in the process of putting all of the work of Marlowe onto the WWW. Given our familiarity with Latin and nonstandardized English spelling, we are looking to work more generally on English Renaissance source materials. We are planning to create a large WWW database of sources that will include Holinshed, North's Plutarch and other texts, such as those that appear in Geoffrey Bullough's eight volume collection of Shakespeare's sources. This database will include classical and Renaissance contemporary sources, as well as Renaissance resources, such as critical books or essays (i.e. George Puttenham's The Arte of English Poesie). A number of key sources for this period have been entered. Our goal will be to extend what has been done and to begin systematic entry of a wide range of texts. Please help us to develop the following wish-list of texts. We have broken down the list into subsets, but feel free to offer suggestions that do not appear to fit under any one of our headings. We would not, for instance, be limited to Shakespeare's sources alone. What textual resources would you like to see made available on-line that we have not included here? If the source is particularly obscure, let us know in a word why it is significant. Please write us with your suggestions [shake@perseus.tufts.edu]. The list itself is available at: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/sources.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 14:29:09 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0559 Call for Papers: SHAKESPEARE AT KALAMAZOO Comments: cc: fix@WS.BOWIESTATE.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0559. Wednesday, 14 May 1997. From: Ruth E. Sternglantz Date: Tuesday, 13 May 1997 09:01:39 -0400 Subject: Call for Papers (apologies for crossposting) Please Post Call for Papers 1998 SHAKESPEARE AT KALAMAZOO Thirty-third International Congress on Medieval Studies Kalamazoo, Michigan 7-10 May 1998 PROPOSED sessions for the Congress in 1998 are subject to approval by The Medieval Institute, Western Michigan University. Shakespeare at Kalamazoo has organized programs at the International Congress since 1989. TWO SESSIONS will be proposed for the Thirty-third Congress, both devoted to papers specifically relating Shakespeare to the broader canvas of cultural history. Session 1. Shakespeare in the Tradition of the Performing Arts Session 2. Shakespeare and Cultural Continuity Papers for Session 1 should demonstrate evidence in Shakespeare's plays of medieval ideas of theatre and of medieval performance practices and dramaturgical conventions. Papers for Session 2 should focus on the representation in Shakespeare's plays of late medieval and early modern cultural trends. Papers are invited from scholars in the fields of art history, music, folklore, history, philosophy, theatre history, history of science, as well as literature, both English and continental. The Congress on Medieval Studies provides a unique milieu for an exchange of insights on Shakespeare's place in the continuum of culture. The following rules corresponding to those established by the Board of the Medieval Institute should be strictly adhered to if you intend to submit an abstract: 1. All abstracts must include the following information at the top of the front page: title of paper; name of author; complete mailing address, including e- mail and fax if available; institutional affiliation, if any, of the author; confirmation of the 20-minute reading time length; statement of need (or no need) for audio-visual equipment. 2. Abstracts or papers must be typed, double-spaced, not more than 300 words long, and must clearly indicate the paper's thesis, methodology, and conclusions. Accepted abstracts will be submitted for publication to the Shakespeare Newsletter or other periodical. Publication of abstracts does not preclude publication of complete papers. 3. THREE COPIES OF ABSTRACTS or, PREFERABLY, COMPLETED PAPERS MUST BE SUBMITTED BY SEPTEMBER 1. Abstracts or papers submitted after the deadline cannot be considered. Three members of the governing board of Shakespeare at Kalamazoo will select the papers. Electronic submission is encouraged to facilitate transmission among the selection panel. 4. Submission of an abstract or paper will be considered agreement by the author to attend the Congress if the paper is accepted. 5. It is understood that papers submitted will be essentially new and will not have been presented in public before. 6. Graduate students wishing to submit material should consult their advisors about the suitability of their work and the regulations (if any) of their university. 7. Papers submitted may not require more than 20 MINUTES OF READING TIME, including slides, films, or other a/v support. Session leaders will hold papers strictly to this limit to facilitate discussion. 8. In order to allow as many scholars to participate in the program as possible, ONE ABSTRACT ONLY should be submitted to the Thirty-third Congress. Please direct inquiries, abstracts, and papers to Ruth Sternglantz NYU--General Studies Program 326 Shimkin Hall New York, NY 10012 Fax: 212 995-4137 E-mail: sternglz@is2.nyu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 14:37:49 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0561 Music to Shakespeare Songs from His Time; Ironside Comments: cc: fix@WS.BOWIESTATE.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0561. Wednesday, 14 May 1997. From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Monday, 12 May 1997 18:49:18 -0400 Subject: Music to Shakespeare Songs from His Time; Ironside > I have a reference query that can't be entirely answered in the Folger's > hallowed halls, but that I'm sure will elicit a good response from > fellow-SHAKSPERIANS! Do any of you out there know places in modern > music where Shakespeare is mentioned? (I know we've just done movies > and TV shows! ) Two to get the list going are Elvis's "Are You Lonesome > Tonight," which mentions "the world is a stage," and the Indigo Girls' > song "Romeo and Juliet." > > Any more......? All suggestions welcome with thanks in advance! > > Georgianna Ziegler > ziegler@folger.edu This Q got a lot of responses. I was recently thinking about a related question, and am surprised that none of the responses mentioned it: WHAT ABOUT MUSIC TO SHAKSPERE'S SONGS FROM HIS TIME? [i.e. 1580-1640] I've heard it said that the *ONLY* surviving contermporary settings to Shakespeare's stuff are Morley's *It Was a Lover and his Lass*, Morley's *Passymeasures Pavanne*, and Byrds piece of the same name. I know that that's not true, for what about John Robert's stuff, Iacke Wilson's stuff, Robert Downe's stuff, Mprley's other stuff, Anonymous's stuff, etc.? There's a good, albeit incomplete, list of settings in *The Reader's Guide to Shakespeare*, but, as I said, it's incomplete. (Also, I don't have it here at home.) Could anybody supply a complete list? Are there any good books ye could recommend? Also: >The thing to keep in mind, is that SHAXICON analyzes just a part of the >spectrum that may or may not define an author's work as *that* author's >work, albeit a very rigorous sampling. Although I've now read Foster's >work on the Elegy, and am as forcefully struck as Foster by the >parallels found in the elegy and Shakespeare's works, such elements as >are *not* examined by SHAXICON continue to contradict. > >Edmund Ironside, examined by Sams in "Shakespeare's Edmund Ironside" is >a case in point. Sams, setting aside his tone of voice (which Jonathan >Hope describes as smacking of nineteenth century monomania), >nevertheless makes a rigorous and thorough argument in favor of >Shakespeare's authorship using a very different set of criteria than >Foster's SHAXICON. Which set of criteria, when they disagree, holds more >weight? In light of this question, I would enjoy an opinion on the elegy >from someone like Sams or Hope. Well, Hope's on this list. Though I know that he believes the *Elegye* to be un-Shakespearian, I know not much more. (How do ye like my non-use of the auxiliary 'do'?) I think we should let him speak for himself. Jonathan? >I suspect Sams' criteria would suggest >that Shakespeare was *not* the author - where is the natural world so >prevalent in all of Shakespeare's other writings? - for example. > >Anyway, Edmund Ironside is interesting because, as far as I know, it is >one of a few apocryphal works on which all three authors (Foster, Hope, >Sams) have published opinions, and they all come to somewhat different >conclusions. Sams finds the whole of it Shakespeare's. > >Jonathan Hope writes (The Authorship of Shakespeare's Plays): "As has >been stated, Edmund Ironside is one of only three non-canonical plays to >fall within the range of the Shakespearean comparison sample for >auxiliary 'do' use. [NB: As per the preceding paragraph in Hope's book, the other two are *Edward III* and *Locrine* --GZW] >No individual scene in the play gives an >un-Shakespearean result, and the auxiliary 'do' evidence is entirely >compatible with Shakespearean authorship of the whole text of the play." >Hope then goes on to say that "Edmund Ironside" "certainly stands as a >strong candidate for further detailed examination of possible >Shakespearean authorship." > >Foster's conclusions are as stated below... > >Patrick > >*Edmund Ironside*: > >>Don Foster believes this was written by Robert Greene, though I haven't >>seen his evidence in detail. I'd like to see a lot more discussion on this. Why is the major academic community's thought on it: "*Edmund Ironside*? Isn't that the manuscript some guy found in his underwear drawer a wile ago?" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 14:44:55 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0562 Re: Ideology and Biology Comments: cc: fix@WS.BOWIESTATE.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0562. Wednesday, 14 May 1997. From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Monday, 12 May 1997 12:01:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0552 Re: Ideology and Biology As the man says, "_I_ am interested impartially in the truth. _You_ are ideological." That's how a certain kind of argumentative game works, and that's the game that Paul Hawkins has just played against a recent post of mine. Nothing personal, but I don't see much point in playing that kind of game. However, there are serious _reasons_ for doubting the need to identify a potentiality with an actual structure, and there are even more reasons for doubting the wisdom of bringing in the idea of "instinct" in order to explain language and the mind. What kind of reasons are they? All kinds of reasons. Some of them quite rational. (Personally, I think it would be more interesting to talk about a language "drive" than a language "instinct.") As for my claim that universal grammar is dead, I stand corrected. It is alive and well in a lot of places. Unfortunately, I studied linguistics (and Chomskyan grammar) under a professor who doubted whether universal grammar had much to do with how any particular language really works, since he doubted whether it explained what people really do when they communicate with one another. (It doesn't really explain imperatives and intejerctions, for example. Hey!) He was quite convinced (and convinced me: I got an "A") that the search for a universal grammar had exhausted itself and ended up with rather less than it claimed to have been looking for. But that is way off the subject of this list, and though I welcome others to have the last say on this if they wish (our editor permitting), I will not go any further into it here. However, I would like to call attention to the fact that Pinker's _The Language Instinct_, to which Paul Hawkins calls attention, and which Hawkins seems to be holding up as a model of value-free science, is full of remarks such as this: "Seeing language as one of nature's engineering marvels-an organ with 'that perfection of structure and co-adaptation which justly excites our admiration,' in Darwin's words-give us a new respect for your ordinary Joe and the much maligned English language (or any language)." (p. 19) To some readers on this list this remark will sound like impartial truth, but to me ... well I won't say it. But perhaps I am not alone in noticing echoes of Hooker here-in Pinker and Darwin alike. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 14:48:11 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0563 Q: King Lear Comments: cc: fix@WS.BOWIESTATE.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0563. Wednesday, 14 May 1997. From: Maureen Hueting Date: Tuesday, 13 May 1997 10:32:06 +1200 Subject: King Lear I am a second year student at university and am about to embark on an assignment about King Lear. Is he a melancholy man? Schucking states that Lear in his madness 'does little more than follow the beaten track of the melancholy type' I am finding it difficult to come to grips with Lear being a melancholy man, can anyone enlighten me on this? Schucking further states that Lear is not purified by suffering, but rather 'a nature completely transformed, whose extraordinary vital forces are extiniguished, or about to be extinguished'. Cheers, Maureen Hueting========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 22:27:51 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0564 Re: Heartsease Comments: cc: fix@WS.BOWIESTATE.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0564. Thursday, 15 May 1997. [1] From: Louis Marder Date: Wednesday, May 14, 1997 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0557 Q: Heartsease [2] From: Jeff Myers Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 14:27:31 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0557 Q: Heartsease [3] From: Gwenette Gaddis Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 09:29:46 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0557 Q: Heartsease [4] From: Mason West Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 11:05:29 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0557 Q: Heartsease [5] From: Nick Kind Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 17:04:56 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0557 Q: Heartsease [6] From: Herman Asarnow Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 09:06:07 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0557 Q: Heartsease [7] From: Jeff Barker Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 17:11:48 CST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0557 Q: Heartsease [8] From: Marga Munkelt Date: Thursday, 15 May 1997 09:56:07 EDT Subj: RE: SHK 8.0557 Q: Heartsease [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Marder Date: Wednesday, May 14, 1997 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0557 Q: Heartsease Heather: Heart's ease is mentioned in HV 4.1.236. But as a flower it is a synonym for the pansy, the love-in-idleness used as a philtre in MND II.1. See also I.1 where Egeus says his daughter has been bewitched. Heather, you are yourself a flower. I have walked on the hills in Scotland covered with heather. How wondrous soft it is. Louis Marder, Shakespeare Data Bank avon4@juno.com [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 14:27:31 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0557 Q: Heartsease Isn't it in _Romeo and Juliet_? A servant asks the musicians present for the planned wedding to play "Heart's Ease" after she has been discovered dead. There is still an English Country Dance (from Playford, I believe) by that name. Jeff Myers [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gwenette Gaddis Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 09:29:46 -0500 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0557 Q: Heartsease I have a book called "Shakespeare's Birds," which lists on its dust jacket another book in this series-"Shakespeare's Flowers" by Jessica Kerr (illustrated in full color by Anne Ophelia Dowden). The bird book (copyright 1983) has illustrations, quotations, and commentary. I'm assuming the flower book would be the same. I'm sorry I don't have a copy of the flower book so I can help you more-I've looked for it, but haven't found it yet. gg GGaddis@idgbooks.com [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mason West Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 11:05:29 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0557 Q: Heartsease I'm not sure if this is what you want, but the search engine on the Web page, "The Complete Works of William Shakespeare" at http://the-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/works.html doesn't find the exact phrase "heartsease" in the works (complete), but when searching for both words "heart" and "ease" in the same passage, I had the following results: KING RICHARD III, Act 4, Scene 4: "Help not all, yet do they ease the heart." 1 KING HENRY IV, Act 1, Scene 3: "And tell him so; for I will ease my heart," 3 KING HENRY VI, [no act and scene given], "It could not slake mine ire, nor ease my heart." KING HENRY V, Act 4, Scene 1: "But his own wringing! What infinite heart's-ease" ROMEO AND JULIET, Act 4, Scene 5: "Musicians, O, musicians, 'heart's ease, heart's ease:' O, an you will have me live, play 'heart's ease.' ... Why 'heart's ease?'" TITUS ANDRONICUS, Act 5, Scene 2: "And on them shalt thou ease thy angry heart." JULIUS CAESAR, Act 1, Scene 2: "Such men as he be never at heart's ease" -- Mason West mason@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~mason [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Kind Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 17:04:56 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0557 Q: Heartsease From the Arden Shakespeare CD-ROM: Cupid's flower n. The pansy, (also called) heartease MND 4.1.72 Dian's bud o'er Cupid's flower. Nick Kind Electronic Development Editor The Arden Shakespeare [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Herman Asarnow Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 09:06:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0557 Q: Heartsease You'll find "heartsease" in _King Henry V_, Act IV, Scene i: 230 We must bear all. O hard condition, 231 Twin-born with greatness: subject to the breath 232 Of every fool, whose sense no more can feel 233 But his own wringing. What infinite heartsease 234 Must kings neglect that private men enjoy? 235 And what have kings that privates have not too, 236 Save ceremony, save general ceremony? 237 And what art thou, thou idol ceremony? 238 What kind of god art thou, that suffer 239 Of mortal griefs than do thy worshippers? [7]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Barker Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 17:11:48 CST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0557 Q: Heartsease Reply to Heather Stephenson regarding "heartsease" THE HARVARD CONCORDANCE TO SHAKESPEARE lists only one mention that comes close: HENRY V, Act iv, scene i, line 236 "What infinite heart's ease must kings neglect, that private men enjoy!" (Riverside) Jeff Barker Department of Theatre/Speech Northwestern College, Orange City, Iowa [8]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marga Munkelt Date: Thursday, 15 May 1997 09:56:07 EDT Subject: RE: SHK 8.0557 Q: Heartsease Heartsease is another name for pansy-as is love-in-idleness. Ophelia uses pansies in HAM Act 4, Scene 5; Oberon's magic flower in MND is called love-in-idleness (Act 2, Scene 1). M.M. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 22:36:15 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0565 Q: Organizations Dealing with Performance in the Classroom Comments: cc: fix@WS.BOWIESTATE.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0565. Thursday, 15 May 1997. From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 08:59:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Organizations Dealing with Performance in the Classroom? Can anyone give me names or email addresses to contact any groups which might be promoting performance in the classroom as an adjunct to traditional teaching? I am looking for more people to introduce ACTER to. Thank you, Cynthia Dessen, General Manager, ACTER csdessen@email.unc.edu 919-967-4265 (phone/fax) ACTER website: http://www.unc.edu/depts/acter/ Mail to: 1100 Willow Drive, Chapel Hill NC 27514 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 22:44:57 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0566 Re: King Lear Comments: cc: fix@WS.BOWIESTATE.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0566. Thursday, 15 May 1997. [1] From: James Edward Moore Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 15:09:42 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0563 Q: King Lear [2] From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 14:46:30 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0563 Q: King Lear [3] From: Derek Wood Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 21:57:41 -0900 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0563 Q: King Lear [4] From: Michael Skovmand Date: Thursday, 15 May 1997 11:35:02 MET Subj: Re: SHK 8.0563 Q: King Lear [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Edward Moore Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 15:09:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0563 Q: King Lear I wouldn't necessarily say that Lear is a melancholy man. I feel that his old age has driven him into a state of depression, yes, and maybe a state where his mind is not completely in tune with reality. I mean he is after all giving his entire throne away to his daughters kind of abruptly, but as for melancholy, I always thought that Lear was pushed over that edge by his two older daughters who betray him. I think he is a man full of love for his family, and that love is betrayed, being betrayed, maybe all Lear can deduce from the rest of his life is melancholy because what he loved the most has betrayed and left him. I feel sorry for him. I know this will probably not be very helpful, but I just thought I'd speak a little about how I feel about the issue. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 14:46:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0563 Q: King Lear To admit that Lear is a nature completely transformed is not opposed to the claim that Lear is purified by suffering. Both statements are true. Of course his vital forces are extinguished. He dies. Lear is an angry, not a melancholy man. This gives me an occasion to mention one of my pet hypotheses, seemingly so far out that I do not recall ever hearing of anyone else's having noticed it. I stress the hypothetical aspect. Hypothesis: Shakespeare, at some point, had the idea of a series of serious plays, what his editors would later label as tragedies, based on the seven cardinal vices. The result was the seven plays usually regarded as the mature tragedies. Hamlet, melancholy; Lear, anger; Othello, envy; Macbeth, avarice; Antony and Cleopatra, lust; Coriolanus, pride; and Timon of Athens, gluttony. Admittedly, the last is rather difficult to sustain. I would qualify this hypothesis by saying that the original plan, if such it was, often became subordinated to other factors in the working out of it, Shakespeare being the inspired genius that he was. So Lear is an angry person who commits a gross injustice and suffers the consequences, paralleled by Gloucester's unjust treatment of Edgar. Gloucester failed to control his concupiscence, Lear his irascibility. Both of them undergo purification, reflecting the Christian view of the world as sinful, purgative, and blessed. The blessed aspect is represented by the saintly Cordelia, who forgives her wicked father and tries to save him. I would appreciate learning whether anyone has ever made a similar suggestion with regard to the correspondence between the seven plays and the seven cardinal vices. Roger Schmeeckle [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Derek Wood Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 21:57:41 -0900 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0563 Q: King Lear Have you read Lawrence Babb's "Elizabethan Malady." It's an old but very helpful book and helps understand what the Elizabethans understood by melancholy. If you have time to look at Burton's "Anatomy of Melancholy," you'll find it fascinating and helpful, but it's long. Lear certainly suffers from several kinds of melancholy as the Elizabethans understood it, that is an excess of black bile and a condition known as "melancholy adust." I don't agree with Schucking about his not being purified. I wouldn't sentimentalise "purified" but he understands an awful lot about human beings that he was insulated from earlier because of his powerful pampered cosseted existence. Best wishes Derek Wood. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Skovmand Date: Thursday, 15 May 1997 11:35:02 MET Subject: Re: SHK 8.0563 Q: King Lear King Lear is not a melancholy man - certainly not in the Renaissance humourous sense - from that point of view he is a choleric character. He is a victim of EARLY RETIREMENT SYNDROME - he's identified his person with his role of king, to such an extent that he is incapable of distinguishing between filial and dynastic relations, and insensitive to the consequences which the transfer of power and the division of the kingdom will have upon the persons involved. The play is Lear's ' reality therapy'. How's that for a ten second interpretation? Michael Skovmand University of Aarhus Denmark ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 22:51:36 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0567 Re: Ideology and Biology Comments: cc: fix@WS.BOWIESTATE.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0567. Thursday, 15 May 1997. [1] From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 18:50:34 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0562 Re: Ideology and Biology [2] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 23:41:34 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0562 Re: Ideology and Biology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean K. Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 18:50:34 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0562 Re: Ideology and Biology > As the man says, "_I_ am interested impartially in the truth. _You_ are > ideological." > > That's how a certain kind of argumentative game works, and that's the > game that Paul Hawkins has just played against a recent post of mine. > Nothing personal, but I don't see much point in playing that kind of > game. Some of the rest of us don't see much point in the kind of game you are playing, either. For what it's worth, I think that your comment, a little earlier on this thread, that "It's elephants all the way down" like Rorty's "It's society all the way down," is a variation on an old story related by (among others) Stephen Hawking. In the Hawking version, some great British physicist (Bertrand Russell, he implies) finishes a popular lecture and is challenged by an audience member who declares, "You've got it all wrong. The world is resting on the back of a tortoise." To the obvious follow-up-"What is the tortoise resting on?"-the unflappable audience member replies, "You're very clever, but it's tortoises all the way down." Plus ca change, as the French say, plus c'est la meme chose. The arguments for politics, society, elephants and tortoises all the way down share a similar, tautological structure: "Everything is X. By an _argumentum ad hominem_ I can disprove all statements that Y is not X by positing a further level of X underlying Y. It's X all the way down." [To reproduce the arguments for politics, elephants or what have you, just do a search and replace for 'X', on any word processor]. All are sophomoric arguments that amount to nothing more than declarations of creed. The writers of most creeds, however, (St. Athanasius is an exception) usually begin their statements with the words "I believe," whereas variations of the above argument remove the first-person speaking position altogether, turning the belief of the speaker into a statement of reality-egologically, Levinas might say. Of course there are reasons for doubting a language 'instinct', just as there are reasons for doubting any sort of universal called 'the political'. But Paul, unlike you, is raising his point as a possibility, which might subvert a totalizing structure, where you leap directly into dogma with 'it's elephants all the way down,' apparently doing your best to reduce all things to one, totalizing truth. Any possibilities which do not square with it must be dismissed as _prima facie_, ridiculous. I think this is what Paul meant by "ideological", rather than designating your favourite sub-species of tortoises. Cheers, Sean. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 23:41:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0562 Re: Ideology and Biology Robert Appelbaum has acknowledged that he's being ideological; I don't see how the Chomskyan position in this instance is ideological in the same way. This is very different than saying "you're ideological and I'm not." I may not even agree that Robert *is* being ideological: it may be as ridiculous of him to say that as that I am ideological. Reductions of ourselves may be as foolish as reductions of others. And perhaps we all can be so reduced. But even had I played the card Robert supposes, the game could still go on, because the proposition could have merit. The question is not whether I am influenced or shaped by ideology or whether Pinker has values. But does ideology compel my support for Pinker? And do Pinker's feelings for ordinary Joes require him to come to his conclusions about language, as Appelbaum's allegiance to constructivism requires certain conclusions? Elsewhere in his book (427-428), Pinker is quite clear that ethics and science cannot and should not be conflated, as Appelbaum implies they always are. Pinker would, I am sure, say that even if language were not innate, there would still be plenty of reasons to respect Joe. We don't need to dwell on this list on the intricacies of universal grammar, but of course the implications for our discussions of the existence of a language instinct are quite enormous, as earlier contributors have acknowledged. (Robert mentions that there are many good reasons for thinking that language is not innate, but he doesn't mention any: many of the more famous, including the hypothesis of linguistic determinism, Pinker refutes in detail) Pinker's final chapter is a good account of some of these implications. He quotes Jerry Fodor: "relativism is very probably false. What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. . . . [I]n cognitive psychology the claim that there is a fixed structure of human nature traditionally takes the form of an insistence on the heterogeneity of cognitive mechanisms and the rigidity of the cognitive architecture that effects their encapsulation." Pinker continues, "Modern intellectual life is suffused with a relativism that denies that there is such a thing as a universal human nature, and the existence of a language instinct in any form challenges that denial" (405). I have no great interest in whichever side turns out to be right. Paul Hawkins ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 22:53:27 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0568 Q: The Malone Society Comments: cc: fix@WS.BOWIESTATE.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0568. Thursday, 15 May 1997. From: Jasson Minadakis Date: Thursday, 15 May 1997 09:57:23 Subject: Malone Society SHAKESPERians: I was wondering in anyone had a e-mail address for the Malone Society. I am looking for a workable copy of SIR THOMAS MORE for a Staged Reading Series with the Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival in 97-98 and I understand that they have a copy. Thanks for your assistance. Jasson Minadakis Executive Director, CSF ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 22:59:34 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0569 Re: Norton Ed.; Peripety; Muisc from His Time Comments: cc: fix@WS.BOWIESTATE.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0569. Thursday, 15 May 1997. [1] From: John Velz Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 14:02:32 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Norton Shak. [2] From: John Velz Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 17:31:33 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Peripety [3] From: Juul Muller-van Santen Date: Thursday, 15 May 1997 17:15:52 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0561 Music to Shakespeare Songs from His Time [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 14:02:32 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Norton Shak. It is out. I got a copy at Norton book display at SAA convention in late March. Cheers John [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 17:31:33 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Peripety Jeff Barker: I talked of peripety in a paper at Kalamazoo last Sunday. Peripety I see as a change in the direction the action is going. If it comes early enough in a play the characters can undergo anagnorisis and fit comedically into the newly discovered tide of times. But if the peripety is irreversible and the anagnorisis comes too late, then we get tragedy, or something like it. There is a good discussion of peripety in the earliest English drama; see O.B. Hardison *Christian Rite and Christian Drama in the Middle Ages* (1965 ca.) Ch. I, or elsewhere very early in the book. Christians think of Christ's resurrection as a comedic peripety (death turns toward life). This is why the history of the world is V-shaped, the downslope of the V representing the Old Testament and the vertex at the bottom of the V standing for the point at which history changes with the resurrection. That radical turnaround is the peripety. Mystery Cycles naturally are V shaped because the Bible is, and morality and saints' plays also are V-shaped. No wonder then that Shak. having seen Cycles in Coventry as a child, would think that a radical turnaround from death to life was dramatic. See the structure of *Measure for Measure*, for instance. "But one moment good sister" Act III sc. i. Isabella turns to listen to the Friar and from then on a play that had been driving teleologically toward the choppingblock and the lustful bed turns toward possibility and repentance and reunion. I think Sh. got this view of peripety from the Bible (note that title is from Sermon on the Mt. in Mark IV Matt. VII & Luke VI). I used to ask my students in class disc. to identify for me the peripety in *The Winter's Tale*. Three poss. answers would come up, and I would have the privilege of pointing out that all were correct, but that each of them asked for a different reading of the play. If, for example the peripety is "There is no truth in the oracle; let the sessions proceed" Then the play is about Leontes. If the peripety is Time's signalling of a 16 yr gap in 60% of the way through the action, then the theme of time is all-important in the play as in Sh.'s source "Pandosto: Or The Triumph of Time". If the peripety is when the shepherd exclaims to his son "Thou met'st with things dying; I with things newborn" then the tone shifts as the peripety is met and we go from a play of death and loss and defiance of the gods to a play of life and reunion and loving relationship. Character, theme, tone; each hasits turning point in the play. More than enough said. Cheers. John Velz [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juul Muller-van Santen Date: Thursday, 15 May 1997 17:15:52 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0561 Music to Shakespeare Songs from His Time The best place to find music to Shakespeare is in the five-volume *A Shakespeare Music Catalogue* by Bryan Gooch and David Thatcher, published by Oxford University Press (Clarendon) in 1991 and remaindered by OUP itself last year. It is far and away the best sourcebook available. I have been watching for references to music of Shakespeare's time and do not so much wonder why it has not been mentioned "too", but why anyone would want to hear the poetry set to music from any other time? A composer who hasn't got Shakespeare's own sound in his/her mind, will usually produce anachronistic music (Benjamin Britten is a rare exception: he knew the Elizabethan conventions). I am not talking about music inspired by the poetry, but actual settings, of course. Julie Muller Hogeschool Holland Amsterdam ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 23:18:41 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.BowieState.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0570 The LISTSERV Upgrade and Sendmail Problem Comments: cc: fix@WS.BOWIESTATE.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0570. Thursday, 15 May 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, May 15, 1997 Subject: The LISTSERV Upgrade and Sendmail Problem Dear SHAKSPEReans, It took a few days to figure it out, but the upgrade to LISTSERV 1.8c with its handy search function was incompatible with the mailer I was using on the SUN workstation that is SHAKSPER's server. As a result, there have been really strange happenings going on. Mail that has been sent to editor@ws.BowieState.edu has been delivered to other members. All of the AOL accounts appear not to have received mail since the upgrade about two weeks ago. Also, mail was not being received at many other accounts with no pattern that could have assisted us in solving the problem. The other day we came up with a temporary fix to get mail to most of those who have been cut off. Tomorrow we install the latest version of Sendmail on the Sun. We will also probably need to recompile and configure LISTSERV. These are major undertaking. I hope that all will go smoothly, and SHAKSPER will be back in service after a several hours hiatus, but I would not count on it. After I am back in business(whenever that may be), I'll send out another message with instructions for those who missed out on the past two weeks of discussions and who did not get the files I send a few days ago. If you have been the recipient of any of these bizarre mailings or if you have been receiving two copies of digests since the temporary fix, your trials should soon be over. Thanks for your patience. Wish us luck, Hardy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 13:56:15 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0571 New Sendmail in Place MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0571. Friday, 16 May 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, May 16, 1997 Subject: New Sendmail in Place Dear SHAKSPEReans, Sendmail has been upgraded, but the only way we will be able to tell if LISTSERV is operating properly is by sending out digests and examining the error messages. If you have not received mail in the past two weeks, please send the following commands to listserv@ws.BowieState.edu: GET SHAKSPER LOG9705A GET SHAKSPER LOG9705B GET SHAKSPER LOG9705C I also would appreciate it if a few folks with AOL accounts and some of you who did not receive mail until the temporary fix was in place a few days ago, would reply to let me know if you have received this message. Thanks for your patience, Hardy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 13:58:07 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0572 Re: Music/Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0572. Friday, 16 May 1997. [1] From: David Mycoff Date: Thursday, 15 May 1997 19:01:22 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Music/Shakespeare [2] From: David Mycoff Date: Friday, 16 May 1997 10:06:45 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Music for Shakespeare [3] From: John Drakakis Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 23:49:09 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0561 Music to Shakespeare Songs from His Time [4] From: Stuart Manger Date: Thursday, 15 May 1997 20:27:35 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0561 Music to Shakespeare Songs from His Time [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Mycoff Date: Thursday, 15 May 1997 19:01:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Music/Shakespeare I'm responding to the query about settings by Shakespeare's contemporaries. Oxford University Press advertises a five-volume work, A SHAKESPEARE MUSIC CATALOGUE, ed. Bryan N.S. Gooch and David Thatcher. 1991. I've not been able to see this source, but surely other list members have and can comment on its usefulness. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Mycoff Date: Friday, 16 May 1997 10:06:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Music for Shakespeare In a helpful response to the query about settings by Shakespeare's contemporaries, Juul Muller-van Santen raises an interesting question about "anachronistic music": why would anyone want to hear Shakespeare's poetry set to music from any other time? I'm in the midst of exam-grading, and so I must be brief, but a few thoughts occur that I suspect many share. First, I don't see how anachronism in music is any more problematic than anachronism in costuming or scene design, as long as the music makes sense in the context of the total production. Second, just as the history of critical responses to and stage productions of Shakespeare makes interesting cultural history, so the history of musical responses, interpretations, or appropriations. Third, whenever we read and interpret Shakespeare's text or produce it for the theatre, we are staging an encounter between the visions and sensibilities that produced the text and transmitted it and our own visions and sensibilities, and this encounter inevitably involves anachronism, even when we attempt to reconstruct something that has more or less claim to be called original or period interpretation or performance. It seems to me that the tensions between what is old, alien, and past and what is our own are part of the fascination of interpretation and performance. And it seems to me that part of the value-educational, aesthetic, ideological, and spiritual-of interpretation and performance issues from those tensions. I suppose that I have what Brecht called "culinary tastes" in music, so I am more moved by Finzi's settings than by Britten's, though I find Britten's more intellectually challenging. Both educate my response to Shakespeare's language, however. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Wednesday, 14 May 1997 23:49:09 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0561 Music to Shakespeare Songs from His Time Dire Straits: Romeo and Juliet Spin Doctors: Cleopatra's Cat Cole Porter: Brush up Your Shakespeare Cheers, John Drakakis [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Manger Date: Thursday, 15 May 1997 20:27:35 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0561 Music to Shakespeare Songs from His Time In UK, there is a very respected jazz composer and band leader called John Dankworth. His wife is the seraphic Cleo Laine, quite one of the most miraculous voices of our time. He wrote for her a series of settings of Shakespeare Sonnets. Voice, lively mixed instrumental backings / arrangements. Varieties of tempo, some exquisitely sensitive to the rhythms and subtleties of the text. I am afraid that I do not own mine now, and I am not sure under what flag it will be flying in US. Definitely worth pursuing. And unusual too. Peggy Lee's 'Fever' has a wonderfully irreverent verse about Romeo and Juliet? Stuart Manger ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 14:11:17 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0573 Q: Productions of _Antony & Cleopatra_ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0573. Friday, 16 May 1997. From: Don Weingust Date: Thursday, 15 May 1997 22:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Q: Productions of _Antony & Cleopatra_ In-Reply-To: <337BCC27.3233@ws.BowieState.edu> Dear SHAKSPERians, For his work in progress, _The Masks of Antony & Cleopatra_, Professor Marvin Rosenberg would appreciate hearing of any upcoming productions. Please reply off-list to weingust@uclink.berkeley.edu. Many thanks, Don Weingust University of California, Berkeley ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 14:18:57 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0574 Re: Stoic Shakespeare; King Lear MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0574. Friday, 16 May 1997. [1] From: Ron Ward Date: Friday, 16 May 1997 11:16:53 +1200 (NZST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0555 Stoic Shakespeare [2] From: Stuart Manger Date: Thursday, 15 May 1997 20:37:12 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0563 Q: King Lear [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Ward Date: Friday, 16 May 1997 11:16:53 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0555 Stoic Shakespeare To Ben Schneider's discusion of S morality: Some threatening questions to any analysis of S's "morality": Can we assume any stereotype of Elizabethan morality will be relevant? Are we of the opinion that S's "morality" followed or even addressed stereotypes of the day? Do we distinguish between social morality (defined by human law and custom} and an absolute morality which some believe lies above that? If we go by internal evidence of the plays etc. will we not easily confuse the views of the character with those of the author? Do we not assume that S had a "moral" message to convey? S was the supreme observer of humanity and could he not have let the doings of humanity tell its own tale? Did he have an axe to grind? [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Manger Date: Thursday, 15 May 1997 20:37:12 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0563 Q: King Lear Do you mean 'melancholy' in the Burtonian sense? Is his path predictable? Probably yes. BUT is this a problem? Is Lear's actual madness all that important? That he goes mad is, that we see cause and motive, yes, that he comes out of it and sees some consequences, yes, that he learns some important truths through it - reason in madness-yes, BUT the actual pathology of the madness a useful study? Imagery of the mad scenes is vitally important, and what Lear says to Gloucester in those clinically bleak chilly beach scenes (see the Scofield /Brook film of this) is possibly the most crucial stuff he speaks in the whole play. So, mad?? Would Shak's definitions of madness be at all helpful or even acceptable to us today? for an age that paid to see the mad exercise in Bedlam, descriptions and diagnoses of madness are relative, perhaps? I am reminded of the spectrum of madness in Hamlet, and the wonderful shrug of shoulder in the Gravedigger's response to Hamlet that he was mad 'even with losing his wits'. I think you have a true minefield here, but a terrifically exciting one. A hand-grenade to close: how about thinking through the notion that Lear ISN'T actually made ever in the play? Not in our terms at all? Caused a stir in my classes. My students think I am totally ...... mad for suggesting such an idea? Stuart Manger ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 14:41:25 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0576 For Shakespeare Data Bank Associates MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0576. Friday, 16 May 1997. From: Louis Marder Date: Thursday, May 15, 1997 Subject: Shakespeare Data Bank Associates Dear SDB Associates. I have received your inquiries for which many thanks. Because I am having computer problems, I have asked Hardy Cook of SHAKSPER to send you a note saying that I will be in touch with all of you in the very near future. Please maintain your enthusiasm for the project. If you want to "write" me again to let me know that you have received this message, I will be much obliged. We have great things to do. Louis Marder, avon4@juno.com. Thank you very much. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 14:32:59 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0575 Re: Malone Society; Norton CD-ROM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0575. Friday, 16 May 1997. [1] From: John Velz Date: Friday, 16 May 1997 11:03:54 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Malone Society [2] From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Thursday, 15 May 1997 20:55:55 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0500 Re: NORTON [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Friday, 16 May 1997 11:03:54 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Malone Society >I was wondering in anyone had a e-mail address for the Malone Society. >I am looking for a workable copy of SIR THOMAS MORE for a Staged Reading >Series with the Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival in 97-98 and I >understand that they have a copy. tber@music.stlawu.edu tber is for Tom Berger, the Honorary Treasurer for the U.S.A. Cheers JWV [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Thursday, 15 May 1997 20:55:55 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0500 Re: NORTON William Proctor William and others Yes I do have a(new) MAC Performa 6360. I've always been an Apple user and I'm still happy with its ease for the computer klutzs like me. My very computer literate husband who also is a MAC fan (he uses many brands of computer) says the CD is very demanding requiring Windows 95 and other bells and whistles . I can get him to be more specific if SHAKSPEAREANS wish. The instructions beside me say that "the Windows version is still in development : rather it is a slide-show of selected view of the program... the Macintosh sampler does provide the functional NSW program" - which would defeat for example the point of having a sound clip of Purcell's opera for MND. I have not fully explored the CD-ROM but will do so sooner than planned if others want more details. I don't check my email daily right now but do pull it at least twice a week. Mary Jane Miller Dept. of Film Studies, Dramatic and Visual Arts Brock University ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 09:15:05 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0577 Assorted Questions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0577. Monday, 19 May 1997. [1] From: John Cox Date: Friday, 16 May 1997 12:15:18 -0500 (EST) Subj: Sinking on Stage [2] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Sunday, 18 May 1997 18:02:08 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0572 Re: Music/Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cox Date: Friday, 16 May 1997 12:15:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Sinking on Stage Here is a question for theater historians. In Thomas Heywood's *The Silver Age* (about 1611), the verb "sink" is used several times as a stage direction, or an implicit stage direction. Sometimes it's a reflexive verb ("I sink myself") when a character is preparing to enter "hell." Clearly the reference is to descending beneath the stage, but why "sink"? That is, what mechanism might have made it possible for an actor to "sink" rather than jump into a trap or climb down a ladder? I can picture this happening easily with a hydraulic mechanism, but I can't imagine how it might happened on the amphitheater stage. Any suggestions? Any parallels from other plays? John Cox [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Sunday, 18 May 1997 18:02:08 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0572 Re: Music/Shakespeare Is there anything on MIDI? That would be very good, either on the internet or on the Norton CD-ROM. Speaking of the Norton CD-ROM, I was today looking at the *Norton Shakespeare* and noticed that they used the Oxford Shakespeare (Taylor et Wells ed., 1986) as their base text, which they annotated. Why the Oxford Shakespeare? Does anyone here know? Speaking of making things available on the internet, is there any stylometry program on the internet for general consumption? When is SHAXICON '97 coming out on the internet? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 09:26:08 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0579 Re: Music/Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0579. Monday, 19 May 1997. [1] From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Saturday, 17 May 1997 04:46:57 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0572 Re: Music/Shakespeare [2] From: Ivan Fuller Date: Saturday, 17 May 1997 20:15:33 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0572 Re: Music/Shakespeare [3] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Sunday, 18 May 1997 17:34:18 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0572 Re: Music/Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Saturday, 17 May 1997 04:46:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0572 Re: Music/Shakespeare Is the rock group called The Darling Buds still around? ---Chris Stroffolino [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Fuller Date: Saturday, 17 May 1997 20:15:33 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0572 Re: Music/Shakespeare Cleo Laine's release "Wordsongs" include many of Shakespeare's "songs" set to jazz. It also has Cleo singing "The Complete Works of Shakespeare" and "The Dunsinane Blues." Lots of fun! Ivan Fuller, Chair Communication & Theatre Dept. Augustana College [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Sunday, 18 May 1997 17:34:18 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0572 Re: Music/Shakespeare > I'm responding to the query about settings by Shakespeare's > contemporaries. Oxford University Press advertises a five-volume work, > A SHAKESPEARE MUSIC CATALOGUE, ed. Bryan N.S. Gooch and David > Thatcher. > 1991. I've not been able to see this source, but surely other list > members have and can comment on its usefulness. Is this just a catalogue, or does it actually have the settings? From the title is seems to be a catalogue, but if it's five volumes, it must have *something* besides titles and composers. By the way: Today is my birthday. (Not relevent at all, but I was thinking that if the *Shakespeare Music Catalogue* had settings, I might want it as a birthday present.) This is a catalogue of all pre-1640 SHAKSPERian musical settings I can think of off the top of my head (many of them I can only *think* of: I can't recall the tune at all): "It Was a Lover and His Lass" Thomas Morley "O Mistress Mine" Thomas Morley "O Mistress Mine" William Byrd "Lawn as White as Snow" John Wilson [of "Iacke Wilson" fame] "Full Fathom Five" Robert Johnson "Where the Bee Sucks" Robert Johnson Robert Downes ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 09:27:42 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0578 Re: Peripety in WT; The Malone Society MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0578. Monday, 19 May 1997. [1] From: Julie Blumenthal Date: Friday, 16 May 1997 15:17:03 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Peripety in WT [2] From: John V Robinson Date: Friday, 16 May 1997 18:32:16 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0568 Q: The Malone Society [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julie Blumenthal Date: Friday, 16 May 1997 15:17:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Peripety in WT John - - What would you (or anyone else, for that matter!) say to the idea of Leontes' peripety occurring not at "There is no truth at all in the oracle" (which I would posit causes no change in the movement of the play, as it's what he's been leading up to thus far), but at "Apollo, pardon my great profaneness 'gainst thine oracle," where I see L's first real change of heart, which sets on the second and third sections of the play? Cheers, Julie Blumenthal [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John V Robinson Date: Friday, 16 May 1997 18:32:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0568 Q: The Malone Society Speaking of the Malone Society. I noticed some members had listed membership in the Malone Society in their Bios. What is it? Where is it? How can I join? Should I join? Thanks John V Robinson ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 09:16:01 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0580 Qs: Bad Hamlet Line; London Housing; Signature MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0580. Tuesday, 20 May 1997. [1] From: Ron Dwelle Date: Monday, 19 May 1997 10:45:29 -0400 Subj: Bad Hamlet Line [2] From: Jean Peterson Date: Monday, 19 May 1997 11:17:29 +0200 Subj: London Housing [3] From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Monday, 19 May 1997 20:10:16 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Signature [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Dwelle Date: Monday, 19 May 1997 10:45:29 -0400 Subject: Bad Hamlet Line I don't "get" how the line "My father-methinks I see my father" (I, ii, 184) works in the play. It seems too blatant, or too slapstick, or too weakly ironic, or too something to fit in with the character of Hamlet or the situation. I notice that it is also frequently cut in productions. Can this line be "played" in a reasonable way? [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean Peterson Date: Monday, 19 May 1997 11:17:29 +0200 Subject: London Housing I know this is a question that gets floated on this list quite frequently, but I hope SHAKSPERIANS won't mind the repetition: I'm looking for somewhat long-term accommodations (Most of Sept., Oct., and November) in London for the Fall-can anyone advise me about (furnished) flats available for let or sublet, or lists or agencies I might consult? A B&B with reasonable long-term rates would also be agreeable. You can reply privately to me. With thanks! Jean Peterson [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Monday, 19 May 1997 20:10:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Signature Does anyone know where I can get a Wm Shakespeare signature for my MAC? A student of mine had it on one of her Print Shops. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 09:21:43 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0581 Re: Staging Sinking MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0581. Tuesday, 20 May 1997. [1] From: Melissa Aaron Date: Monday, 19 May 1997 08:53:25 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0577 Assorted Questions [2] From: Keith Richards Date: Monday, 19 May 1997 12:22:17 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0577 Staging of _The Silver Age_ [3] From: Michael Friedman Date: Monday, 19 May 1997 15:24:54 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0577 Assorted Questions [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Monday, 19 May 1997 08:53:25 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0577 Assorted Questions It's possible to do "sinking" without hydraulics-all you need is a pulley mechanism and several assistants holding up the spot on stage until it's ready to go. The stage would have to be high up enough to accommodate these people, but then it would also have to be high enough to allow a person to disappear underneath. Which reminds me of a story about Cesare Siepi playing Don Giovanni. He was supposed to sink down into Hell in the final scene, but the pulley mechanism got stuck. After several false starts, he remained with his head and shoulders sticking up from the floor. And from the gods, a voice cried "God be praised! Hell is full!" Melissa A. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith Richards Date: Monday, 19 May 1997 12:22:17 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0577 Staging of _The Silver Age_ >what mechanism might have made it possible for an > actor to "sink" rather than jump into a trap or climb down a ladder? I > can picture this happening easily with a hydraulic mechanism, but I > can't imagine how it might happened on the amphitheater stage. Any > suggestions? Any parallels from other plays? I'm almost certain you'll find the answer to your question in G.F. Reynold's _The Staging of Elizabethan Plays at the Red Bull Theatre_ (1940). Unfortunately I don't have it with me at the time. In it Reynold's considers the mechanics of staging for as many Red Bull plays as he can firmly attribute to that theatre (_The Silver Age_ is one). [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Monday, 19 May 1997 15:24:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0577 Assorted Questions The index to Alan Dessen's *Recovering Shakespeare's Theatrical Vocabulary* (1995) notes a discussion of "sinking through a trap-door" on pages 203, 264-5. Michael Friedman University of Scranton ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 09:29:58 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0582 Re: Melancholy and Capital Sins; Peripety; Music/Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0582. Tuesday, 20 May 1997. [1] From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Monday, 19 May 1997 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Melancholy and Capital Sins [2] From: Jeff Barker Date: Monday, 19 May 1997 16:39:33 CST Subj: Peripety [3] From: Juul Muller-van Santen Date: Tuesday, 20 May 1997 12:52:09 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0579 Re: Music/Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Monday, 19 May 1997 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Melancholy and Capital Sins Self-correction. In a previous message, suggesting a correspondence between Shakespeare's seven mature "tragedies" and the seven capital sins, I mistakenly attributed melancholy to Hamlet. Hamlet is, of course, a melancholic person, but the capital sin with which he should be identified was meant to be acedia (sloth), not melancholy. Roger Schmeeckle [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Barker Date: Monday, 19 May 1997 16:39:33 CST Subject: Peripety John Velz writes: > I used to ask my students in class disc. to identify for me the > peripety in *The Winter's Tale*. Three poss. answers would come up, and > I would have the privilege of pointing out that all were correct, but > that each of them asked for a different reading of the play. If, for > example the peripety is "There is no truth in the oracle; let the > sessions proceed" Then the play is about Leontes. If the peripety is > Time's signalling of a 16 yr gap in 60% of the way through the action, > then the theme of time is all-important in the play as in Sh.'s source > "Pandosto: Or The Triumph of Time". If the peripety is when the > shepherd exclaims to his son "Thou met'st with things dying; I with > things newborn" then the tone shifts as the peripety is met and we go > from a play of death and loss and defiance of the gods to a play of > life... I find the concept of peripety to be fascinating, which is why I'm hoping that John, Julie Blumenthal, and others will keep up this thread for a bit. I currently have an understanding of peripety that doesn't fit, John, with your examples. I returned to Aristotle's POETICS and looked at his examples. His examples include the motivation of the character. The reversal is a reversal of what that character expected. Aristotle's first example of what he means by peripety is from OEDIPUS. The messenger arrives "to cheer Oedipus and free him from his alarms." He tells Oedipus about the mixup in parents. He expects Oedipus to be pleased. Instead he has ruined Oedipus. Peripety. Back to WINTER'S TALE. In your second example (Time) and third example (Shepherd) the character's goals (IF they can be found) play little role in any peripety that may or may not be present. In your first example, Leontes' goal (justice for himself and his son) is not yet reversed, since he, at that point in the scene is denying the truth of the Oracle. The anagnorisis is incomplete since even though the Oracle is revealed, the revelation is rejected. Julie Blementhal suggests in a later post that we need to wait until Leontes' "Apollo's angry" to find the peripety. Yep. The discovery of the oracle is affirmed by that line. Why? Because Leontes has just been told that the opposite of his intent has been achieved: his son is dead. He hoped to achieve justice for himself and his son by casting aside his wife and daughter, and now he has lost his son. Peripety. But wait. His pursuit of justice continues; he merely turns the sword of justice upon himself. It is only until Hermiones' "resurrection" that Leontes' pursuit of justice results in the opposite: his wife and daughter are restored to him, and he receives mercy rather than justice. Peripety. Now, have I misunderstood Aristotle? Jeff Barker Northwestern College, Orange City, Iowa P.S. Thanks, John, by the way, for the tip about the Harbison book. I have it on order, in hopes that I can understand more about peripety - particularly as it relates to my work as a playwright. By the by, I just came upon an essay by Max Anderson in which he boils the crafting of a plot down to this: "A play should lead up to....a discovery by the leading character which has an indelible effect on his thought and emotion and completely alters his course of action." Anagnorisis and peripety, no? [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juul Muller-van Santen Date: Tuesday, 20 May 1997 12:52:09 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0579 Re: Music/Shakespeare In answer to Gabriel Wasserman, the Gooch and Thatcher *Shakespeare Music Catalogue* is just a catalogue, I'm afraid, even if it has five volumes. It lists all the music from Shakespeare's day until the late 1980's and does this is various ways: by play, by composer etc. There are also very useful comments about the way settings were presented, including for example the 17th and 18th century Shakespeare adaptations which were often much more musical than the originals. The list of contemporary composers you offer includes the Oxford Professor of Music, John Wilson. You add "of Iacke Wilson fame", but as far as I know this is speculative. Or has someone finally PROVED it? That would be lovely. David Mycoff notes that anachronism in music is no more problematic than anachronism in costuming or design. Very true. I feel uncomfortable with both. Of course we can never completely recapture the past, but some of us are less interested in the tensions between past and present, for which I read "our own sensibility" than in understanding what the greatest playwright we know actually meant to put across the footlights (if there were any). I am not sure my response to Shakespeare's language can be "educated" by references to the here and now. On the contrary, I know modern interpretations often make us miss points Shakespeare was making. Two examples will suffice here: the doubleness of the boy-plays-girl-plays-boy acts in several comedies and the significance of Osric's hat, so often missing from modern HAMLETs, as discussed by Andrew Gurr. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 09:43:23 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0583 Re: Bad Hamlet Line MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0583. Wednesday, 21 May 1997. [1] From: Roy Flannagan Date: Tuesday, 20 May 1997 10:08:44 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0580 Qs: Bad Hamlet Line [2] From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Tuesday, 20 May 1997 22:34:30 -0400 Subj: Hamlet "My father" [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roy Flannagan Date: Tuesday, 20 May 1997 10:08:44 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0580 Qs: Bad Hamlet Line >I don't "get" how the line "My father-methinks I see my father" (I, ii, >184) works in the play. It seems too blatant, or too slapstick, or too >weakly ironic, or too something to fit in with the character of Hamlet >or the situation. I notice that it is also frequently cut in >productions. > >Can this line be "played" in a reasonable way? I have heard it and seen it played very plausibly. Hamlet says he sees his father, which surprises Horatio and perhaps spooks him (expecting, perhaps, a ghost). Then Hamlet humanely clarifies the image for Horatio, saying that it is in his mind's eye that he sees his father. No problem, no lack of reason. The line should be allowed, not cut. Roy Flannagan (working from memory of Gielgud and Jacobi, among others) [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Tuesday, 20 May 1997 22:34:30 -0400 Subject: Hamlet "My father" You might try William RICHARDSON, re this whole speech. On 372, Richardson says, "Having expressed himself strongly [in 370-1], and possessing a delicate sense of propriety, [Hamlet] thinks it necessary to explain the cause. About to preface it with an account of his father, he mentions him: 'My father-' "The thought strikes his mind with a sudden and powerful impulse: he pauses: forgets his intention of explaining himself to < Horatio: the image of his father possesses him; and, by the most solemn and striking apostrophe that poet ever invented, he impresses it on his audience." [quotes remainder of 372-4]. A Philosophical Analysis and Illustration of some of Shakespeare's Remarkable Characters. A New Edition, Corrected (earlier one was 1774 ) London: J. Murray. 1780. Reprinted AMS 1966. LibC PR2989 R6 1966. Cheers, Bernice W. Kliman ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 09:53:27 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0584 Re: Music/Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0584. Wednesday, 21 May 1997. [1] From: Moray McConnachie Date: Tuesday, 20 May 1997 15:10:23 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0572 Re: Music/Shakespeare [2] From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 20 May 1997 16:30:50 GMT Subj: Re: Shakespeare and Music [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Moray McConnachie Date: Tuesday, 20 May 1997 15:10:23 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0572 Re: Music/Shakespeare I am slightly puzzled by Gabriel's desire for MIDI versions, since they of necessity exclude the text! However, I am prepared to contribute one if he really wants it, once I get back home among my music books. Anyone with a web site will be welcome to put it on. For those interested in John Dankworth's settings of Shakespeare songs, they will be performed in London's Royal Albert Hall as part of the BBC Proms on Friday, 29th August, 1997 at 7.30 p.m. The singer will be Cleo Laine (surprise!). Also performed will be some Gershwin and Ellington stuff and a Dankworth premiere. Playing will be the Dankworth sextet, the BBC Big Band and the BBC Concert Orchestra, all conducted by Dankworth himself. Tickets available through the Proms special booking system (buy a copy of the Proms guide) from 21st May, public booking begins 16th June: fax (+44 or 0) 171 225 0439: ordinary phone (+44 / 0) 171 589 8212, or by post BBC Proms Ticket Shop, Royal Albert Hall, London SW7 2AP, UK. Tickets for this concert are between 5.00 sterling and 20.00 sterling (n.b. I do not recommend the Choir seats for a concert of this intimate kind), or, standing, on the night, 3.00 per person. Yours, Moray McConnachie [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 20 May 1997 16:30:50 GMT Subject: Re: Shakespeare and Music The Gooch and Thatcher catalogue is both enormously useful and intensely irritating. It records 'ghost' upon 'ghost' - incidental music to performances whose existence is inferred from theatrical programmes, but which no longer exist, at least in a recoverable form. It's a catalgoue which would benefit enormously from being mounted on a searchable data-base; at the moment it is extremely time-consuming and tedious, even with a whole volume of indexes, to make correlations across different plays. I myself think the interesting questions about music for Shakespeare plays are not so much those of 'authenticity', but rather concern the very different dynamics that different kinds of music, and different assumptions about what music can be permitted to do, create in the relationship between audience and performance. It's remarkable to me that in most performance histories of individual plays we hear a good deal about design, and about actors and their performances, but very little about the music. I'm currently working on the history of music for The Tempest, and find fascinating, for example, the fact that Benson's early twentieth -century performances (and most of us know the photograph of him dressed in shaggy fur and holding a fish) were prefaced by a full symphony orchestra and chorus performing Haydn's 'The Tempest' (a work which has nothing to do with Shakespeare's play), and that a good deal of the music during the play was derived from a German musical adaptation of the play, with the words translated back into English. What kind of theatrical experience did this offer? So too, it is, I think, interesting to observe that throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, though fashions in performance changed markedly, that Arne's settings of Ariel's songs seem to have held sway as the accepted and expected musical realisation of them. What does it do to the representation of the character of Ariel that these songs are turned into extended arias? And so one could go on...... David Lindley University of Leeds ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 10:06:56 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0585 Going to Galway, Dublin, Brighton, and London MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0585. Wednesday, 21 May 1997. From: G. L. Horton Date: Tuesday, 20 May 1997 10:24:50 Subject: Going to Galway, Dublin, Brighton, and London. I will be attending the Forth International Women Playwrights Conference in Galway June 22-29th, where an excerpt from my play "Inquest" will be part of the conference program. I'm planning to sight-see in Dublin immediately before or after the Conference, visit a playwright friend who lives in Brighton, and then spend at least the first week of July in London. I welcome advice from anyone who knows how to manage inspirational experience on a Starving Artist budget, and I'd be delighted to meet fellow SHAKPERians for gossip and inexpensive playgoing. I want to see Shakespeare, of course: but my other interest is new plays-plays where the words take precedence over spectacle, and particularly plays by, about, and/or directed by women. >I don't "get" how the line "My father-methinks I see my father" (I, ii, >184) works in the play. It seems too blatant, or too slapstick, or too >weakly ironic, or too something to fit in with the character of Hamlet >or the situation. I notice that it is also frequently cut in >productions. I hadn't noticed this-it was certainly in the 2 most recent "Hamlet's I've seen, and posed no particular problem. I'd say the playing of the "moment" is up to Horatio: it's his short "Where?" that's difficult, because while it conveys Horatio's sudden notion that the ghost has appeared to Hamlet, too, it also sets up Hamlet's response "in my mind's eye"; which can carry the implication that Hamlet knows that there are (already) rumors that he is deranged by grief and delusional. Too big a "take" and the response is smothered by laughter. >Can this line be "played" in a reasonable way? I thought it went very well in K.B.'s film. G.L.Horton -- Newton, MA, USA ghorton@tiac.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 10:12:47 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0586 Re: Staging Sinking: Deadly Sins MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0586. Wednesday, 21 May 1997. [1] From: Andrew Gurr Date: Wednesday, 21 May 1997 10:23:41 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0581 Re: Staging Sinking [2] From: David Evett Date: Tuesday, 20 May 1997 15:01 ET Subj: SHK 8.0566 Re: King Lear [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Gurr Date: Wednesday, 21 May 1997 10:23:41 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0581 Re: Staging Sinking Macbeth, when seeing the witches for the second time, asks "Why sinks that cauldron?" He's presumably registering an action with the trapdoor that some spectators might not have been able to see because of the crowd of witches. The Globe in 1606 must have had a device to lower things down the trap fairly slowly. It implies, among other things, that if there was a stage machine for winching objects up or down, the trap door or doors must have opened upwards, to give the machinery space to be worked. An understage platform with variable levels would allow the trap to be used for Juliet's tomb, but would inhibit the Hamlet ghost making a rapid entry or exit. Roll on the guesswork. Andrew Gurr. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Tuesday, 20 May 1997 15:01 ET Subject: SHK 8.0566 Re: King Lear As to R. Schmeekler on tragedy, the deadly sins, and gluttony, how about the composite Tragedy of Sir John Falstaff (the Gula Archipelago), comprising the relevant scenes from 1H4, 2H4, and H5; I think Orson Welles noticed this, too. Hungrily, Dave Evett========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 09:51:32 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0587 Re: Staging Sinking MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0587. Thursday, 22 May 1997. [1] From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 21 May 1997 11:29:24 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0586 Re: Staging Sinking [2] From: Jerry Bangham Date: Wednesday, 21 May 1997 18:37:49 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0586 Re: Staging Sinking [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 21 May 1997 11:29:24 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0586 Re: Staging Sinking I believe that great Italian invention, the Star Trap, was used somewhere in Renaissance London. It was so called because of its iris-like construction that closed in upon itself, was made of thick enough leather to support human weight, and actors could be very quickly propelled upwards through and above it, so that ground closed beneath their feet. Their propulsion was effected by a spring on which they stood. If this be myth, and upon some authority so proved, I'll stop telling my classes about it, as I've long since forgotten its source. Harry Hill [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Bangham Date: Wednesday, 21 May 1997 18:37:49 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0586 Re: Staging Sinking >It implies, among other things, that >if there was a stage machine for winching objects up or down, the trap >door or doors must have opened upwards, to give the machinery space to >be worked. I'd think that it would be possible to have two doors that could drop. A trap mechanism could then be moved in. As I write this, it occurs to me that this would work lot better to lower something than to raise it since the top of the trap would fill the opening if the trap were up, but you'd have a hole when it was down. By the 19th century, this problem had been well solved. I suppose that the Elizabethans may have figured this out also. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 09:57:58 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0588 Re: Bad Lines; Music; Going to . . . MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0588. Thursday, 22 May 1997. [1] From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 21 May 1997 10:15:14 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0583 Re: Bad Hamlet Line [2] From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 21 May 1997 10:20:55 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0584 Re: Music/Shakespeare [3] From: Sarah Werner Date: Wednesday, 21 May 1997 11:27:57 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0585 Going to Galway, Dublin, Brighton, and London [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 21 May 1997 10:15:14 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0583 Re: Bad Hamlet Line Bernice Kliman's nice explanation reminds us of one of Harold Bloom's best points, that in Shakespeare we have living consciousness in characters who are aware of what they think and say and can literally change their minds in the midst of a thought or statement. This is something the stage inheritors of Lee Strasberg find rather difficult, so intent do they appear to be on momentary `intentions' that last too long and cannot admit of rapid motiveless motivation. Harry Hill [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 21 May 1997 10:20:55 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0584 Re: Music/Shakespeare In the days of the pit trio or quartet, which was a theatrical given of my youth, when Wolfit brought the curtain down on the first "act" of LEAR, the violin, cello & piano at His Majesty's Theatre [a lovely 19th.Century velvet and gilt house] swung gently into "It was Only Fascination, You Know" and the ice-cream ladies started along the isles. We were pretty good at suspending disbelief as we weren't part of a society that spelled art with a capital A. Harry Hill [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Werner Date: Wednesday, 21 May 1997 11:27:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0585 Going to Galway, Dublin, Brighton, and London G.L. Horton-While you're in London you might be interested in a conference that Lizbeth Goodman and Jane de Gay are organizing for the Open University called "Gender and the Field of Vision". It will be held on Saturday July 5th at the Gate Theatre in Notting Hill, London. You can get more information about the conference by emailing s.j.degay@open.ac.uk. I don't know the program off the top of my head but there will certainly be talks and performances about women and theatre. Sarah Werner University of Pennsylvania ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 09:27:39 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0590 Re: Staging Sinking MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0590. Friday, 23 May 1997. [1] From: Jerry Bangham Date: Thursday, 22 May 1997 09:38:08 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0587 Re: Staging Sinking [2] From: John Cox Date: Thursday, 22 May 1997 11:09:26 -0500 (EST) Subj: Sinking on Stage [3] From: Leslie Thomson Date: Thursday, 22 May 1997 12:01:01 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0587 Re: Staging Sinking [4] From: Kurt Daw Date: Thursday, 22 May 1997 14:22:50 -0500 Subj: Re: Staging Sinking [5] From: Franklin J. Hildy Date: Thursday, 22 May 1997 18:00:34 -0400 Subj: Re: Staging Sinking [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Bangham Date: Thursday, 22 May 1997 09:38:08 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0587 Re: Staging Sinking >I believe that great Italian invention, the Star Trap, was used >somewhere in Renaissance London. It was so called because of its >iris-like construction that closed in upon itself, was made of thick >enough leather to support human weight, This (all-leather) seems a bit unlikely. I'd opt for wood with leather hinges. I'm not sure when it first appeared, but I've seen later star traps, perhaps in the Museum of London. This used segments that wore more wedge shaped than irised, however. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cox Date: Thursday, 22 May 1997 11:09:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Sinking on Stage Thanks to many respondents, both private and public, to my inquiry about "sinking" on stage. I was privately referred to John Astington's article, "Descent Machinery in the Playhouses," MRDE 2 (1985). Others may find this a useful reference as well. John Cox [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Leslie Thomson Date: Thursday, 22 May 1997 12:01:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0587 Re: Staging Sinking To my knowledge, the most exhaustive, and reasonable study of descent machinery in the theatres is by John Astington, in *Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England*, vol. 2. Leslie Thomson [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kurt Daw Date: Thursday, 22 May 1997 14:22:50 -0500 Subject: Re: Staging Sinking There are certainly a wide variety of ways to handle sinkings, but the simplest is to set up a structure like a children's see-saw under the stage. One end is weighted to just slightly less than the actor's weight. When the actor steps on the quaint leather covering (as described by Harry Hill in an earlier posting) he is, in effect, stepping on the other end of the see-saw, which is positioned just under the trap covering. If the weighting is done correctly, the actor will then "sink" is a slow and dignified manner. This process takes the some skill and balance on the actor's part, but it works very nicely in a decidedly low-tech fashion. It is still used in the theater on occasion. Lots of theaters used some simple variation on this device to produce a required disappearance at the end of Tony Kushner's adaptation of Corneille's "The Illusion" when it was in vogue a half-dozen years ago, and it was described more thoroughly and intelligently in *Theater Crafts* magazine about then. Sorry that I don't have the exact issue number handy. Kurt Daw [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Franklin J. Hildy Date: Thursday, 22 May 1997 18:00:34 -0400 Subject: Re: Staging Sinking I am not sure I fully understand the perceived problem with stage traps. Why would there be a trap door on a sinking trap? As far as I know there is no evidence of a star trap being used in the 17th century and in any event I've never seen an illustration of one like that described by Harry Hill. An "iris-like construction that closed in upon itself, was made of thick enough leather to support human weight" sounds deadly. There is a good illustration of a 19th century star trap in the 7th edition of Brockett's History of the Theatre, p. 402. It is really an elevator trap (or sinking trap if you like) with a star cover to it. The star cover was shaped much like the rubber gasket that covers most garbage disposal openings. Its purpose was only to hide the fact that the trap was down, so the audience would not know that someone or something was about to come up. When the trap was down you would not want to stand on the star trap cover because whether it was made of leather or rubber you would go right through it-it was only safe when the trap was in the up position. Elevator traps seem to have been used in some Italian plays and in some of the French Corpus Christi plays at least from the early 16th century and probably long before. Such a trap consist of a reinforced platform that makes up part of the stage floor when it is in the up position. When an actor steps onto this section of stage floor it can be lowered down below the stage level where the actor can step off and the platform can then be raised back into its stage floor location. Such traps are guided by four corner posts and are easily operated by one person. They can also move as fast or as slow as you like. But they do create an aesthetic problem if you wants to raise someone or something up-the problem is, you have to lower the trap down first, allow the actor to get on, then raise it again. Needles to say this ruins any possible element of surprise. Star trap covers and bristle trap covers were designed to mask the fact that the trap had been lowered to pick someone or something up. (But again, they were not designed to stand on unless the trap was in the up position) The problem with elevator traps in the Elizabethan playhouses is that there was less than 5 feet of clearance between the stage level and ground level. Elevator traps need more room than this to operate smoothly, generally 18 inches plus the height of the actor at a minimum -unless, of course, the actor is willing to bend his or her knees and crawl off when the trap is down-this was apparently done often in 18th century theatres. Excavation below ground level would provide the needed room at the Globe but in the archaeology done on the Rose there was no evidence of such excavation. Does anyone have Lily Bess Campbell's >Scenes and Machines on the English Stage During the Renaissance< handy? I don't have the book to hand at the moment. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 09:50:03 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0591 Re: Music/Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0591. Friday, 23 May 1997. [1] From: Harry Hill Date: Thursday, 22 May 1997 11:17:34 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0588 Re: Music [2] From: Juul Muller-van Santen Date: Thursday, 22 May 1997 19:17:52 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0584 Re: Music/Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Thursday, 22 May 1997 11:17:34 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0588 Re: Music "and the ice-cream ladies started along the isles".....well, this was in the North-East of Scotland, so we only had aisles. Sorry. Harry Hill [Editor's Note: My apologies to Harry Hill. I am, in fact, the one responsible for the interesting textual crux quoted above. As I was formatting the entry, I must have hit the delete key one too many times. As most of you know, SHAKSPER comes to you with editorial intervention, and with editorial intervention comes the possibility of electronic transmission errors. "O brave new world." --Hardy PS: If you are interested in what I do to bring you SHAKSPER, you may want to read my 1997 SAA Paper for The Politics of Electronic Texts seminar - "The Politics of an Academic Discussion Group." To retrieve this essay send the command - GET SAA1997 SHAKSPER - to listserv@ws.BowieState.edu.] [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juul Muller-van Santen Date: Thursday, 22 May 1997 19:17:52 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0584 Re: Music/Shakespeare David Linley is interested in what the music "did" for the plays at different times, a subject I have addressed re The TEMPEST in the *Shakespeare Yearbook* for 1994 (ed. Holger Klein, pub. Mellen Press, Lewiston NY). I share his fascination with the subject and am sure there is a great deal more to be said about it. Apart from long arias for Victorian Ariels which must have changed the characterisation, some of these musics to the plays gave secondary characters so much to sing that that itself surely changed the balance. I too wonder why so little is written about this aspect. Maybe because, as David Linley writes, so much is unrecoverable. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 09:55:38 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0592 Renaissance Forum v2no1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0592. Friday, 23 May 1997. From: R. D. H. Wells Date: Thursday, 22 May 1997 16:24:59 +0100 (BST) Subject: Renaissance Forum v2no1 RENAISSANCE FORUM The editors are pleased to announce the Spring 1997 issue of *Renaissance Forum*. The journal is available from http://www.hull.ac.uk/Hull/EL_Web/renforum/index.html or http://www.hull.ac.uk/english/renforum/index.html In volume two, number one, Richard Danson Brown examines Spenser's *The Ruines of Time*, David Lucking engenders meaning in *Much Ado About Nothing* and Kevin Sharpe explores the political world of Thomas Wentworth. Plus reviews by Mike Braddick, Martin Butler, Richard Dutton, Lisa Hopkins, Norman Jones, Julie Sanders, David Siar and Ceri Sullivan of books by Lisa Jardine, Ivo Kamps, David Lindley, Thomas H. Luxon, John Morrill, William W. E. Slights and Penry Williams as well as titles in the Keele University Press Ryburn Renaissance Texts and Studies series. The editors welcome articles on the history and literature of the English Early Modern period, and reasoned responses to articles already published in *Renaissance Forum*. Potential reviewers should send a short cv to the technical editor at a.m.butler@english.hull.ac.uk If you wish to be removed from the Renforum electronic information list send a message consisting of the word unsubscribe to renforum-request@hull.ac.uk Robin Headlam Wells Glenn Burgess Editors, *Renaissance Forum* ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 10:07:38 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0593 Qs: Shakespearean Verse and Documents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0593. Friday, 23 May 1997. [1] From: Jody Tate Date: Thursday, 22 May 1997 08:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Qs: Speaking Verse in Shakespeare's Day and Teaching Blank Verse [2] From: Russ McDonald Date: Thursday, 22 May 1997 17:30:56 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Shakespearean Documents [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jody Tate Date: Thursday, 22 May 1997 08:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Qs: Speaking Verse in Shakespeare's Day and Teaching Blank Verse Hello all: I was wondering if there is an agreement currently on how Shakespeare's verse, his iambic pentameter, would have been performed on the Elizabethan/Jacobean stage. Actors in the period were often praised for their "naturalness", Burbage being one, but it's not difficult to imagine that their conception of "naturalness" was quite different from ours. For example, a famous actor praised in the 17th cent. for his naturalness also had a wig made to stand on end during the "scary" parts of Macbeth. So, more succinctly, was there a "high" or "grand" style of declamation during Shakespeare's day or was it more "natural" in terms of our standards today? Also, I was wondering if any teachers of Shakespeare out there had any lesson plans they would share concerning teaching Shakespeare's blank verse or his "metrical art" in general to undergraduates. Is classical foot-prosody still used? Has anyone tried Attridge's method of scansion? Is there a focus on the physical rhythm of the language or is more attention directed toward the rhetorical implications? Are the students asked to physically get out of their chairs and perform bits of verse? These questions are asked as part of a graduate seminar I'm taking on teaching Shakespeare to undergraduates, and asked partly in response to what seems to be a renewed interest in the formal elements of verse. Thanks for your time, and I look forward to your responses. Jody [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Russ McDonald Date: Thursday, 22 May 1997 17:30:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shakespearean Documents I received the following message which I thought list members might be able to help with. Could you forward any such information either to me or the writer, or post them generally as appropriate? Thanks, Russ McDonald From: Larry Barkley Date: Thursday, 22 May 1997 04:09:45 -0800 Subject: Shakespearean Documents Good Afternoon, Dr. McDonald: Recently while reading your "The Bedford Companion to Shakespeare" I began to consider the possibility of finding historical documents concerned with Shakespeare posted on the World Wide Web. I have conducted several searches, using a variety of terms, but to date I have had no relavent hits. Are you aware of any site or sites that post such documents? If you are and are able to share the locations, I would appreciate the information. If you are unaware of any such sites, I will continue searching, and should I find any, I will let you know. Cordially, Larry Barkley ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 08:45:37 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0594 Re: Music/Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0594. Sunday, 25 May 1997. [1] From: Rod Osiowy Date: Friday, 23 May 1997 08:52:04 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0591 Re: Music/Shakespeare [2] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 24 May 1997 14:39:52 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Music for Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rod Osiowy Date: Friday, 23 May 1997 08:52:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0591 Re: Music/Shakespeare I just read a review of "The Tempest" in a local paper where the critic stated, "the work of Shakespeare is lyrical in itself and any insertion of contemporary music with original or other dialogue is inappropriate. It only serves to distract and songs are not a part of Shakespeare." I saw "The Tempest" and believe that the dances in it require music, or the audience would experience the distraction of dance without music. Ariel's songs are written into the script, I believe, and are open to musical interpretation within character. The evening of this particular performance experienced some technical glitches with wireless microphones, but otherwise, the music was very befitting the time, setting and performance. I wonder where people get these ideas about Shakespeare's plays? Surely Shakespeare knew the power of music in live performance... [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 24 May 1997 14:39:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Music for Shakespeare Since there are several members of this list who have vivid memories of the music of their theatre-going youth, I thought I might ask just how far back their memory might go. There are credits, throughout Sir John Gielgud's season at the Queen's Theatre, 1937-1938, for composer Herbert Menges. So far as I know, there are no recordings of his work, and I am curious if anyone can describe the music he composed, whether for this or any other productions on the West End at that time. In particular, there were productions of Richard II and Merchant of Venice, which generated some controversy among the critics. It would be of great interest to me, to find out whether his music played a part in the response to Gielgud and Motley's new approach to stagecraft, or whether his musical choices were conventional and played to the more traditional expectations of a commercial audience at the time. Remarks can be sent directly to me, or can be shared with the rest of our group, as you wish. Many thanks in advance, Andy White aw-white@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 08:52:12 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0595 Re; Shakespeare Internet Resources (Documents) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0595. Sunday, 25 May 1997. [1] From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Friday, 23 May 1997 08:01:44 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0593 Qs: Shakespearean Documents [2] From: Fran Teague Date: Friday, 23 May 97 10:21:53 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0593 Qs: Shakespearean Verse and Documents [3] From: Leanore Lieblein Date: Friday, 23 May 1997 15:03:17 EST5EDT Subj: McGill Shakespeare Resources Page [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Friday, 23 May 1997 08:01:44 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0593 Qs: Shakespearean Documents Salutations Shakespeareans! This email is for Russ McDonald, concerning where to get Shakespearean Docs on the net. One-stop-shopping for most things bardolatrous on the net is Terry Gray's "Mr. William Shakespeare and the Internet," the URL for which is: http://www.palomar.edu/Library/shake.htm There's also the Oxford Text Archive, but I don't think this is the sort of thing Mr. Barkley is questing after. A fine Memorial Day Weekend to all! Brad Berens [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Friday, 23 May 97 10:21:53 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0593 Qs: Shakespearean Verse and Documents My favorite Shakespearean URL is Terry Gray's "Mr. William Shakespeare on the Internet." It takes a while to load, but provides excellent and intelligent coverage. Mr. Barkley will find that it leads him to a number of historical and contextual sites. Ms. Tate will find Amy Ulen's site listed under the EDUCATION header; my students who were training to be high school teachers thought it offered excellent exercises on meter and stress for any classroom. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Leanore Lieblein Date: Friday, 23 May 1997 15:03:17 EST5EDT Subject: McGill Shakespeare Resources Page SHAKSPEReans may be interested in visiting the McGill Shakespeare Resources Page at http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/programs/english/puck/links.html Comments welcome. --Leanore Lieblein ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 08:57:37 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0596 Qs: MM and Bedlam MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0596. Sunday, 25 May 1997. [1] From: Billy Houck Date: Friday, 23 May 1997 12:24:03 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Some Measure for Measure Questions [2] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Sunday, 25 May 1997 06:15:45 -0400 Subj: Bedlam [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Friday, 23 May 1997 12:24:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Some Measure for Measure Questions I have a few questions about Measure For Measure- Are there any other characters in Shakespeare like Escalus who perform the role of a buffer? I'm assuming that Escalus knows what the Duke is up to, and the Duke knows that Escalus knows. What are some of Mistress Overdone's occupation's historical traits? (in action, dress or demeanor) Can anyone tell me about a range of incarnations that Isabella has had over the years, especially regarding her first entrance? ie: is she predominantly sensual or spiritual? These are all pre-production questions. Billy Houck [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Sunday, 25 May 1997 06:15:45 -0400 Subject: Bedlam I know we're taught that it was so, but how much hard evidence is there that people in the early modern period really did visit Bedlam or other institutions to watch displays of the 'mad' inmates for the purposes of entertainment? Terence Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 09:07:54 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0597 Re: Bad Lines; Ideology; Skinking; Acting; Stoic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0597. Sunday, 25 May 1997. [1] From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Friday, 23 May 1997 10:36:30 -0400 Subj: Author of interp of bad line in Ham [2] From: Ben Schneider Date: Friday, 23 May 1997 15:35:57 +0000 Subj: WT; ideology [3] From: Franklin J. Hildy Date: Friday, 23 May 1997 17:00:03 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0590 Re: Staging Sinking [4] From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Friday, 23 May 97 23:44:12 EDT Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 21 May 1997 to 22 May 1997 [5] From: Ben Schneider Date: Saturday, 24 May 1997 11:25:05 +0000 Subj: Stoic Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Friday, 23 May 1997 10:36:30 -0400 Subject: Author of interp of bad line in Ham Harry Hill mentions "my" interpretation of a bad line in Hamlet. I think my message declined to interpret and simply offered AN interpretation, an 18thc one by Richardson. I think there is a difference. But, pressed to the back wall, I think I would say that Richardson's interpretation IS feasible as a possibility on stage-though I have never seen it attempted. Cheers, Bernice W. Kliman [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben Schneider Date: Friday, 23 May 1997 15:35:57 +0000 Subject: WT; ideology Dear Robert Applebaum, I am very interested in your claim that Paul Hawkins is playing a game of "_I_ am interested impartially in the truth. _You_ are ideological." If, as you imply, neither you nor Paul can make any claim to truth, I'm curious as to how you would justify such a claim as that WT is a sexist play? I'm very glad to know that this is not true. Yours ever, Ben Schneider [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Franklin J. Hildy Date: Friday, 23 May 1997 17:00:03 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0590 Re: Staging Sinking Leslie Thomson wrote, "To my knowledge, the most exhaustive, and reasonable study of descent machinery in the theatres is by John Astington, in *Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England*, vol. 2." This may well be the case but the article does not address stage traps and now that I have checked, neither does Cambell. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Friday, 23 May 97 23:44:12 EDT Subject: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 21 May 1997 to 22 May 1997 Replay to Harry Hill: Oops. Not fair, Harry. Your complaint about actors who fail to acrobatically turn quick-as-thought through the possibilities of a line or phrase ain't properly blamed on "Method." It's just a serious problem among all performers (and much of the rest of us human beings, too). Those dramatic turns require energy and attention. Exquisite sensitivity and intelligence. Experience. Respect for the material. Bad acting, or a bad patch by a good actor, slides monotonic ally across the hills and valleys. Remember Brannaaugh's aria in HAMLET just before the intermission. That's called bulldozing in the landscaping trade; a heavy mechanical shaping of something that once had lots of fine little details worthy of exclamation and delight. Ah, well. Remembering on memorial day, SteveBulldozerwitz [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben Schneider Date: Saturday, 24 May 1997 11:25:05 +0000 Subject: Stoic Shakespeare Dear Ron Ward, Thank you so very much for your good question concerning my hypothesis that Shakespeare was a Stoic. The questions are particularly helpful because they point out lapses in my argument that I need to deal with. I take up your questions one by one. Q. Can we assume any stereotype of Elizabethan morality will be relevant? A. No, not without evidence, but the stereotype of _gentleman_ must have dominated. In conscious opposition to _gentleman_, _Puritan_ was also available, but _Puritan_ was certainly not Shakespeare's cup of tea. Some have advocated skepticism, pointing to Montaigne's doubts and S's practice in _Lear_. Montaigne went through a skeptic phase, but he also came down hard, page after page, in favor of Stoic values. A person can easily be a skeptic and a Stoic at the same time: look at Hemingway. Q. Are we of the opinion that S's "morality" followed or even addressed stereotypes of the day? A. There's no way a playwright who wants to be successful can avoid following or addressing a moral stereotype. Shunning bad reviews, playwrights generally avoid presenting behavior or ideas that might dismay the critics. They seek to please the tastemakers. In Shakespeare's time, I argue, the literate gentry called the tune. In New York today the liberal intelligentsia call the tune. If I may be permitted to use the term without incurring its judgmental connotations, it is not likely that any "politically incorrect" play will ever succeed on Broadway. Nor would any at Shakespeare's Globe. What was politically correct at the Globe? Stoicism. Q. Do we distinguish between social morality (defined by human law and custom) and an absolute morality which some believe lies above that? A. In choosing Stoicism, I don't have to worry about a conflict between divine law and mortal custom. Shakespeare's well-documented emphasis on the secular probably occurs because the Church has coopted Stoicism, having a need for outreach into the world of affairs, and finding in Stoicism's rejection of material success a sufficiently Christian approach to civic vocation. The coopting process begins in the 4th century and continues until Stoic virtues promoted by the Church become the basis of Renaissance culture. --See N. E. Nelson, "Cicero's De Officiis in Christian Thought, 300-1300," U of Michigan Pub in Lang and Lit 10, 1933, 59-160. For this reason the average Christian in Shakespeare's time probably didn't know where religion left off and Stoicism began. For example, the Anglican Bishop Hall's _Characters of the Virtues and Vices_, ca 1600, is thoroughly Stoic in content. A century later, another Anglican divine, Jonathan Swift, very probably owes both his civic concern and his "saeva indignatio" to the Stoic Seneca. And when his friend Pope wrote, "The proper study of mankind is man," he stated the Stoic project. Q. If we go by internal evidence of the plays etc., will we not easily confuse the views of the character with those of the author? A. Yes, internal evidence will always be unconvincing, and that's why I have brought as much cultural material into the picture as length of life allows. Without context, we can't certify the meaning of a word. Without context we can't certify the meaning of a line, or a play. That, I claim, is why we find so many "problems" in Shakespeare. Take, for example, the behavior of the "Christians" in MV. Their trivial pursuits seem to deny them the moral high ground. Do I make a mistake if I assume that Shakespeare views their shenanigans with approval? The internal evidence does not support me, if I approach with the moral presuppositions of USA today. But if I read the play in the context of its Stoic moral substrate, our modernist/postmodernist "problems" disappear: it's like getting the point of a joke. Q. Do we not assume that S had a 'moral' message to convey? S was the supreme observer of humanity and could he not have let the doings of humanity tell its own tale? Did he have an axe to grind? A. You have stated the doctrine of the neutral Shakespeare, very popular in our non-judgmental postmodern times. I suppose I would have to say that all works of art take sides in some way. Unless the artist tickles our presuppositions about right and wrong, he makes no impression on us. When we leave the theatre we say, "What was he getting at?" Even the most amoral-seeming works of art speak to our moral sense: Jackson Pollock challenges our partiality for objective realism. _Pulp Fiction_, by fabricating comedy out of atrocity, makes a statement about our dehumanized society. Similarly, Shakespeare cannot have avoided making statements: what were they? Until we study the cultural matrix in which the plays were written and staged, we cannot answer that question. As Terence Hawkes said recently (quoting somebody) "The past is another country; they do things differently there." Amen. Thanks again for your good questions. I hope I have made some progress in answering them. If I haven't done a good job, please come back at me again. Yours ever, Ben Schneider ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 08:38:46 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0598 Re: Bedlam and MM Qs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0598. Monday, 26 May 1997. [1] From: Jerry Bangham Date: Sunday, 25 May 1997 13:36:42 -0400 Subj: Bedlam [2] From: Helen Ostovich Date: Sunday, 25 May 1997 19:38:27 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0596 Qs: MM and Bedlam [3] From: Sean Lawrence Date: Sunday, 25 May 1997 23:56:59 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0596 Qs: MM and Bedlam [4] From: Michael Skovmand Date: Monday, 26 May 1997 10:22:01 MET Subj: Re: SHK 8.0596 Qs: Measure for Measure [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Bangham Date: Sunday, 25 May 1997 13:36:42 -0400 Subject: Bedlam >I know we're taught that it was so, but how much hard evidence is there >that people in the early modern period really did visit Bedlam or other >institutions to watch displays of the 'mad' inmates for the purposes of >entertainment? Well, there's "Scene in a Madhouse" from Hogarth's "Rake's Progress" which shows a Lady and her maid observing the antics of Tom and his companions. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Sunday, 25 May 1997 19:38:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0596 Qs: MM and Bedlam RE Mrs Overdone's probable dress: waistcoat worn without a shift underneath, a green skirt or gown, with a red underskirt. RE Bedlam: there are many references to visiting Bedlam as an entertainment in Jonson's London comedies, and the city comedies of other playwrights as well. Does that qualify as hard data? Helen Ostovich Department of English / Editor, _REED Newsletter_ McMaster University [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Sunday, 25 May 1997 23:56:59 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0596 Qs: MM and Bedlam Are there any other characters in Shakespeare like Escalus who perform the role of a buffer? I'm assuming that Escalus knows what the Duke is up to, and the Duke knows that Escalus knows. Why do you assume this? Couldn't Escalus just be one of those natural second-in-commands who'll perform his duty without having to be told why? Rather like Tranio, in Shrew, who switches roles with Vincentio simply on the assurance that there *is* a good reason, but without at first being told *what* it is. Any number of other reliable and trusting servants, usually minor roles, come to mind. Cheers, Sean Lawrence [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Skovmand Date: Monday, 26 May 1997 10:22:01 MET Subject: Re: SHK 8.0596 Qs: Measure for Measure In reply to a question about Escalus as 'buffer' who knows about the Duke's machinations: Escalus doesn't know, and the conversation between Escalus and the Duke (which ends in the soliloquy "He who the sword of heaven will bear..." is ample evidence, if not proof, allowing that, with the Provost present, he could be pretending ignorance of the disguise. The same goes for the trial scene of Act V,sc.1, in which Escalus is the severest of all in his dealings with the Duke in disguise. Is he putting on an act ? If so, it would certainly lighten up the play as a whole, and the last act in particular, play down the 'problem play' dimension of MM, disambiguate the ending of the play , and possibly make for a more 'performable ' Act V. However, I don't buy Escalus as 'buffer', for the same reason that I don't buy Cordelia as being the Fool in disguise in *Lear*: Shakespeare's disguise plots are always clearly signposted, including who's in the know and who isn't, and within the dramaturgy of the Globe kind of theatre, I think they need to be. And on a personal note: I've got tickets for both Henry V and Winter's Tale at the Globe in London for this week, which is opening week, and I shall be looking intently for any mechanisms of signposting disguises! Michael Skovmand U. of Aarhus Denmark ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 08:43:52 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0599 Re: Shakespearean Doucments; Music MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0599. Monday, 26 May 1997. [1] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Sunday, 25 May 1997 10:18:31 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0593 Qs: Shakespearean Verse and Documents [2] From: Helen Ostovich Date: Sunday, 25 May 1997 19:40:01 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0595 Re; Shakespeare Internet Resources (Documents) [3] From: Graham Paul Date: Sunday, 25 May 1997 22:02:45 -0400 Subj: Music/Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Sunday, 25 May 1997 10:18:31 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0593 Qs: Shakespearean Verse and Documents Well, even though it's a Baconian (pft-TOO-I always must spit when saying that word) site, and neccesarily [Oh, well-I could never spell anyway-But, off course, neither could Shakespeare] leaves out everything that might suggest a literary life, http://fly.hiwaay.net/~paul/positive.html is very good. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Sunday, 25 May 1997 19:40:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0595 Re; Shakespeare Internet Resources (Documents) Yet another website is the alchemyweb, with many documents available. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graham Paul Date: Sunday, 25 May 1997 22:02:45 -0400 Subject: Music/Shakespeare I've been following the thread regarding music with a good deal of interest. I'd like to add a request to others that have been posted. As I contemplate a production of Measure for Measure, I wonder if members might recall particularly interesting examples of music supporting productions they have seen (and heard) in ways other that as settings for songs (and productions of MM in particular, of course). Regarding MM, either the via list or direct to me would be fine. Thanks in advance. Graham Paul Warren Wilson College ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 08:46:06 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0600 Q: Scrims MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0600. Monday, 26 May 1997. From: Judy Kennedy Date: Sunday, 25 May 1997 13:59:11 -0300 (ADT) Subject: Scrims Can anyone give me information about early uses of a scrim or gauze as a scenic device, in England or elsewhere? The earliest reference I have is to Phelps' Sadler's Wells production of Macbeth in 1847 (and a lot of comment on the gauze for his production of MND in 1853). Judy Kennedy jkennedy@stthomasu.ca ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 09:15:52 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0601 Re: Bedlam MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0601. Tuesday, 27 May 1997. [1] From: Julia L. Shields Date: Monday, 26 May 97 10:21:40 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0598 Re: Bedlam [2] From: Fran Teague Date: Monday, 26 May 97 10:30:44 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0596 Qs: MM and Bedlam [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julia L. Shields Date: Monday, 26 May 97 10:21:40 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0598 Re: Bedlam Dr. Johnson was much affected by his visit to Bedlam. Julia Shields jshields@pen.K12.va.us [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Monday, 26 May 97 10:30:44 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0596 Qs: MM and Bedlam Terence Hawkes asks an interesting question: how much hard evidence is there that people went to Bedlam to watch the inmates? Edwin O'Donoghue's _History of St. Bethlehem's Hospital_ (1914) suggests that one reason it's hard to come by specific evidence for the seventeenth century is that the doctor who ran the place from 1618 until the 1630s, Dr. Hilkiah Crooke, didn't keep records as well or as carefully as his predecessors. He was accused of mismanagement. In Robert Reed's book, __Bedlam on the Jacobean Stage_ (1952), he says that what little evidence there is suggests as many as 75 visitors a day at times. But the crucial phrase in the question Terence Hawkes asks is how many went to watch the inmates "FOR PURPOSES OF ENTERTAINMENT." Chapter 13 in Christopher Hill's book, _The World Turned Upside Down_ points out that in 17th C England watching madness was one way of gaining access to prophecy. There's a very interesting discussion of the way that madness and political radicalism intersected in the 1640s and 1650s. Fran Teague ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 09:29:45 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0602 Re: Sh/Web; MM; Political Sh; Malone Society MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0602. Tuesday, 27 May 1997. [1] From: Ted Nellen Date: Monday, 26 May 1997 11:12:11 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Shakespeare Web [2] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Monday, 26 May 1997 23:06:09 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0596 Qs: MM and Bedlam [3] From: John McWilliams Date: Tuesday, 27 May 1997 11:55:20 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0597 Re: Stoic [4] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Monday, 26 May 1997 21:16:16 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0578 Q: The Malone Society [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ted Nellen Date: Monday, 26 May 1997 11:12:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shakespeare Web I've been collecting Internet sites related to Shakespeare I have called Shakespeare Web. Please take a look and add, comment, and enjoy. http://199.233.193.1/books.html#shakes Ted [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Monday, 26 May 1997 23:06:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0596 Qs: MM and Bedlam In response to Mr. Houck's recent questions on Measure for Measure: Having recently played Escalus, I'm not sure I would agree with the theory that he is aware of the Duke's real intentions. I was working with an admittedly edited text, and truth be known I did not have the time to fully consult the Arden or other editions, except to read the letters and tales which gave rise to the play. I would imagine that Escalus, moreover, would be a completely recognizable type for the crowd at the Globe; the decent, hard-working functionary who nevertheless understands human weakness and sympathizes with it. How else would Southwark have had its reputation as a red-light district, if it didn't have Escaluses (sic) in abundance, releasing pimps and whores with a shrug and a 'what can you do?'. The trial scene is a vivid example of the Duke's immortal "baby beats the nurse" speech, but given Escalus' predicament, being caught between Master Elbow's incompetence (the idiot is a cuckold, to boot) and Pompey's more than adequate training in legal argument (no doubt due to frequent practice in situations like this one), Shakespeare succeeds in showing us just how difficult it really was to enforce morality in the suburbs of London/Vienna in those days. The Duke believes in clemency, in part because even if he didn't, he'd have a helluva time getting convictions. Just a couple cents' worth, Andy White Arlington, VA [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John McWilliams Date: Tuesday, 27 May 1997 11:55:20 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0597 Re: Stoic Dear Ben Schneider (and others), Thank you for your very interesting question and answer session. I would like to come back at you on one or two points, though, which I had problems with. You suggest that the doctrine of a "neutral Shakespeare" is "very popular in our postmodern times". The notion of 'Great Artists' being neutral and above making political and moral choices is one which was very popular in literary criticism during the 50s and 60s, at the height of "New Criticism". At present, one only needs to look on the Shakespeare shelves of a bookshop to see that this view has long since passed out of fashion - every book on the Bard has to have a sexy title like 'Political Shakespeare' or 'Queer Shakespeare' - titles which suggest Shakespeare needs to be politicised and wrested away from New Critic types who wish to keep an apolitical universal genius of a national poet. So I disagree that your politicising view is thrusting against current literary trends, it is in fact very much in keeping with what is now going on. I think that this politicising is in many ways a good thing - the work of a critic such as Greenblatt is invaluable in showing us the kinds of contemporary discourse which shaped Shakespeare's thinking and writing. And anyway, complacent notions of Universal Genius and Neutral, Great, Timeless Literature clearly needed a severe challenge. However, I think that there are big problems with this type of literary criticism, and I'll outline my problems here (if anyone would like to take me up on these points I'd be happy to go into my objections further....). I go along with Graham Bradshaw's line in 'Misrepresentations' - by far the best book I've read on political literary criticism - that the important thing to acknowledge is the genuinely exploratory nature of Shakespeare's thinking in his plays. The line in Lear "And that's true too" might exemplify this point: Shakespeare in far more wary of easy truths or singular, unambiguous answers than are many of his politicising critics. Indeed , we see repeatedly in his plays, extreme ambivalence (eg. towards Hal/Hanry V in the 2nd tetralogy) dramatically played out such that the audience is likely to leave the theatre having experienced various and conflicting choices and emotions. So alarm bells ring when you say "if I read the play in the context of its Stoic moral substrate, our modernist/postmodernist 'problems' disappear". Can Shakespeare really become as unproblematic as he so often does within politicised frameworks? One thing is for sure is that perplexing problems never disappear (at least for me) when reading Shakespeare. I would appreciate any comments on this slightly muddled message. Thanks, John McWilliams [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Monday, 26 May 1997 21:16:16 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0578 Q: The Malone Society > Speaking of the Malone Society. I noticed some members had listed > membership in the Malone Society in their Bios. > > What is it? Where is it? How can I join? Should I join? Has this anything to do with the "Malone society reprints."? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 09:35:24 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0603 Identifying Plariarism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0603. Tuesday, 27 May 1997. From: Peter C. Herman Date: Monday, 26 May 1997 20:25:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Plagiarism & Shakespeare I'm reposting this to the SHAKSPER, since I think that our little community could be of some assistance. Peter C. Herman >Dear list folks, > >I'm not sure this falls under the purview of this list, but I have a >puzzling problem. I'm a grad student at NYU, and a freshperson has >submitted a paper of which the first paragraph appears rife with >plagiarism. I am as sure of it as I can be without having located >the source. But cautious policy makes me leery of making an >accusation without indisputable proof. > >I have checked in the introductions of quite a number of new paperback >editions of Hamlet, with no luck. But the style of lit crit going on here >is not that of the nineties. I'm hoping someone out there on the list >will have the older edition which served as my student's source nestling >on the back of the shelf (or will perhaps have some other insight), and >will be so good as to inform me where these phrases come from. > >Here is the title and first paragraph: > >---------------------- > > Paper #3: _Hamlet_ > >The soliloquy is a device used by Shakespeare throughout his tragedy, >_Hamlet_. Amidst the chaos of the characters and twists of plot, the >reader is offered a glimpse into the psyche of Hamlet. Of all of the >characters depicted by Shakespeare, Hamlet's is the most developed; others >are defined more by their actions than their introspection. If Hamlet is >the most vocal about his inner turmoil, he is also the most indecisive. >Interestingly enough, Shakespeare's hero is altogether quite human; at >times vulnerable, and at others, strong willed and decisive. Hamlet is >plagued by insecurity and misgivings throughout the play, yet he >ultimately surmounts his emotional obstacles and accomplishes his goal of >avenging his father. The fact that he himself must die in the process, >not to mention the majority of the cast, attests to the premise of >pervasive evil instigated by Claudius' misdeed. Shakespeare relates the >tragedy of the Danes through the personal tragedy of Hamlet, and in doing >so, succeeds in evoking empathy and capturing the attention of his >audience. Also, hidden in Shakespeare's depiction of madness, both real, >and feigned, are commentary about many aspects of the tragedy and its >characters. Ironically, Hamlet's most clever and insightful remarks are >those made under the guise of insanity. > >____________ > >I have checked for errors, and I think this is a verbatim copy. It reads >like the highlights from an introduction to a paperback. But the source >might be a playbill for a production of _Hamlet_. > >What seems certain is that these sentences were not arranged in this way >by whoever originally wrote them. There are simply too many jagged edges >and bad transitions between well-crafted and insightful phrases and >sentences: "If Hamlet is the most vocal about his inner turmoil, he is >also the most indecisive. Interestingly enough, Shakespeare's hero is >altogether quite human; at times vulnerable, and at others, strong willed >and decisive." Both of thoughts are well-articulated in sentences, but >the transition between thoughts is entirely inadequate: "Interestingly >enough." So, too, "Also," and probably "Ironically," toward the end of >the paragraph. I suspect that the paragraph as it stands represents the >distillation of all the pithy and sententious remarks a longer essay, >using "Interestingly enough" and "Also" to link together thoughts which >were originally separated by supporting arguments. > >Nor does the passage suit the paper in which it serves as an introduction. >The assignment was to do a close reading of any one of the soliloquies >from the play (with the exception of "To be or not to be"). The paragraph >begins well enough with the claim that the soliloquies offer the clearest >insight into Hamlet's psyche. The student's focus changes, however, by >the end of the paragraph to concentrate on what is to be learned from the >antic disposition. Obviously, the clever and insightful things Hamlet >says "under the guise of insanity" cannot include the soliloquies. Of >course, students write confusing and contradictory introductory paragraphs >all the time.. But the question here is whether the student who >understands Shakespeare's plays well enough to argue "Of all of the >characters depicted by Shakespeare, Hamlet's is the most developed; others >are defined more by their actions than their introspection" is capable of >forgetting that the soliloquies cannot be included with the things said >in the guise of antic disposition. > >Thanks very much for your patience with this inquiry. > >Replies can be sent directly to me, or to the list at large, as you deem >appropriate. > >Sincerely, >Charles Henebry ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 15:51:00 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0604 Re: Identifying Plagiarism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0604. Wednesday, 28 May 1997. [1] From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Tuesday, 27 May 1997 00:20:43 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0603 Identifying Plagiarism [2] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 27 May 1997 13:09:10 -0400 Subj: Identifying Plagiarism [3] From: Stacy Mulder <00ssmulder@bsuvc.bsu.edu> Date: Tuesday, 27 May 1997 14:09:56 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0603 Identifying Plagiarism [4] From: John V Robinson Date: Tuesday, 27 May 1997 16:22:54 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0603 Identifying Plagiarism [5] From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 28 May 1997 10:07:52 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: Plagiarism [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Tuesday, 27 May 1997 00:20:43 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0603 Identifying Plagiarism Peter Herman's posting relates to an issue that has concerned me of late: plagiarism from the Internet. I teach high school English and with the large number of student essays being published on the Internet (with good intentions), I suspect that some of my students may be downloading and submitting other students' essays. Obviously, one cannot possibly check all of these out. What I have done when I believe that plagiarism has occurred (usually it's a case where the intellectual level of the paper does not match the intellectual level of the student's other work) is this: I conference with the student and question them closely about the information, conclusions, etc. in the paper. Sometimes, after it is clear to both of us that they don't understand the paper they submitted, a confession has been obtained. It's best when this can be done without a direct accusation. Fortunately, I have not yet been in the situation where the student clearly plagiarized, I don't know the source, and they steadfastly maintained their innocence. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 27 May 1997 13:09:10 -0400 Subject: Identifying Plagiarism Dear Charles Henebry: Material such as 'the reader is offered a glimpse into the psyche of Hamlet' mimics heavy-duty crassness with admirable aplomb. It indicates parody, not plagiarism. I suspect your student is playing a rather sophisticated joke on you. Treasure the moment. T. Hawkes [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stacy Mulder <00ssmulder@bsuvc.bsu.edu> Date: Tuesday, 27 May 1997 14:09:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0603 Identifying Plagiarism In response to Charles Henebry. This will probably do little more than to confuse your further, but... The fact that your plagiarized critic/commentator speaks easily of things like "psyche" probably indicates a more modern source-the "psychological theory" folks, or at least past their era. Also, the concentration on character-the "streaks on the tulip"-make it less likely that your source is speaking from a pre-nineteenth century position. And a little more butter for this nasty piece of bread. There are COUNTLESS web sources for complete papers-I have been the unfortunate recipient of quite a few of them and always find it a very uncomfortable situation. My best strategy has been to first conference with the student and ask right out front: "Is there anything about this paper or the research process involved that you would like to tell me?" Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's nice when the plagiarized text is so poorly written that a grade suffers on the basis of errors in composition-but we can't always find a way out there. And no help at all, I'm sure, but at least you know you are not alone in encountering this problem. Stacy Mulder Ball State University Muncie, Indiana [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John V Robinson Date: Tuesday, 27 May 1997 16:22:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0603 Identifying Plagiarism Instead of trying to employ the resourses of the WWW to crush this "freshperson" you might first talk to him/her. You might also consider TEACHING him/her how to do it right. i.e., give credit for sources: "As Professor X states in the introduction to the XYZ edition of Hamlet 'yada, yada, yada.'" Some young students resort to plagiarism because they don't know any better, or they simply lack confidence in their ability to write. Either way dealing them a crushing death blow may be over reacting in the case a frosh. A senior writing their thesis is another matter, they should know better...if they have been properly taught early on they will know better. [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 28 May 1997 10:07:52 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: Plagiarism We make too much fuss about this. Believing our field to be more than quasi-scientific, we demand a thick-headed amount of footnotage rather like the half educated marginalia of the Norton anthologies of poetry which tell us, for instance, that "Oed und leer das Meer" in `The Waste Land' is "from *Tristan Und Isolde*, an opera by the German composer Richard Wagner"-an unhelpful remark, surely. What I look for now is what my tutors years ago said they sought: qualities of mind. When a student's writing is suspiciously unlike her usual output, I invite her to my office and ask her questions about her sentence structure in the offending passages as well as about the facts in them. I ask whether she has fully acknowledged the sources of her information and opinion and request correction and acknowledgment if she has inadvertently or deliberately erred. Her failure to do so will then result in the mandatory failing grade. Perhaps our teaching and grading practices our based too strongly and unimaginatively on a puritan work ethic? Harry Hill ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 16:10:31 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0605 Qs: Droeshout; Themes in King Lear; Giordano Bruno MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0605. Wednesday, 28 May 1997. [1] From: Tom Marshall Date: Tuesday, 27-May-1997 10:36:16 -0400 -0500 Subj: Droeshout [2] From: Chris Clark Date: Tuesday, 27 May 1997 19:54:17 GMT Subj: Themes in King Lear [3] From: Valentin Gerlier Date: Tuesday, 27 May 1997 14:16:18 Subj: [Giordano Bruno] [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Marshall Date: Tuesday, 27-May-1997 10:36:16 -0400 -0500 Subject: Droeshout An elementary question: How is "Droeshout" pronounced? I've seen it written a million times but have never heard it spoken. Thanks, Tom Marshall [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Clark Date: Tuesday, 27 May 1997 19:54:17 GMT Subject: Themes in King Lear I am preparing for my examination on King Lear, and have one week left to revise. The way I have found is most successful for doing this is to try to split the work into themes, because essay questions will always REALLY be addressing the theme, rather than a statement. Can people please help me discern which are the themes in Lear? I can come up with: judgement justice rebellion distance/power Also, how safe is it to distinguish between Cordelia and the Fool because the link between them does seem to be very strong? Thank you for your kind assistance. Chris [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Valentin Gerlier Date: Tuesday, 27 May 1997 14:16:18 Subject: [Giordano Bruno] Dear SHAKSPEAReans, I was wondering if anyone had anything to say about the presence of philosopher Giordano Bruno's influence in some of Shakespeare's work. I am saying this because both the poet's and Bruno's apparent deification of Divine Love (I may be safe in referring to some of the speeches in Love's Labour's Lost and Measure for Measure) interests me. I am not bringing forward a theory that he was influenced, but I would like to discuss it with anyone who is interested in it. Also, a movement called "Occult Neoplatonism", (which, I think, the philosopher John Dee was interested in, and which also reflect some of Giordano Bruno's ideas) seem to have been very prominent in intellectual circles during S's time. Is Prospero in "The Tempest" a character which reflects that influence? I am referring especially to the speech at the beginning of IV.i. Please feel free to write to me personally. Regards, Valentin Gerlier ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 16:36:12 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0606 Re: The Malone Society; Speaking the Verse MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0606. Wednesday, 28 May 1997. [1] From: Thomas L. Berger Date: Tuesday, 27 May 1997 16:53:21 EDT Subj: The Malone Society [2] From: Roger Gross Date: Wednesday, 28 May 1997 14:34:35 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Speaking the Verse [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas L. Berger Date: Tuesday, 27 May 1997 16:53:21 EDT Subject: The Malone Society Founded in 1906, the Malone Society was named after Edmond Malone, editor of the first variorum edition of Shakespeare. The Society's first General Editor was W. W. Greg. Now under the general editorship of Dr. Roger Holdsworth, it continues to publish editions of Renaissance plays from manuscript, photographic facsimiles of printed plays, and editions of original documents related to the drama. These volumes, all of which contain material not readily available elsewhere, maintain the high standard of accuracy for which the Society is renowned. A look at the volumes for recent years illustrates the nature of the Society's publications: Collections XV includes a reprint of one of Ralph Crane's transcripts of Middleton's A GAME AT CHESS; a reprint of the part of 'Poore' in another wise unknown Jacobean play acted at Christ Church, Oxford; a collection of records from the archives of the Middle Temple, relating to dramatic and musical entertainments, 1613-1643; and a letter from Sir Henry Killigrew to the Earl of Leicester enclosing proposals for a fireworks display for Queen Elizabeth. TOM A LINCOLN, edited by Richard Proudfoot from BL Add MS 61745. The play dates from 1611-16 and is of historical interest for its echoes of Shakespeare and for its burlesque of the conventions of romantic narrative and romantic drama. Samuel Daniel, HYMEN'S TRIUMPH, edited by John Pitcher. The text used in this reprint derives from the manuscript in the Edinburgh University Library. It was prepared under Daniel's supervision as a presentation copy to Jean Drummon, daughter of PAtrick, third Lord Hawthornden, at her marriage for Robert Ker of Cessford, first Lord Roxborough, in 1614. William Shakespeare, A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM, prepared by Thomas L. Berger. The text reproduced is that of the Huntington copy, one of eight copies of Q1 which survive. The 1996 volume (delayed at press) will be Dr. Lynn Hulse's edition of dramatic pieces by William Cavendish preserved among the Portland manuscripts in the Hallward Library at the University of Nottingham. The 1997 volume will be Sarah Poynting's edition of Walter Montagu's THE SHEPHERD'S PARADISE (performed January 1633 at the court of Henrietta Maria by an all-female cast) from one of two Folger manuscript versions. Annual dues for U. S. members are $27.00. The U.S. Treasurer is Thomas L. Berger Department of English / St. Lawrence University / Canton, NY 13617 Phone: 315-379-5134 FAX: 315-379-5628 e-mail: tber@music.stlawu.edu Special membership offers now obtain, but the U.S. Treasurer is so inept at using e-mail that he won't even attempt to put them on the screen but will be happy to send them snail mail to those who would like to have said offers. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Gross Date: Wednesday, 28 May 1997 14:34:35 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Speaking the Verse Jody Tate asks about the verse and the acting style. Regarding the verse, I can make available to you a 'booklet' by me which I use as a text in my Acting Shakespeare classes. It is called THE SHAK-PACK: MATERIALS FOR ACTING SHAKESPEARE. It is 50 pages long and is a basic introduction which lays out most of what you need to know to speak the verse appropriately. The pack is a sort of miniaturized version of my almost completed book, SPEAKING SHAKESPEARE'S VERSE. Several universities are using it now and they tell me it is useful. Re. acting style, I recommend Bertram Joseph's ACTING SHAKESPEARE and ELIZABETHAN ACTING (I think that's the title). You are correct...every age has actors which it finds natural and actors it finds artificial or formal. This distinction doesn't give us an objective image of the style. One age's 'natural' is another ages 'phony'. I have a tape which samples the great actors since the beginning of recording. I am amazed to hear that naturalness comes and goes. Edwin Booth seems much more natural to me than actors who worked 30 or 40 years later. Yet he is just as 'large' as they. The impression of naturalness comes from something other than the 'size' or 'elevation' of the acting. It is related to the idea of 'believability' which is also independent of style. We don't have an adequate way of describing the factors which lend believability. In your post, I find what seems to be a linking of correct verse speaking and the grand style. I encourage you to give up that link. Verse can be spoken 'correctly' in either the grand style or in a 'conversational' style. Style and rhythm are quite independent of each other. If you are interested in THE SHAK-PACK, contact me off list. Roger Gross U. of Arkansas========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 16:01:45 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0607 Re: Identifying Plagiarism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0607. Thursday, 29 May 1997. [1] From: Norm Holland Date: Wednesday, 28 May 97 17:16:13 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0604 Re: Identifying Plagiarism [2] From: Valentin Gerlier Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 08:27:17 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0604 Re: Identifying Plagiarism [3] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 05:43:05 -0400 Subj: SHK 8.0604 Re: Identifying Plagiarism [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Wednesday, 28 May 97 17:16:13 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0604 Re: Identifying Plagiarism Re: plagiarism Some years back-and it may still be on the market-a software firm was demonstrating at MLA a program to detect plagiarism. It worked by deleting every fifth word (or third or tenth-you could vary the parameter) in the suspect paper. (Of course, you had to get the paper into your computer-but that, too, might be an opportunity for questioning the student. Ask him or her for the file, and see what it looks like.) Once the paper is "clozed" this way, you ask the student to supply the missing words. I realize this is very policey, and I don't like it. But I always preface any paper assignments in my classes with a handout that demonstrates the methods of documentation and states that plagiarism is a form of cheating. If a student plagiarizes after that, I think there's little reason to be charitable. --Best, Norm Holland [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Valentin Gerlier Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 08:27:17 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0604 Re: Identifying Plagiarism In response to Charles Henebry (and to others) Identifying plagiarism is not the problem; the problem is that is there altogether. I agree with John V. Robinson; surely there must be a problem either in the way the teacher has taught or in the way the student is learning. Although I'm not in a position to say anything about teachers, I am a student. The reason I never plagiarize is because I am fortunate enough to love the study of Shakespeare because I find something meaningful in it and I want to communicate it. In times when I was unclear about a particular assignment, I went straight to the teacher and said: "look, I don't understand this and you didn't explain that properly" or something of the kind. Students find Shakespeare boring: I have a good teacher, but I know that some altogether hate it, and it is often because the teachers, to put it quite strongly (and forgive me if I offend) don't care about the students nor about what they teach. I would like to ask of all teachers, in the name of Shakespeare students, that they help students to be creative, to work intelligently, to be interested and to have a good relationship with them rather than just try to crush them. Education systems are failing all over the world just because students and teachers are uninterested. I hope these comments are of some help to anybody! Regards, Valentin Gerlier [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 05:43:05 -0400 Subject: SHK 8.0604 Re: Identifying Plagiarism For Harry Hill: The footnote linking 'Oed und leer Das Meer' in The Waste Land to Tristan und Isolde was of course supplied by T.S. Eliot himself, not the editors of the Norton anthology. Mind you, this confirms your judgement about it being an act of the 'half-educated'. Poor Tom. All those survey courses. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 16:05:26 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0608 Re: Themes in King Lear MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0608. Thursday, 29 May 1997. [1] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 05:42:24 -0400 Subj: SHK 8.0605 Themes in King Lear [2] From: Alan Pierpoint Date: Wednesday, 28 May 1997 23:37:52 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Themes in King Lear [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 05:42:24 -0400 Subject: SHK 8.0605 Themes in King Lear For Chris Clark: One of the central themes in King Lear is unemployment. Think about it. T. Hawkes [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Pierpoint Date: Wednesday, 28 May 1997 23:37:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Themes in King Lear One theme of Lear is that of old age, and the horror of Lear's self-discovery: His shallow vanity has poisoned his family relationships and left him destitute in his old age, with no time left to make things right. Life is perhaps a race between self-knowledge and death, and death always wins; but it matters, sometimes a lot, how soon we learn what we DO manage to learn...by the way, an interesting take on the Lear story, re-set in the American heartland, is Jane Smiley's A Thousand Acres. Imagine the story told from Goneril's point of view, with Cordelia as a bitch lawyer and Edmond as a Vietnam deserter and organic farmer, and the old man...well, he's evil in ways that Lear never was. Alan Pierpoint janephile@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 16:39:13 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0609 Qs: Lodging; Book Inquiry; Metaphor MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0609. Thursday, 29 May 1997. [1] From: Jean Peterson Date: Wednesday, 28 May 1997 16:37:53 +0200 Subj: Another Lodging Question [2] From: Thomas Bishop Date: Wednesday, 28 May 1997 16:50:07 -0500 Subj: Book Inquiry [3] From: Hiroyuki Todokoro Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 14:47:55 +0900 Subj: Metaphor [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean Peterson Date: Wednesday, 28 May 1997 16:37:53 +0200 Subject: Another Lodging Question Thank you to all and sundry who replied to my question about London accommodations. Now if I may strain the patience of SHAKESPERians once more: What have those of you who have worked in the Shakespeare Centre Library at Stratford done about lodgings? Is the best bet a B&B? Please reply to me privately with any suggestions you have to offer-flats you know for rent, your favorite B&B, etc. I'll be there for about 2 weeks in November. With thanks-- Jean Peterson Associate Professor of English Bucknell University jpeter@bucknell.edu [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Bishop Date: Wednesday, 28 May 1997 16:50:07 -0500 Subject: Book Inquiry Dear colleagues, A call for recommendations of good short books introducing readers to study of the early modern period as a whole, that might serve for an upper-level undergrad Intro course in Renaissance studies. I'm still fond of Eugene Rice's Foundations of Early Modern Europe 1460-1559, which convincingly organizes a lot of matters in a short space, but there are no doubt others I dont know about, and there has been much work in the area since Rice wrote in 1970. Please feel free to reply direct as well as to the list. Thanks, Tom [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hiroyuki Todokoro Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 14:47:55 +0900 Subject: Metaphor Dear SHAKSPEAReans, I wonder if someone out there knew some books or studies in which the author finds significant differences between metaphor and simile (or metonyny), and tries to re-interpret Shakespeare's plays with a view to such differences. In _Farce and Beyond: Antipholus, Katherina, and Proteus_, Roger L. Cox writes that ERR is a play of simile whereas SHR is that of metaphor. But, I don't find the distinction valid, for his idea of simile is not deep-rooted( he only says ERR is built upon a simile in that Ant. of Eph. is _like_ Ant. of Syr.). Isn't this too brief? I need a more radical perspective about the comparison. Linguistic studies may help me, but I'm not sure. Jakobson's monograph on aphasia would have been charming if he had given us enough cases. Anyway, thanks in advance for the help! Regards, Todok ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 18:02:07 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0610 Re: Speaking the Verse; Droeshout; Handwriting/Ironside MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0610. Thursday, 29 May 1997. [1] From: Jody Tate Date: Wednesday, 28 May 1997 14:24:00 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0606 Re: Speaking the Verse [2] From: Paul Franssen Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 09:47:01 -0600 (CST) Subj: RE: SHK 8.0605 Qs: Droeshout [3] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Wednesday, 28 May 1997 20:59:05 -0400 Subj: Q: Handwriting/Ironside; Re: SHK 8.0605 Q: Droeshout [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jody Tate Date: Wednesday, 28 May 1997 14:24:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0606 Re: Speaking the Verse In response to an earlier post concerning speaking Shakespeare's verse Roger Gross writes: > In your post, I find what seems to be a linking of correct verse > speaking and the grand style. I encourage you to give up that link. > Verse can be spoken 'correctly' in either the grand style or in a > 'conversational' style. Style and rhythm are quite independent of each > other. I'm most intrigued by the distinction you make between style and rhythm. Meter, as it has been shown by recent theorists (notably Derek Attridge, Amittai Aviram, and Richard Cureton to name a few), imparts a regular rhythm to language and meter is considered to be a type of stylistic device. This might explain why I tend to associate style and rhythm. You suggest that they are independent, but I ask: do they inform one another in your view? Does style, or meter for example, inform rhythm and does rhythm inform style? And can the two together then inform our larger understanding of a play, or only localized moments of rhetorical emphasis? The last question is larger than our current discussion, so feel free to ignore it! Thanks for your post, and I look forward to your response. Jody Tate Graduate Student U. of Washington, Seattle P.S. To other list members: Could anyone direct me to a discussion of metrical or verse style and its relation to thematic content in the new Norton Shakespeare? thanks. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Franssen Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 09:47:01 -0600 (CST) Subject: RE: SHK 8.0605 Qs: Droeshout Re Tom Marshall's query: the modern Dutch pronunciation of the name Droeshout would be approximately /dru:shaut/, with the stress on the first syllable. In case you are not familiar with phonetic transscription: "oe" as in "drew", "ou" as in "out", and the "s" and "h" as two separate sounds rather than one, so NOT "drew-shout" but more like "Druce-howt". Precisely how the name would have been pronounced in Shakespeare's own time, let alone in Shakespeare's London, I do not know. Paul Franssen University of utrecht The Netherlands [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Wednesday, 28 May 1997 20:59:05 -0400 Subject: Q: Handwriting/Ironside; Re: SHK 8.0605 Q: Droeshout Droeshout? As in Martin? That's easy: it's , isn't it? My big problems are with "Chandos" and "Cardenio". I always pronounce them as and . Sometimes I hear people say , and, in comparison to that, seems overly "polite" and "French". It reminds me of the first page of the *Dunciad* proper, in a note (I don't remember it quite accurately, so I'll do a memorial reconstruction) signed "-THEOBALD", though it can't really be by him (it's actually by Pope-or Poop, and maybe I should say "Theobald-or Tibbald". My great respect for Theobald always makes it hard to think "Tibbald"-A pronunciation issue in itself. People sometimes look at me funny when I speak of Poop and Tibbald.) about how to spell "Dunciad". He says that "DuncEiad" is right, because it's dunce+iad, but not "duncEiadE", because that's a "French" spelling of a "purely English" word. But enough of the *Dunciad*. Cnd "Cardenio" be pronounced , with a slight accent on the "car", and a heavy one on the "nye"? On Thursday, 08 Dec 1994 09:01:27 -0400 (EDT), Don Foster wrote: Re: SHK 5.0980 Cardenio >Charles Hamilton is notorious for speaking with great enthusiasm and certainty >even when he hasn't a clue what he's talking about. Every time Hamilton comes >across a document in the Elizabethan "secretary hand," he announces it to be >Shakespeare's. For example, he told the press that he knew "in five seconds" >that the _Ironside_ MS was in Shakespeare's hand, but in fact the _Ironside_ >ms. is in the same hand as that of a playhouse scribe who elsewhere signs >himself "W.P." (as even Eric Sams has since been forced to acknowledge). >Eric Sams has said that *Ironside* is not in Shakespeare's handwriting? When? He still said it in *Shakespeare's Edward III: an Early Play, Recently Restored to the Canon* (or as someone said a while ago on this list, "...to the canon") (1996), and, Don, you wrote that in 1994! How did you know what Eric Sams would do in the future? Speaking of *Ironside*, on Wednesday, 2 Apr 1997 23:26:07 +0100: > >>Locrine > >Don't think this is in SHAXICON, but I don't think it's too likely that >Shakespeare wrote it. > >Dave Kathman Well, doesn't Jonathan Hope have a Marlowe-Shakespeare-Dekker --- doesn't-sound-like-Marlowe position on *Locrine*, thus leaving Shakespeare and Dekker? Best wishes to all, Gabriel Z. Wasserman ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 09:12:20 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0611 Re: Metaphor MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0611. Friday, 30 May 1997. [1] From: Norm Holland Date: Thursday, 29 May 97 16:53:21 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0609 Q: Metaphor [2] From: Alan Pierpoint Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 23:18:53 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0609 Q: Metaphor [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Thursday, 29 May 97 16:53:21 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0609 Q: Metaphor I'm glad someone mentioned Jakobson's essay on aphasia. It gives me the chance to sound an alert. Jakobson's view of aphasias as mirrored in metonymy and metaphor (rather oddly defined) is quite out of date. More modern accounts of the aphasias point us toward a far more complex linguistics than Saussure's (also quite out of date). See Steven Pinker's _The Language Instinct_ for a quite readable account of both the aphasias and post-Saussurean, post-Bloomfieldian, post-Whorfian linguistics. Those earlier versions pass current among literary critics, but not linguists. --Best, Norm Holland [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Pierpoint Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 23:18:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0609 Q: Metaphor Regarding metaphor, simile and Shakespeare: You might find something in "The Four Master Tropes," Kenneth Burke's nearly inscrutable essay appended to the back of A Grammar of Motive. He discusses, if memory serves, metaphor, simile, (or was it irony?),metonymy, and synecdoche in terms of four different rhetorical strategies. I don't remember if Burke brought the fog of his intellect to bear on Shakespeare, but I do recall using the metonymy-reduction idea in a paper on Adrienne Rich back in grad school, and getting away with it. Good luck. Alan Pierpoint janephile@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 09:16:53 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0612 Re: Identifying Plagiarism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0612. Friday, 30 May 1997. [1] From: Tad Davis Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 16:34:16 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0607 Re: Identifying Plagiarism [2] From: David Dyal Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 20:19:27 -0700 Subj: Plagiarism [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Davis Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 16:34:16 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0607 Re: Identifying Plagiarism Norm Holland wrote: This is only tangentially related, but ... It's serendipitous that this subject came up just now. I recently began reading a series of mystery novels by Edith Skom, whose amateur detective is a literature professor at a university near Chicago. Her detective has a strong reaction to any hint of plagiarism by students; she is mercilessly teased by her colleagues for the amount of time she's willing to put in tracking down sources. I recommend this series (two novels so far, a third in the works) if you need a break from the Bard. If you've ever wished one of your colleagues an early trip to regions of thick-ribbed ice, you'll especially enjoy the first one ("The Mark Twain Murders"). [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Dyal Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 20:19:27 -0700 Subject: Plagiarism >From the netherworld of god terms: Let's see if I've got this right: A student lies, cheats, and steals-all essential elements of plagiarism-and something's wrong with the teacher or subject. Just another of the many wonderful fruits our brave new world, I guess. I figured out that concepts like honor and integrity were cultural constructions when I was in high school, long before the current critical jargon co-opted the obvious and acted as if they had discovered something new, which in itself is a form of plagiarism. But that doesn't change the fact that concepts like honor and integrity are essential. We have to act as if honor is an absolute, even it's not. My student evaluations consistently tell me that I am an engaged, fair teacher. But woe be it to the student who gets caught plagiarizing in my class. David Dyal ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 09:22:23 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0613 Re: Themes in King Lear; Smiley's 1000 Acres MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0613. Friday, 30 May 1997. [1] From: Chris Clark Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 21:08:23 GMT Subj: Re: Themes in King Lear [2] From: Jocelyn Emerson Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 17:08:36 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0608 Re: Themes in King Lear [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Clark Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 21:08:23 GMT Subject: Re: Themes in King Lear One theme I managed to totally miss is the religious connotation or debate that is encapsulated within the play: Cordelia is a bit of a Jesus figure really - mistreated but returning to provide redemption (hints of prodigal son too) Albany - turning the other cheek Edmund - Judas The pagan/other religion sides to the argument are presented by Edgar, Albany and Gloucester with their occult-type views (Albany believing in Justicers, Gloucester in Gods and that the planets can be used to determine our fate, and Edgar also believing in the astrology stuff). Gloucester at one point says 'And that's true too,' illustrating the manner in which this play shows different sides to the same arguments, leaving us to make the final decision. Thanks for all the helpful replies I've received to my previous submission... [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jocelyn Emerson Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 17:08:36 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0608 Re: Themes in King Lear >One theme of Lear is that of old age, and the horror of Lear's >self-discovery: His shallow vanity has poisoned his family >relationships and left him destitute in his old age, with no time left >to make things right. Life is perhaps a race between self-knowledge and >death, and death always wins; but it matters, sometimes a lot, how soon >we learn what we DO manage to learn...by the way, an interesting take on >the Lear story, re-set in the American heartland, is Jane Smiley's A >Thousand Acres. Imagine the story told from Goneril's point of view, >with Cordelia as a bitch lawyer and Edmond as a Vietnam deserter and >organic farmer, and the old man...well, he's evil in ways that Lear >never was. In response to Alan Pierpoint's discussion of Smiley's A Thousand Acres and her novel's recontextualization of the Lear stories/myths (Shakespeare's foremost among them), there are several points to consider which Pierpoint misses. Smiley's novel brings to the fore the issues of Lear's "love contest" in the play's opening as a socially/politically sanctioned rhetoric of incest, full of all the abuses of power which characterize incest. Although we don't encounter physical incest/rape as such, as we currently define it in our social discourses, it's implications are everywhere, especially in that early scene. In fact the love contest does discoursively represent/embody the evil of incest, and subsequently Lear's position in that discourse of power. This is not to conflate rhetoric with the actuality of sexual abuse and assault, but Smiley's novel enables us to see the political and familial dynamics/roots of patriarchy in which incest is prevalent as a *structured* form of power, and to see those characteristics as socially as well as individually situated-and indeed, that the social and the "personal" are not, in fact, separate as embodied in the body of the king. Larry acts on that power in A Thousand Acres in physical ways, but Lear's discoursive incest tropes remind us that such abusive power is always an option for Lear, as a man and as a king, and is embedded in social/political structures and that both the physical and the verbal are deeply related aspects of that abuse of power. I also wonder what is so "bitchy" about Caroline and how that clearly the use of that gendered term reminds us, again, of both the play's overwhelming anxiety about women in positions of power-i.e.,. they're unrelentingly evil or like Cordelia, unrelentingly silent and virtuous beyond compare-and our own culture's parallel fears. In the play, it's clearly a polemic portrait stemming from larger cultural assumptions about women as having an essential and irrefutable nature that's evil or virginal. Smiley's novel clearly complicates that polemic by showing it as constructed rather than "natural". In Caroline we have a character who is strong-willed, independent, devoted to her father because her experience (based on female-centered nurturing) is radically different from that of Rose or Ginny. That she doesn't live with the trauma of incest and that her self-determination was protected and nurtured by her older sisters makes her, in great measure., what she is-not an "evil" nature. How then, does that make her a "bitch"? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 09:28:22 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0614 Re: Neutral Sh; Bruno; Locrine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0614. Friday, 30 May 1997. [1] From: Ben Schneider Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 17:17:44 +0000 Subj: Neutral Shakespeare [2] From: Graham Paul Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 21:46:35 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0605 Re: Giordano Bruno and Occult Neoplatonism [3] From: Jonathan Hope Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 11:24:44 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0610 Re: Locrine [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben Schneider Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 17:17:44 +0000 Subject: Neutral Shakespeare Dear John McWilliams, I'm sorry I confused things by using the term "neutral Shakespeare" as an identifying feature of "postmodern" criticism, which you rightly describe as anything but neutral. You say, to the contrary, that the notion of 'Great Artists' being neutral and above making political and moral choices is one which was very popular in literary criticism during the 50s and 60s, at the height of New Criticism. 1. Isn't it the CRITIC who claims to be neutral under the protocols of New Criticism? Actually I was there in the 50s and 60s, and I happen to be a full-blooded New Critic. As such I claim that I am neutral in the sense of "objective," unless proved otherwise. I also claim that an author has an intention, and that the intention is necessarily moral. 2. On the other hand, the neutrality of the AUTHOR as opposed to that of the critic would seem to be a feature of the postmodern school. I speak of the common use of such words as "plurality of meaning," "ambiguity," "contradictory," "problematic." Far from the author's having AN intention, his position is considered "equivocal," or "undecidable," extraneous in any argument about the meaning of his work. If you are going to deconstruct (and thus politicize) an author's work, this is where you usually start. For a recent and up-to-the-minute example, see how Katharine Eisaman Maus begins her introduction to MV in the new Norton anthology: The play has generated controversy for centuries. Is it anti-Semitic? Does it criticize anti-Semitism? Does it merely represent anti-Semitism without either endorsement or condemnation? Are the Christians right to call Shylock, the Jewish moneylender, a "devil," an "inexorable dog"; or is he merely the understandably resentful victim of their bigotry? Does Portia, Shylock's antagonist in the courtroom, exemplify the best in womanly virtue, or is she a manipulative virago? [paragraph on early modern anti-Semitism deleted] Of course, the existence of anti-Semitism in sixteenth- century England says little about Shakespeare's own attitudes. He could have written The Merchant of Venice either to capitalize on or to criticize the prejudices of his society." Having established Shakespeare's ambivalence toward Shylock's Christian opponents, Professor Maus, with typical postmodern gusto, proceeds to do a brilliant job of deconstructing (destructing, destroying, assassinating) their characters. 3. Now we have a really knotty problem on our hands. Is this Shakespeare's deconstruction or Professor Eisaman's? Certainly Shakespeare put all the data for her deconstruction in the text, but did he mean for her to use it this way? Professor Eisaman seems to assume without explicitly stating that Shakespeare deconstructs his own play, and the assumption grows on you until you have no quarrel with her penultimate sentence: "Shakespeare stresses the artifice involved in his resolution," in which his agency is clear. 4. If Shakespeare deconstructs his own play, as Professor Maus seems to say, then he DOES criticize anti-semitism; he thinks that the Christians are WRONG to call Shylock a dog and that for this treatment Shylock is an understandably resentful VICTIM; and it is his opinion that Portia is a manipulative VIRAGO. Now look where we have come out! We have established that same "authorial intention" that we started out by denying. Please understand that I am not singling out Professor Maus for special treatment. She just happens to have provided the first example that came to mind of the part played by "authorial neutrality" in postmodern criticism. Her essay on MV is actually the best I have read, and the fairest, since postmodernism took over. If only she would stand it on its head. John, I do not think this undecidability factor derives from the myth of the universal/essential Shakespeare. The myth is just what you come up with when someone asks, "What's so great about Shakespeare?" and it's a cop-out. But the ease with which postmodern critics impose postmodern values (hatred of exclusivity in the case of MV) on early modern authors leads me to believe that the postmoderns are the true essentialists. When someone asks them, "How did Shakespeare know all about our culture wars?" the easy answer is "That's why he's great." Maybe that's why there's so much bardolatry in postmodern criticism. Yours ever to command BEN SCHNEIDER [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graham Paul Date: Thursday, 29 May 1997 21:46:35 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0605 Re: Giordano Bruno and Occult Neoplatonism Dear Valentin Gerlier: Check out the introduction to Ted Hughes' "Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being" (1992, Faber & Faber) for a discussion of Shakespeare as possibly influenced by Bruno and Occult Neoplatonism. Cheers, Graham Paul Warren Wilson College [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Hope Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 11:24:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0610 Re: Locrine Gabriel Wasserman recently wrote > Well, doesn't Jonathan Hope have a Marlowe-Shakespeare-Dekker --- > doesn't-sound-like-Marlowe position on *Locrine*, thus leaving > Shakespeare and Dekker? which is not quite what I wrote, and certainly not what I meant to imply. I said that *of the playwrights I sampled*, only M, S and D could be candidates for authorship on the grounds of auxiliary 'do' evidence - and that relative marker evidence then tends to rule all of them out too. So *Locrine* is probably by someone I didn't sample. Jonathan Hope Middlesex University ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 09:30:00 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0615 And Another Lodging Question: Scotland MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0615. Friday, 30 May 1997. From: Rebecca C Totaro Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 07:12:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: And Another Lodging Question: Scotland I'll be heading for Scotland next year. I'd like to be able to stay in bed and breakfast places but without spending a great deal on lodging so I have more to spend on touring, etc.. Edinborough is the designated home base. I'd sure appreaciate recommendations on B & Bs in Edinborough, Inverness, and York. Thank you in advance.========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 11:31:45 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0616 Re: Plagiarism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0616. Monday, 2 June 1997. [1] From: Ron Dwelle Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 09:34:14 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0612 Re: Identifying Plagiarism [2] From: Kimberly Nolan Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 11:28:26 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0612 Re: Identifying Plagiarism [3] From: Hugh Davis Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 11:32:48 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0612 Re: Identifying Plagiarism [4] From: Karen Krebser Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 09:05:54 -0700 Subj: Re: Identifying Plagiarism [5] From: David H. Maruyama Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 12:25:17 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0612 Re: Identifying Plagiarism [6] From: John V Robinson Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 17:48:33 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0612 Re: Identifying Plagiarism [7] From: Susan Mather Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 20:11:28 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0612 Re: Identifying Plagiarism [8] From: Valentin Gerlier Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 21:49:33 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0612 Re: Identifying Plagiarism [9] From: David Mycoff Date: Sunday, 1 Jun 1997 17:58:55 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Plagiarism [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Dwelle Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 09:34:14 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0612 Re: Identifying Plagiarism Wasn't Shakespeare himself a pretty good plagiarist? [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kimberly Nolan Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 11:28:26 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0612 Re: Identifying Plagiarism Our policy here at IAAY assumes that the first offense is unintentional. Instructors confer with their Dean and then try to create a learning experience rather than a punishment. We ask them to "create an assignment that shows the student how to incorporate outside sources into a paper that abides by the subject area's discourse conventions while speaking in the student's own voice" (IAAY Handbook 24). In my experience as teacher, tutor, and administrator *most* student plagiarism is a result of the student not knowing how to properly cite sources. I think that many students have difficulty grasping the concept of paraphrasing and need a thorough demonstration/discussion in order to understand that they must cite the source of the material when they paraphrase. I don't think this approach undermines concepts of academic honesty or integrity. It merely provides us with an opportunity to reiterate their importance to our students. Perhaps some of us in Shakespeare studies have read about so many cunning villains who speak eloquently that we've become jaded and suspicious. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hugh Davis Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 11:32:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0612 Re: Identifying Plagiarism I appreciated David Dyal's recent comments on plagiarism and the need for honor and integrity. I read with recent chagrin that NC State's Board of Trustees overturned a ruling on cheating (determined by the student court and upheld at every level through the chancellor, then overturned when the trustees said they would not trust a faculty member or his t.a.); the faculty member who made the accusation was apparently warned by his colleagues not to even try to catch these students (he was quoted as saying he now agrees the system does not work). Now I read with chagrin as I see that this forum (for the main part) has chosen to ridicule someone who believes he has detected plagiarism. I was especially shocked to read that the teacher has supposedly failed to teach if plagiarism has occurred. When I have had trouble with an assignment, I have always talked with my instructor; when I have felt my instructor was not doing the best job to make things clear, I have gotten through assignments and classes. I have never seen plagiarism as any answer other than a wrong and unethical one. Hugh Davis [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Krebser Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 09:05:54 -0700 Subject: Re: Identifying Plagiarism Greetings, all. No advice, but grad. school plagiarism story ahead: I was in a grad. Shakespeare seminar and I heard through those wonderful departmental grapevines that my professor was convinced that a fellow student had plagiarized an ENTIRE paper on "Romeo and Juliet," but that he was getting too old to go chasing down sources. He questioned her, she denied it, and he let it go, but spent the rest of the semester in (visible) disgust. The student in question eventually dropped out of the program entirely and moved to another state... claiming all the way, of course, that the professor who "drove her away" was completely insane.... I know this is a serious subject, but I can't help but laugh when I think of this story. The student was a certified twinkie, a mental lightweight, and the professor was, by all accounts except hers, a brilliant teacher. (I wouldn't dare plagiarize own my name within ten feet of this guy...) Speaking from the (former-Just Graduated) student's point of view, I have no pity for the plagiarizers. Shoot 'em all with Nerf darts and send them on to other careers.... Every puny whipster gets my sword, Karen Krebser San Jose State University [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David H. Maruyama Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 12:25:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0612 Re: Identifying Plagiarism Greetings, Plagiarism is obvious if you know the resources that have been allocated for students to search through. I think you can set up the assignment with markers for any sign of plagiarism. I am surprised that no one here has mentioned the small cottage industry connected to papers-the purchasing and sale of papers. When I was a student, I knew many undergraduates who purchased their papers for the related subject on hand. This bothered me since they playing field was now skewed. I also know that some places will buy papers from students. You can scale them according to the grade you want from them and everything. d maruyama [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John V Robinson Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 17:48:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0612 Re: Identifying Plagiarism << Let's see if I've got this right: A student lies, cheats, and steals-all essential elements of plagiarism-and something's wrong with the teacher or subject. Just another of the many wonderful fruits our brave new world, I guess. I figured out that concepts like honor and integrity were cultural constructions when I was in high school, long before the current critical jargon co-opted the obvious and acted as if they had discovered something new, which in itself is a form of plagiarism. But that doesn't change the fact that concepts like honor and integrity are essential. We have to act as if honor is an absolute, even it's not. My student evaluations consistently tell me that I am an engaged, fair teacher. But woe be it to the student who gets caught plagiarizing in my class. >> Lies...cheats...steals? We're still talking about a freshman paper that MAY have SOME plagiarized ideas in it. The best way to avoid this problem is teach the students how to acknowledge sources. i.e., it's a good thing that a student as done more than the minimum required reading. Unfortunately it is very fashionable in English depts these days to lament students lack of compositional skills. Nobody ever thinks it's their responsibility to teach these things...."you should have learned that in freshmen comp., high school, Jr. high, grammar school"....in an infinite regression back to the beginning of time. [7]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 20:11:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0612 Re: Identifying Plagiarism Hello! Fellow Shaksperians- I thought I'd jump in-I can't remember who it was who first brought plagiarism up! Recently, I turned back papers to three of my students because of plagiarism. I wrote them each a lengthy letter and gave them an incomplete. I don't want to think plagiarism is always intentional. Some people just missed class on a number of occasions or weren't paying attention because, well, documentation is rather boring. I think that an incomplete is sometimes the best one can do-since we are supposed to be teaching them something afterall. Teaching honesty-integrity and the like perhaps-or just the college basics-Think on your own-don't let others do the thinking for you. Am I right? Take Care, Susan smather@kent.edu [8]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Valentin Gerlier Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 21:49:33 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0612 Re: Identifying Plagiarism In response to David Dyal, about plagiarism. Dear David, I am glad to hear that your students think of you as a good teacher. What I was trying to say in my last mail is that I believe it doesn't help to use fear as the power which will get students to do the work. You mention honour and integrity and I very much agree with you that it must come from the student as well as from the teacher. But what I also see is that it doesn't help, but rather tremendously hinder one's education if there is this sense of "fear" in the classroom. Fair enough, some students will think "will I get caught? Should I cheat?" even though the teacher is caring and responsible. But punishment doesn't help: if a teacher says: "if you cheat, you will be punished", the student may avoid cheating out of fear and not out of understanding of honour and integrity, which as you say, are fundamental. Isn't more important to understand that than to just avoid doing things because one is afraid of the authority ?I am not trying to say it is the student's or the teacher's fault, but I firmly believe this issue of fear needs to be looked into. For the sake of student and teacher alike. I hope I am making some sense... Ever yours, Valentin Gerlier [9]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Mycoff Date: Sunday, 1 Jun 1997 17:58:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Plagiarism On plagiarism-like Prof. Dyal, I used to take the hard line on plagiarism-the inheritance of the honor system at my undergraduate college-until I discovered in the course of several inquisitions that my students had not indeed ever been taught better, and that there were colleagues (NOT in the English, Theatre, or History Departments, to be sure) who are telling students not to worry about "that stuff" (documentation) because "nobody cares about it." If I have doubts about intention, I simply make the student do the paper over and over until there is no plagiarism. It is also true, as someone in another posting implied, that documentation requirements in science, technology, and social science are usually less fastidious, even in professional journals, than what we in the humanities have probably been taught, so if one's students come from "outside" they may well have quite honestly obtained a different sense of the protocols. Another discussion list to which I subscribe found that it had to ban plagiarism inquiries, not exactly because they are inappropriate but because they quickly began to consume too much space on the list. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 11:42:17 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0617 Re: King Lear; Smiley's 1000 Acres MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0617. Monday, 2 June 1997. [1] From: G. L. Horton Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 09:54:07 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0613 Re: Incest in King Lear [2] From: Susan Mather Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 20:22:30 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0613 Re: Themes in King Lear; Smiley's 1000 Acres [3 ] From: Alan Pierpoint Date: Sunday, 1 Jun 1997 08:53:11 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0613 Re: Themes in King Lear; Smiley's 1000 Acres [4] From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 14:25:37 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0605 Q: Themes in King Lear [5] From: Chris Clark Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 19:18:56 GMT Subj: France and Burgundy [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: G. L. Horton Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 09:54:07 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0613 Re: Incest in King Lear; Smiley's novel brings to the fore the >issues of Lear's "love contest" in the play's opening as a >socially/politically sanctioned rhetoric of incest, full of all the >abuses of power which characterize incest. Although we don't encounter >physical incest/rape as such, as we currently define it in our social >discourses, it's implications are everywhere, especially in that early >scene. In fact the love contest does discoursively represent/embody the >evil of incest, and subsequently Lear's position in that discourse of >power. Eliza Wyatt has written a small-cast Lear pastiche titled "Nuncle" that separates out and focuses on the incest thread. It was done somewhere around London last year: Battersea??? I have the review she sent me buried in one of my desk drawers. G.L.Horton -- Newton, MA, USA ghorton@tiac.net [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Mather Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 20:22:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0613 Re: Themes in King Lear; Smiley's 1000 Acres On King Lear and incest-- Is it incest or pseudo-incest? I'm thinking it's the latter. King Lear doesn't appear to want to have sex with his daughters-but rather, have his daughters's identities-social, sexual, what-have-you. There are three really good texts I have read on the issue of incest-books by Mark Taylor: _Shakespeare's Darker Purpose_, Diane Dreher's _Domination and Defiance_ & this last one is really good, an article in _Shakespeare Quarterly_, Fall 1990 vol. 41:3 299-308 by Jeffrey Stern, "_KL_: The Transference of the Kingdom." He writes: "That which Lear describes, then, as his 'darker purpose' (I.i. 36) is, in effect, to regain by marrying its new queen(s) the kingdom he has renounced" (300). An interesting notion. . . . --Susan smather@kent.edu [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Pierpoint Date: Sunday, 1 Jun 1997 08:53:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0613 Re: Themes in King Lear; Smiley's 1000 Acres Replying to Jocelyn Emerson: I withdraw the term "bitch" and apologize to all whom it may have offended. You, and perhaps others, missed the tone of my brief remarks, which were meant to stimulate interest in A Thousand Acres. I haven't tried to teach it, but I assigned it as extra reading to a few students in my Brit Lit (high school senior) class for extra credit, intending to then have them read Lear, but we ran out of time. They graduate on Thursday, and I will share your remarks with them during their final, the next and last time I will see them as a captive audience. I still like the idea of pairing the two texts; if I do it again I'll have to start earlier. If Shakespeare was writing a "polemic," in Lear, what by the way was his agenda? Evidently, Smiley's injection of the incest theme didn't seem forced or formulaic to you, as it did to me when I first read it. I was a bit ticked at Smiley for mangling one of my favorite characters...if you have any further insights or suggested critical sources for A Thousand Acres, I'm interested. -Alan Pierpoint janephile@aol.com [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 14:25:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0605 Q: Themes in King Lear Chris... Try jealousy as a theme and family. How about blindness? Did you hear the rumor that the same actor that played Cordelia for was also played the fool thus the tie and the reason they are never onstage together? [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Clark Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 19:18:56 GMT Subject: France and Burgundy Is it not interesting that Burgundy is offered Cordelia before France? Is there some significance there? If Lear expected them both to reject her because she had no dowry, then it made no difference - but he had a hidden agenda (or 'darker purpose') in splitting the kingdom, so why not in offering the suddenly resented daughter? Opinions welcome.... Cheers. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 11:49:57 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0618 Montana Shakespeare in the Parks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0618. Monday, 2 June 1997. From: Sara Jayne Steen Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 10:39:23 -0500 Subject: Montana Shakespeare in the Parks For 1997, Montana Shakespeare in the Parks will be performing _Love's Labour's Lost_ and Moliere's _Learned Ladies_. The summer tour runs 19 June through 7 September and begins and ends in Bozeman, MT, with intermediate visits to towns across Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. The troupe, a professional company loosely based at Montana State University, really is quite good. If you will be in this area of the northwest United States this summer, it will be worth your time to check the company's schedule. Tel: 406-994-3901;fax: 406-994-4591. Sara Jayne Steen Professor and Chair Department of English Montana State University steen@english.montana.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 11:54:05 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0619 Re: Speaking the Verse MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0619. Monday, 2 June 1997. [1] From: Stephen Schultz Date: Friday, 30 May 97 12:04:18 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0610 Re: Speaking the Verse [2] From: Charles Frey Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 11:33:54 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0610 Re: Speaking the Verse [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Schultz Date: Friday, 30 May 97 12:04:18 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0610 Re: Speaking the Verse Before we get too far down the tempting paths pointed to by the Gross/Tate exchange, would someone propose definitions of "rhythm," "meter," and "style" which will distinguish each from the other two and perhaps also propose ways of making clear when we are meaning "style of speech or acting" as opposed to "style of writing"? These words seem to me to get easily confused. Or we (meaning "the whole world") seem to get easily confused when using these words. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Frey Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 11:33:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0610 Re: Speaking the Verse Concerning the question raised as to whether the new Norton Shakespeare provides guidance to students about relations of meter and content in Shakespeare, I think the answer is: no, it does not. While its editors in their preface concede a need for pedagogical apparatus expected in an edition oriented toward students, they don't provide, so far as I can tell, any explanation for students of Shakespeare's meter, blank verse, or rhythmic effects. Considering the amount of authorial energy that went into the creation of metrical rhythms and considering the importance of those rhythms to our cognitive and emotive responses, this editorial omission seems to me little short of astounding, a bit like telling students in a music course to listen for the meaning of the music but not notice the rhythms. Some may view the omission as the inevitable result of an anti-esthetic bias among new historicist editors, but the Norton General Introduction does purport to introduce Shakespeare's "play of language.." It just ignores meter and rhythm Why? Charles Frey ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 12:12:59 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0622 Q: Cassettes and CDs of Shakespeare as Assignments MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0622. Monday, 2 June 1997. From: Ed Peschko Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 12:33:09 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Cassettes and CDs of Shakespeare as assignments I was wondering if any professor/teacher types out there assigned cassettes and CDs of Shakespeare (Caedmon, Renaissance Theatre Company) as assignments rather/in addition to readings. Video Cassettes at libraries are nice, but face it-watching in an audio/visual department of the library is not the most aesthetic of experiences. I'm just getting into them, and really wish that they had been assigned in my Shakespeare courses in college. Students can listen to them on their own time, at home, in the car, whatever. They also would get much more of a feel for the language. Ed (PS: as a side note, and off topic, I'm just getting into Derek Jacobi's reading of 'The Iliad' (Robert Fagles translation). My God that's a bloody piece of work!) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 12:26:26 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0625. Monday, 2 June 1997. From: Bob Stubbs Date: Monday, 2 Jun 97 12:29:35 GMT Subject: New Globe Theatre All's Well That Ends Well? Within the last week, a project first envisaged by Sam Wanamaker in 1949 was finally brought to fruition. An exact replica of the Globe Theatre has been completed at Southwark, London. The opening performance was Henry V and it is claimed that the costumes and props are the most accurate since Globe II was forcibly closed in 1642. The dyes used in costume production for the all male cast, indigo, weld, madder and onion skin extract treated with urine and saffron, were all specially made. Even the underwear worn by the actors was Elizabethan style linen to enable them to appreciate the effect this had on movement. Real oak was used for corset boning and real needle lace for collars and cuffs. The armour has been made of steel and original Elizabethian techniques used to hand produce shoes. The new theatre hopes to reintroduce *true* period accents with the use of *proto-cockney* and strong regional London accents. It is hoped to introduce Elizabethian and early Stuart audience norms of heckling and informality by serving snacks and performing some plays without intervals. My questions are these: Am I alone in wondering what exactly is the point in this seemingly endless quest for replication and quasi authenticity? The theatre of Shakespeare's day cannot be reproduced. Is it not more important to unpack and understand the many layers of meaning in Shakespeare's works than to produce what may be seen as a Disneyesque Theme Park type event? What do others think? Regards, Bob Stubbs ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 12:05:53 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0620 Re: Ideology; Stoic Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0620. Monday, 2 June 1997. [1] From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 13:44:09 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0597 Re: Ideology [2] From: Ben Schneider Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 16:29:25 +0000 Subj: Stoic Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 13:44:09 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0597 Re: Ideology Dear Ben Schneider: Thank you for your incisive critique of my postmodernism. I have seen the error of my ways and I am ready to convert. Fortunately, wing-tip shoes are back in fashion so I won't have any trouble with those; and I'm sure a vintage clothing store will be able to provide me with all the narrow ties I'll need. I promise to wear them without irony. I have even come up with a way to determine OBJECTIVELY whether or not WT is "sexist," a claim I had not been interested in pursuing before since I did not myself (in my old merely subjective Doc Martens self) believe that the play was "sexist." Now that I'm determined to be objective about these things I've come to see that whether or not I am interested in making a certain kind of claim or not is irrelevant to what I should be doing as a scholar, and so I've thought long and hard about how to answer your question seriously. This, then, is what I think we should do. We gather a colloquium, including experts on statistics, psycholinguists, and semantics. We establish a battery of tests to determine what it is that in the English language is commonly recognized as an example of sexist expression or sexist behavior. We correct our measurements for bias within our test groups. For example, if %60 of our female sample report a certain expression to be sexist, and only %40 of our male sample do, then we add into our measure the %20 difference between men and women as further support for that expression's being sexist. Then, having with years of arduous double-blind studies finally determined quotients of sexist expression (e.g. statement A ["I get mad at women sometimes"] rates 32/100 as a sexist remark, while statement B ["Women are dumb"] rates 84/100), we begin a series of tests with randomly selected audiences. And then ... WE SHOW THEM THE PLAY. Only we don't just show them the play-we show them the play with controls. In one performance (for audience B) we have Paulina's lines spoken by a male character, Paul. In another performance (for audience C) all of Hermione's lines are cut out. In a third Mamilius is girl. In a fourth (audience D) Leontes is a girl. In a fifth performance (audience E) we show them Caryl Churchill's _Cloud Nine._ In a sixth (audience F) we show them a stage version of _Earth Girls Are Easy._ And so forth. After having shown x number of performances (as agreed to by our panel of experts such that it would guarantee a rigorously controlled experiment, with all variables accounted for), we assemble the results of our audiences responses. The point is not whether any given audience label any particular performance "sexist" (our methods are not crude as that), but which performances, if any, evoke over a certain threshold certain responses (say, %60, with corrections again for the gender of the respondents) which indicate a significant sexist quotient in the content of the play. Questions to our respondents might include (after consultation with out panel, and pre-testing for bias) 1) Did this play represent men as being inherently superior to women in intelligence and moral value? 2) Did this play persuade you that women are less dependable or less capable of holding positions of authority than men? 3) Is the fundamental moral order of the play a system designed primarily to serve the interests, needs, and desires of men? 4) How does that make you feel? And so on. Having gathered our results we will then be able to publish our results in _respectable_ journal, one of those journals that gets funding from the National Science Foundation. And we will know the truth about whether WT is a sexist play or not, and under what conditions, provided such-and-such elements are included in the play and none others. We will have our answer, I believe, free of any methodological bias or taint in our samples. Until of course another study comes out. I hope that answers your question. Sincerely, Robert Appelbaum University of Cincinnati [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben Schneider Date: Friday, 30 May 1997 16:29:25 +0000 Subject: Stoic Shakespeare Dear John McWilliams, You suggest, if I read you right, that in Stoicizing Shakespeare I am politicizing him. I hadn't thought of aspiring to that honor, but maybe in Stoicizing I do politicize. The politcizer's theory is my Stoicism. The difference, I would argue, is that my theory fits and his doesn't. Modern political theory is simply anachronistic. See my Ch 1 on the SHAKSPER listserver for evidence on why Stoicism fits. MORAL.SHAKES-1 is the code. However, with Graham Bradshaw, you object to the reductive nature of both my Stoic approach and other politicized approaches. The difference between me and Graham is, I think (though I haven't read his book), that I wouldn't carry "Shakespeare's exploratory nature" as far as he does. Certainly Shakespeare covers all the ramifications of a subject, but not to the degree that he disagrees with himself. My answer to those who say Shakespeare is ambivalent about Henry V is, "Not so, if you approach through Stoicism, casting aside your own ideas of right and wrong." See my ch 5 on HenV for S's own probable attitude to the things that go on in that play. MORAL.SHAKES-5 is the code. Everybody says that Shakespeare is ambivalent. That doesn't mean that he IS ambivalent. I challenge the hypothesis that Shakespeare is always looking at both sides of a question. If you approach with my Stoic "theory" the ambivalence disappears. We impose the ambivalence, because, not being Stoics, we don't agree with him, and rather than throw out our own values, we assign them to one side of his perpetually self-debating mind. What's so great about ambivalence, anyhow? Incoherence by any other name is still incoherent. Or is it a characteristic of a universal genius? We use our basic beliefs all the time to explain the universe, but we seldom question them. Are we SURE that Shakespeare's plays are "exploratory" in the sense of entertaining contrary points of view on the same topic at the same time, or is it an illusion produced by our own contrariness? Yours ever to command, Ben Schneider ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 12:09:55 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0621 Re: Bruno MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0621. Monday, 2 June 1997. [1] From: David Evett Date: Saturday, 31 May 1997 3:05pm ET Subj: SHK 8.0614 Re: Bruno [2] From: David Mycoff Date: Sunday, 1 Jun 1997 17:58:55 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Bruno [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Saturday, 31 May 1997 3:05pm ET Subject: SHK 8.0614 Re: Bruno Graham Paul might want to look at Frances Yates' classic study of *Giordano Burno and the Mermetic Tradition*. There's material on Bruno's visit to England and the relationships around that in Hilary Gatti, *The Renaissance Drama of Knowledge* and in M. C. Bradbrook's *The School of Night*. Dave Evett [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Mycoff Date: Sunday, 1 Jun 1997 17:58:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Bruno It seems to me that it would quite difficult to show convincingly that the neoplatonism in Shakespeare can be specifically associated with the work of Bruno or any other Renaissance thinker-that it is anything more than the neoplatonism one finds in virtually all the sonneteers-like stoic morality-the common intellectual property and idiom of virtually all literate people in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 12:19:25 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0623 The Annual Bad Writing Contest MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0623. Monday, 2 June 1997. From: Norm Holland Date: Saturday, 31 May 97 12:26:21 EDT Subject: The Annual Bad Writing Contest One of the more entertaining moments in the Internet year is the announcement of the winners of the Annual Bad Writing Contest, conducted by Dennis Dutton, at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, N.Z. Hence my forwarding of this only semi-psychological post. Let me remind PSYARTers that son John Holland has devised (with help from Dad) a program that churns out this kind of critical prose-as much of it as you can ever use. See http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/nnh/critic.htm --Best, Norm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Denis Dutton Date: Wednesday, 21 May 1997 13:50:10 +1300 Subject: BWC --Bad Writing Contest Winners-- We are pleased to announce winners of the third Bad Writing Contest, sponsored by the scholarly journal Philosophy and Literature (published by the Johns Hopkins University Press) and its internet discussion group, PHIL-LIT. The Bad Writing Contest attempts to locate the ugliest, most stylistically awful passage found in a scholarly book or article published in the last few years. Ordinary journalism, fiction, etc. are not eligible, nor are parodies: entries must be non-ironic, from actual serious academic journals or books. In a field where unintended self-parody is so widespread, deliberate send-ups are hardly necessary. This year's winning passages include prose published by established, successful scholars, experts who have doubtless labored for years to write like this. Obscurity, after all, can be a notable achievement. The fame and influence of writers such as Hegel, Heidegger, or Derrida rests in part on their mysterious impenetrability. On the other hand, as a cynic once remarked, John Stuart Mill never attained Hegel's prestige because people found out what he meant. This is a mistake the authors of our our prize-winning passages seem determined to avoid. * The first prize goes to a sentence by the distinguished scholar Fredric Jameson, a man who on the evidence of his many admired books finds it difficult to write intelligibly and impossible to write well. Whether this is because of the deep complexity of Professor Jameson's ideas or their patent absurdity is something readers must decide for themselves. Here, spotted for us by Dave Roden of Central Queensland University in Australia, is the very first sentence of Professor Jameson's book, Signatures of the Visible (Routledge, 1990, p. 1): "The visual is _essentially_ pornographic, which is to say that it has its end in rapt, mindless fascination; thinking about its attributes becomes an adjunct to that, if it is unwilling to betray its object; while the most austere films necessarily draw their energy from the attempt to repress their own excess (rather than from the more thankless effort to discipline the viewer)." The appreciative Mr. Roden says it is "good of Jameson to let readers know so soon what they're up against." We cannot see what the second "that" in the sentence refers to. And imagine if that uncertain "it" were willing to betray its object? The reader may be baffled, but then any author who thinks visual experience is essentially pornographic suffers confusions no lessons in English composition are going to fix. * If reading Fredric Jameson is like swimming through cold porridge, there are writers who strive for incoherence of a more bombastic kind. Here is our next winner, which was found for us by Professor Cynthia Freeland of the University of Houston. The writer is Professor Rob Wilson: "If such a sublime cyborg would insinuate the future as post-Fordist subject, his palpably masochistic locations as ecstatic agent of the sublime superstate need to be decoded as the 'now-all-but-unreadable DNA' of a fast deindustrializing Detroit, just as his Robocop-like strategy of carceral negotiation and street control remains the tirelessly American one of inflicting regeneration through violence upon the racially heteroglossic wilds and others of the inner city." This colorful gem appears in a collection called The Administration of Aesthetics: Censorship, Political Criticism, and the Public Sphere, edited by Richard Burt "for the Social Text Collective" (University of Minnesota Press, 1994). Social Text is the cultural studies journal made famous by publishing physicist Alan Sokal's jargon-ridden parody of postmodernist writing. If this essay is Social Text's idea of scholarship, little wonder it fell for Sokal's hoax. (And precisely what are "racially heteroglossic wilds and others"?) Dr. Wilson is an English professor, of course. * That incomprehensibility need not be long-winded is proven by our third-place winner, sent in by Richard Collier, who teaches at Mt. Royal College in Canada. It's a sentence from Making Monstrous: Frankenstein, Criticism, Theory, by Fred Botting (Manchester University Press, 1991): "The lure of imaginary totality is momentarily frozen before the dialectic of desire hastens on within symbolic chains." * Still, prolixity is often a feature of bad writing, as demonstrated by our next winner, a passage submitted by Mindy Michels, a graduate anthropology student at the American University in Washington, D.C. It's written by Stephen Tyler, and appears in Writing Culture, edited (it says) by James Clifford and George E. Marcus (University of California Press, 1986). Of what he calls "post-modern ethnography," Professor Tyler says: "It thus relativizes discourse not just to form-that familiar perversion of the modernist; nor to authorial intention-that conceit of the romantics; nor to a foundational world beyond discourse-that desperate grasping for a separate reality of the mystic and scientist alike; nor even to history and ideology-those refuges of the hermeneuticist; nor even less to language-that hypostasized abstraction of the linguist; nor, ultimately, even to discourse-that Nietzschean playground of world-lost signifiers of the structuralist and grammatologist, but to all or none of these, for it is anarchic, though not for the sake of anarchy but because it refuses to become a fetishized object among objects-to be dismantled, compared, classified, and neutered in that parody of scientific scrutiny known as criticism." * A bemused Dr. Tim van Gelder of the University of Melbourne sent us the following sentence: "Since thought is seen to be 'rhizomatic' rather than 'arboreal,' the movement of differentiation and becoming is already imbued with its own positive trajectory." It's from The Continental Philosophy Reader, edited by Richard Kearney and Mara Rainwater (Routledge, 1996), part of an editors' introduction intended to help students understand a chapter. Dr. van Gelder says, "No undergraduate student I've given this introduction to has been able to make the slightest sense of it. Neither has any faculty member." * An assistant professor of English at a U.S. university (she prefers to remain anonymous) entered this choice morsel from The Cultures of United States Imperialism, by Donald Pease (Duke University Press, 1993): "When interpreted from within the ideal space of the myth-symbol school, Americanist masterworks legitimized hegemonic understanding of American history expressively totalized in the metanarrative that had been reconstructed out of (or more accurately read into) these masterworks." While the entrant says she enjoys the Bad Writing Contest, she's fearful her career prospects would suffer were she to be identified as hostile to the turn by English departments toward movies and soap operas. We quite understand: these days the worst writers in universities are English professors who ignore "the canon" in order to apply tepid, vaguely Marxist gobbledygook to popular culture. Young academics who'd like a career had best go along. * But it's not just the English department where jargon and incoherence are increasingly the fashion. Susan Katz Karp, a graduate student at Queens College in New York City, found this splendid nugget showing that forward-thinking art historians are doing their desperate best to import postmodern style into their discipline. It's from an article by Professor Anna C. Chave, writing in Art Bulletin (December 1994): "To this end, I must underline the phallicism endemic to the dialectics of penetration routinely deployed in descriptions of pictorial space and the operations of spectatorship." The next round of the Bad Writing Contest, results to be announced in 1998, is now open with a deadline of December 31, 1997. There is an endless ocean of pretentious, turgid academic prose being added to daily, and we'll continue to celebrate it. ********************************** Dr. Denis Dutton Senior Lecturer in the Philosophy of Art Editor, Philosophy and Literature University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand Phones: 64-3-366-7001, ext. 8154; 643-348-7928 (home) d.dutton@fina.canterbury.ac.nz ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 12:21:44 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0624 Re: Locrine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0624. Monday, 2 June 1997. From: Richard Dutton Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 09:29:00 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0614 Re: Locrine I missed the earliest iterations of Jonathan Hope's search for an author to *Locrine*. Is he aware that Sir George Buc, the Master of the Revels, wrote in his own copy of the play that it had been written by his cousin, Charles Tilney? The issue is discussed in Marc Eccles's biography of Buc, included in the volume *Thomas Lodge and Other Elizabethans*, edited by C.J. Sisson. Quite apart from the family connection, Buc was better placed than virtually anyone else to determine the authorship of plays, and seems to have spent time doing so - a subject Alan Nelson is pursuing, as you will see if you track down his Web site at Berkeley. Richard Dutton ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 08:30:26 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0626 Re: New Globe Theatre I MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0626. Monday, 3 June 1997. [1] From: Billy Houck Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 14:06:27 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre [2] From: Jodi Clark 303971 Date: Monday, 02 Jun 1997 14:17:08 +0200 (IST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre [3] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 02 Jun 1997 21:18:34 +1300 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre [4] From: Franklin J. Hildy Date: Monday, 02 Jun 1997 16:20:12 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre [5] From: Laura Fargas Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 17:33:00 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre [6] From: Sean Lawrence Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 12:29:42 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre [7] From: Stuart Manger Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 20:24:05 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 14:06:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre Granted, "reintroducing" heckling seems a bit over the top, but when I toured the New Globe last summer and walked the width and breadth of the stage, all those long speeches that seem so tedious on a proscenium stage suddenly made sense. Billy Houck [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jodi Clark 303971 Date: Monday, 02 Jun 1997 14:17:08 +0200 (IST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre I wish to respond to the comment about the desire for authenticity in Shakespeare. My feeling is that in the reconstruction of the conditions, the audience not only gets a feel for the play, but what it was like to be there. By only performing the play, we get the modern version of a Elizabethan/Jacobean play. By recreating the conditions in which this play would have been performed, we give the audience and the actors even more of a taste of Shakespeare's world. Personally, I think that is exciting and rather fun. I do understand how people get rather sick of the authenticity police coming around and analyzing how a particular stitch on a doublet is not completely "period." But in the attempt to recreate the performance conditions, we get much more of a sense of the history and culture of Shakespeare's time. In any other production, the audience might have only a brief inkling of what period costumes were like and some grasp of the language. I am of the school of thought that says Renaissance Faires should lean toward more of the new Globe is doing, rather than becoming the hideous theme-park monstrosities they are morphing into. The educational value of seeing living history as opposed to the dead words on the page is staggering. I will venturing into the teaching world in the fall and hope to do some work with Shakespeare at Hingham High School (Hingham, MA). If I could take the students to London to see the production of Henry V, I would. I hope I will be able to take students there in the future in order to experience this exciting theatre endeavor. Sincerely, Jodi Clark Emerson College Theatre Education, Graduate Program [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 02 Jun 1997 21:18:34 +1300 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre Bob Stubbs writes > Within the last week, a project first envisaged by Sam Wanamaker > in 1949 was finally brought to fruition. An exact replica of the > Globe Theatre has been completed at Southwark, London. I expect those involved would want to deny that it's an "exact replica" since the lack of evidence, especially for the interior decoration, makes it much more a 'best guess'. > The theatre of Shakespeare's day cannot be reproduced. Is it > not more important to unpack and understand the many layers of > meaning in Shakespeare's works than to produce what may be seen > as a Disneyesque Theme Park type event? An obvious response would be that the meaning might be in part conditioned by the building and playing conditions for which a play was written. The detail of costuming reconstruction might seem excessive, but John Astington's article on how gallows scenes (that is, hangings) were staged concluded that a stiff wicker harness was worn under the victim's costume and the real suspension line (as opposed to the purely cosmetic noose) was attached to the harness which took the force of the 'fall'. Such a harness would greatly inhibit movement, which is why Bel-Imperia asks Horatio "why sit we not down?" in the arbour. Even underwear seems worth reconstructing. The article is in Theatre Notebook 37.1 (1983) pp3-9. Gabriel Egan [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Franklin J. Hildy Date: Monday, 02 Jun 1997 16:20:12 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre Bob Stubbs asks: >Am I alone in wondering what exactly is the point in this seemingly >endless quest for replication and quasi authenticity? >The theatre of Shakespeare's day cannot be reproduced. >Is it not more important to unpack and understand the many layers of >meaning in Shakespeare's works than to produce what may be seen as a >Disneyesque Theme Park type event? >What do others think? Bob Stubbs has once again raised those interesting questions concerning authenticity in performance that have been asked in relation to Shakespeare since at least the time of the Charles Kean production of KING JOHN in 1823. I am a great fan of authenticity and a great fan of the Globe (as well as a critic of it) and I would argue that there are many "layers of meaning in Shakespeare's work" that can only be unpacked by the kind of experimental work that is now being done at the Globe- but I'm not sure the list wants to get into all this again. I am honestly perplexed by his reference to a "Disneyesque Theme Park type event," however. This comparison between the Globe and Disney has been made for so long that it makes me wonder if anyone has ever bothered to examine it. Certainly when it comes to an interest in authenticity, the two organizations would seem to be at polar opposites. I am ashamed to say that the only "Disneyesque Theme Park" I have ever found time to visit is the Epcot Center, and that visit was only as part of a technology tour organized by the US Institute for Theatre Technology some years ago. So I am hardly an expert on Disneyesque parks. But my theatre work has given me occasion to talk with several Disney "imagineers" over the years and I have had former students working for Disney on occasion. I have yet to hear or read that authenticity has ever been a goal of any of the Disney projects, however. Is there some hidden depths at Disney that I have missed? All the buildings at Epcot, for example, are built of fiberglass and poured concrete. As far as I know they intended the same thing for the American history park they proposed, and then backed out of, in Virginia in 1993-95. The Disney people seem to be in 100% agreement with those who do not see any value to authenticity and therefore do not attempt to employ it . Could someone enlighten me, then, as to what is meant by linking the Disney Co. to historic authenticity? I would have thought, for example, that Colonial Williamsburg, or something like the Henry Ford Museum, would be the obvious institutions for comparison, or perhaps some of the many historic theatres of Europe I have visited where "authentic" productions are attempted (say the Drottningholm in Sweden or the Almagro in Spain). One could even compare all this authenticity at the Globe to the numerous early music groups that insist on using replicas of historic instruments to play period music on. Is it just that these comparisons are not derogatory enough for those who aren't interested in what the Globe is trying to do? Ultimately if you are sold on deconstruction there is indeed little value to the kind of authenticity Dr. Stubbs has questioned-but I'll bet you would find the productions interesting just the same and a fascinating postmodern collision of high culture with popular culture. But keep in mind that for the last one hundred years about half of the people working in professional theatre have viewed their task as the translation of a playwrights work into a performance text that is meaningful to a modern audience. (The other half see the playwright as just one of many contributors to the production who should have no special privileges.) For those who privilege the playwright it seems valuable to actually know something about the work being translated---just as it might be more interesting and effective to know French if you want to translate Fucault, it might be more interesting to know something about Elizabethan staging techniques if you are going to translate a Shakespearean performance. So for this group of theatre artists it is not possible to know too much about the original method of production for a play even though complete knowledge is not possible and no two productions of any play have ever been the same. And for the audience it is just interesting in the way that historic reenactments are interesting-it may also be a refreshing change-I mean, how many 19th century or modern dress productions of Shakespeare can you see before it becomes just so passe you can hardly stand it? Dr. Franklin J. Hildy Director, Southeastern Region Shakespeare Globe Centre [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laura Fargas Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 17:33:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre Apologia: I'm a working poet and this will be a wholly unscholarly answer. > Bob Stubbs asked: > > Am I alone in wondering what exactly is the point in this seemingly > endless quest for replication and quasi authenticity? Joy. There may be (in my view, certainly are) other reasons, but why can't the sheer sizzling pleasure of it be first? > The theatre of Shakespeare's day cannot be reproduced. Of course not. Instead, the best one can hope for is the exquisite dilemma posed in Borges' story, "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote." For one thing-the one thing that in its own way would be most wonderful to me-we'd need Henslowe's Rose a hundred yards away with its stinking drain enlivening the reading of 'a rose by any other name,' and Ned Alleyn still bombasting out old Hieronimo to compete for the groundlings' copper so that Shakespeare would always only be as good as his next play. We would have to have a first act when Hamlet's life is full of choices and we wonder if by God he'll do it pat. Until a time machine is invented, I'm grateful for the New Globe. In fact, in some moods I'm goofily exuberant about the New Globe. > Is it not more important to unpack and understand the many layers of > meaning in Shakespeare's works than to produce what may be seen as a > Disneyesque Theme Park type event? To my mind, the answer to this question is neither yes nor no. This invites a ranking of the 100 Most Important Things To Do With/About/Concerning Shakespeare. Which invites the debate, important to whom, as well as all the other possible debates. It also suggests that there's just one single pool of resources that can be allocated to All Stuff Relating To Will S., and that we-whoever "we" are-must husband and apportion them in some careful central fashion. Not so, Mr. Interlocutor. For me, there's a certain charm in taking a naive stance in favor of replicating the sensory side of Shakespeare on a day when the Bad Critical Writing Contest results have dropped on this list. I want to see what the sun of that latitude looks like when it hits a doublet dyed with indigo-sunny day, cloudy day, soaked with sweat. I want to smell the thatch. These things will give me great pleasure, and I can't wait. I also look forward to reading all the intricate and sometimes exquisite scholarly thinking that interrogates every aspect of the Shakespearean universe, including my ability to have and articulate these (faux?) naive feelings. Laura Fargas [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 12:29:42 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre What interests me most, Bob, is how the "Elizabethian and early Stuart audience norms of heckling and informality" were being touted a few years back as liberating us in some vague, neo-Brechtian manner. Now we see that they're just another piece of period bric-a-brac that can be fetishized with all the organic fabrics and puffy clothes of Merchant Ivory-esque commodification. As for whether the Globe should be reconstructed, my response is something like "sure, why not. Call it an experiment." On the other hand, this loving recreation of the past strikes me as a peculiarly British sort of nostalgia. Perhaps it's the flip side of the iconoclasm of a decade of Tory rule that only the most materialistic, consumerist sorts of nostalgia are any longer tolerated. Cheers, Sean [7]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Manger Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 20:24:05 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre I'm afraid, Bob, I agree. Is this the equivalent of the 'authentic' movement in music? It is authentic in all the externals - if indeed it is - but we have irrevocably changed in cultural, religious, social and political ideologies since then. Our actors, directors. audiences have TOTALLY shifted their approach to Shakespeare, and play-going. This is theme-park Shakespeare, and I am afraid this exactly what peter Brook would call 'deadly theatre' ('The Empty Space'). It is now in the 'Oh, Elmer, did you see that ruff?' school of literary / theatrical criticism. What has astonished me is the involvement of so excellent an actor as Mark Rylance in the project. It'll make money - in the summer-but is it art? Stuart Manger ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 08:43:09 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0627 Re: New Globe Theatre II MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0627. Monday, 3 June 1997. [1] From: Scott Crozier Date: Tuesday, 3 Jun 1997 08:48:05 +1100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre [2] From: John Drakakis Date: Tuesday, 3 Jun 1997 00:32:36 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre [3] From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 19:45:36 -0400 Subj: New Globe Theatre & a Commoner's Response [4] From: Ron Ward Date: Tuesday, 3 Jun 1997 14:03:46 +1200 (NZST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre [5] From: Jonathan Hope Date: Tuesday, 03 Jun 1997 09:42:57 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre [6] From: John McWilliams Date: Tuesday, 03 Jun 1997 12:33:08 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Tuesday, 3 Jun 1997 08:48:05 +1100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre Bob Stubbs asks what is the point of trying to replicate Elizabethan acting conditions in the New Globe. I, for one, have to agree with him and I am sure we will now enter a period of debate which will mirror the protracted debate about whether or not we should try to stop the Sphinx eroding into the sands of the dessert. The idea of erecting the "New" Globe is laudable, as is the concept of producing plays on the stage in daylight. But as for trying to replicate the full theatre context of the original productions; surely this is indulgence. As Bob Stubbs suggests, surely we should be using the theatre to help us unpack the language in its original context. This may help us in appropriating the plays for further "subsequent performances". Leave the Elizabethan costumes and the social accuracy in the museum where is rightly belongs. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Tuesday, 3 Jun 1997 00:32:36 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre I agree with Bob Stubbs. The point is that The New Globe isn't an "exact replica". Shakespeare's theatre didn't have fire exits, for one thing. Also the site is not that of the original Globe. Is it anything other than a piece of nostalgia? Cheers, John Drakakis [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 19:45:36 -0400 Subject: New Globe Theatre & a Commoner's Response Bob Stubbs asked: Am I alone in wondering what exactly is the point in this seemingly endless quest for replication and quasi authenticity? The theatre of Shakespeare's day cannot be reproduced. You ask this with a chip on your shoulder? What exactly are you criticizing as the "seemingly endless quest"? It seems you're attacking a school of thought rather than any performance at the new globe. If a new globe is going to be built where the old one was, then why not build a replica? And if one's going to build a replica, then why not try to replicate costume and speech? Isn't the point to give the *average* person a glimpse of what it *might* have been like - perhaps the closest any performance can hope for? It goes without saying that the theater of Shakespeare's day can't be reproduced. They know it. You know it. I know it. So, (and not antagonistically) I wonder... what are you *really* objecting to? Is it not more important to unpack and understand the many layers of meaning in Shakespeare's works than to produce what may be seen as a Disneyesque Theme Park type event? Again, your question (heavily loaded) phrases its own answer. Who would want a "Disneyesque Theme Park type event" over the obviously nobler attempt at understanding the "many layers" (except Disney)? It's clear you think the New Globe is a "Disneyesque Theme Park type event". Why? Have you seen the production or is your criticism of the performance more platonic - hypothetical? Is it really Disneyesque? Are you implying that any "reproduction" can't, by its very nature, attempt an understanding of the "many layers"? Do you think this is unavoidable when one engages in the "seemingly endless quest for replication and quasi authenticity"? Why? Are you proposing that the New Globe's approach might not offer its own insights? I wonder what you think of the original instrument movement in music? Do you think it's a bad thing or do you think it's different from what the New Globe is attempting? Might this not represent the same "endless quest for quasi authenticity"? Your thoughts? Patrick Gillespie [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Ward Date: Tuesday, 3 Jun 1997 14:03:46 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre Bob Stubbs query on authenticity (re the Globe) is one which has split the Music world for many years. My answer as to what the point is of historically informed performance is this: The issue is not what the individual prefers, nor what works best in a modern age. Both those arguments are subjective anyway. The value in performing plays as close as possible to the Authors intention, is that another range of interpretations is produced. For example, the use of modern singing and dancing in S productions may work well, but We can not judge S's genius by what other people do to his plays. We restore old buildings with some taste if we follow the original architectural concept. How can we judge the success of changes to the original staging if we never see a reasonable facsimile of the original presented. We are just judging one adaptation with another. Of course we can not achieve an exact reconstruction, but that does not mean we learn nothing by going as far as we can. The play does not just reside in the language, so separately analysing its parts has to be matched against an holistic approach, as this may well reveal something that analysis will not. Hope this helps. Ron Ward [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Hope Date: Tuesday, 03 Jun 1997 09:42:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre Although I share Bob Stubbs' concerns about 'authenticity' at the Globe, I think they deserve some time to make some mistakes. I saw last year's prologue production of Two Gentlemen (modern dress), and was at the first preview night of Henry V ('authentic Elizabethan'), and there's no doubt in my mind which was the more interesting and successful production - Two Gentlemen. It's unfair to say too much about a production that's still in preview, but it seemed clear to me that the Henry V cast were fairly uncomfortable in their costumes (authentic Elizabethan underwear - no Calvin Kleins, as the programme boasted), particularly Mark Rylance in what looked a precarious, oversize helmet. Winter's Tale, which I haven't seen yet, is in modern dress. With any luck they'll learn that 'authentic' costumes just don't work very well, and give them up. I keep hearing rumours about 'authentic' accents, so perhaps they are true, but nothing was in evidence at Henry V. I don't think it will happen - even if we could decide what an 'authentic' Elizabethan London accent was like (and which register of which class accent are we going to use?), and train actors to use it, the end result would be laughable. The main thing about the Globe is that it's a great place to see plays. It's fascinating to see actors trying to cope with the space, and to hear what happens to the language. There is a deal of pretentious luvvie waffle coming out of the place (see Mark Rylance's comments in the H5 programme), but both productions so far have made me think. Jonathan Hope Middlesex University [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John McWilliams Date: Tuesday, 03 Jun 1997 12:33:08 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre Dear Bob Stubbs, Yes, I think you're right, the idea of exact authenticity does seem a little pointless. But we've got to do something to keep the American tourists spending their money. And most expensive editions of Shakespeare's plays do have extensive discussions of how Shakespeare's company would have performed the play. Is The New Globe just an extension of this important area of scholarship or is the meticulous scholarly study of such things just another part of the very slick packaging of Shakespeare that is essential to the Shakespeare industry? John McWilliams ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 09:13:56 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0628 Re: Plagiarism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0628. Monday, 3 June 1997. [1] From: Libby Bradford Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 12:42:57 -0400 (EDT) Subj: [2] From: Ed Pixley Date: Monday, 02 Jun 1997 15:01:16 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0616 Re: Plagiarism [3] From: Sean Lawrence Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 09:54:05 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0616 Re: Plagiarism [4] From: Bob Dennis Date: Monday, 02 Jun 97 15:32:19 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0616 Re: Plagiarism [5] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Monday, 02 Jun 1997 17:43:26 -0400 Subj: Re: Plagiarism [6] From: Stephen Windle Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 18:00:30 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0616 Re: Plagiarism [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Libby Bradford Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 12:42:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Plagiarism >I was in a grad. Shakespeare seminar and I heard through those wonderful >departmental grapevines that my professor was convinced that a fellow >student had plagiarized an ENTIRE paper on "Romeo and Juliet," but that >he was getting too old to go chasing down sources. He questioned her, >she denied it, and he let it go, but spent the rest of the semester in >(visible) disgust. The student in question eventually dropped out of the >program entirely and moved to another state... claiming all the way, of >course, that the professor who "drove her away" was completely >insane.... > >I know this is a serious subject, but I can't help but laugh when I >think of this story. The student was a certified twinkie, a mental >lightweight, and the professor was, by all accounts except hers, a >brilliant teacher. (I wouldn't dare plagiarize own my name within ten >feet of this guy...) I have been trying to hold my tongue on this matter, but after reading more responses I feel I cannot. I have a similar story, but this one involved me. About this time last year, I had a roommate move in to share my apartment. Well, she decided to share more than that. She helped herself to one of my papers (while I was at work) and proceeded to use as much as she could in a paper for the same professor. The reason I know? She asked to proofread it. I couldn't believe what I was reading and thought "I'm making something out of nothing, because how could someone cheat like this and *then* ask me to proofread it?" She went ahead and turned it in and I went home and checked my paper against a copy of hers and sure enough...it was just as I had thought. A very long story...made brief.... she was given a slap on the wrist and allowed to finish school. I have very strong feelings on this matter, considering I was told that *I* could have been dismissed from school for something someone else did. I do not support cheating in any form. I am also leery of saying students plagiarize because they don't know any better. I know that's possible, but I wouldn't say that that is the reason in the majority of cases. After knowing this particular person and asking around, I found this was not her first attempt at some form of plagiarism. However, the other student who knew more would not step forward for fear of being dismissed from school. I know that my situation was different than the one first mentioned, in that the situation occurred in graduate school. But, I also feel that this form of cheating should not go unpunished on whatever level it occurs. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pixley Date: Monday, 02 Jun 1997 15:01:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0616 Re: Plagiarism Sorry to beat this plagiarism post again, but at least one area has not yet been dealt with. Do the students understand the value (not just the morality) of citing sources? As Aristotle pointed out, among the three types of artistic proof is ethical proof. Writers and speakers need to establish their authority if they expect to have their ideas taken seriously. How can undergraduates expect to have their ideas taken seriously if they don't first persuade us that they have taken the trouble to acquire that authority, that they have done their homework, become familiar with the field? And what better way to establish their authority than by citing sources, demonstrating their understanding of those already established authorities who have, by their scholarship, laid the ground for further research and raised those questions perceived as important by professionals in the field? This does not mean that students should only be repeating and reporting on what has already been established. But if they are breaking new ground, as an undergraduate was recently cited on this list as doing on _Lear_, their new ideas are much more likely to be taken seriously when they demonstrate a knowledge of what has gone before. Whenever I introduce research to my students, I try to make them understand that careful citation and selective quotation are not punishments by dull pedants like myself but valuable tools of persuasion in the presentation of their ideas. Rhetorically, Ed Pixley SUNY-Oneonta [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 09:54:05 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0616 Re: Plagiarism Hi, guys. I've been enjoying the plagiarism discussion for the last little while, but I think the central carrot vs. stick debate seems to be missing the point. There isn't that much of a contradiction between mutually self-reinforcing methods like this, after all. Knowing and having declared to your students that you'll fail anyone who plagiarizes not only provides you with a duty to explain what it means, but also motivates students to ask. Similarly, having explained correct methods of citation one has a duty, both to oneself and to the students who were paying attention, to at least mark down anyone who doesn't deploy them. I usually read my students the riot act in the first class, citing examples of senior professors fired by boards of governors meeting on a Sunday or persons who had their degrees recalled years later, for instance. The purpose of this isn't merely to instill fear, but to show that there's a system of professional ethics and disciplinary honour into which they are entering by taking the class. In other words, it's not a matter of me (the all-powerful teacher) imposing rules on them (the powerless, oppressed students), but my giving them the respect due to full members of our profession, and accordingly expecting them to maintain the code of honour and integrity implicit in that status. Cheers, Sean [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Dennis Date: Monday, 02 Jun 97 15:32:19 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0616 Re: Plagiarism Dear SHAKSPERians, I have a slightly different take on the aspects of plagiarism. When I was an undergraduate, I served on the student Honor Court. There were two cases presented to the court in different years. The first was a young woman who "plagiarized" two or three sentences from something like Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences: she placed them in her paper without footnoting them. This was a first offense, committed by a freshman. The professor involved was livid and unforgiving. Although the student Honor Court recommended a short suspension, this girl was summarily removed from school by a faculty committee without any possibility of re-admission. The second case was a young woman who copied extensively from two particular sources for a paper on William Faulkner. This was a third offense, committed by a senior student. The court recommended dismissal as appropriate due to the extensiveness of the copying (more than 80% of the paper was copied verbatim) and the offense being a repeated offense. The Dean of Faculty called me (as Chief Justice) into his office and "explained" to me that some people "simply did not know right from wrong" and that they were going to let this woman graduate, regardless of the plagiarized material. I vividly recall his telling me that "just because this girl doesn't know right from wrong is no reason that she should not have a degree like other people." The court was instructed to forget about the case. These two cases, with other subsequent observations, have influenced my general thoughts on the subject many years later in my life: 1) Plagiarism by undergraduate students is a small offense (usually) when considered in the general run of life. Such offenses are _usually_ by untrained or inexperienced students; can originate in students under too much stress; can be unintentional when a student has taken copious notes which include roughly verbatim passages in the notes. They can, of course be simple laziness, also, hardly a cause for maximum punishment. Cases for more senior students (especially graduate students) or repeated offenses should be treated with more severity. 2) The rules in academia appear to be commonly applied unevenly, with some students getting an easy ride and others being tossed about quite viciously and/or quixotically. In addition to the inequity of the cases cited above, I know personally of a Ph.D. recipient who was given (by his advisor) the questions AND ANSWERS to be asked at his orals two or three days before his examination, with the instruction, "Know these answers." The student had failed his oral examinations twice before. I know of several additional strangely unfair happenings, all of which lead me to conclude that we are foolish to apply any rule too strictly in a particular case. With respect to the case under discussion, I am suggesting that the sensitivity to plagiarism in one student's paper may not be the same sensitivity you bring to grading another student's paper. Thus, to go out of your way to track down sources of which you are only suspicious and cannot securely identify yourself, might be close to "picking on" a certain student. Unless it is a repeated pattern, wouldn't it be sager to let it ride, perhaps with the personal talks and advice suggested by other LIST members? 3) It seems neither wise nor fair that the members of an Internet discussion forum be asked to pin down sources for a professor who "suspects" plagiarism. If a professor sees plagiarism personally, i.e., can identify the specific copying himself or herself, then that professor may decide how to proceed with the student. The professor may even seek advice on how to proceed from the experiences of others on the net. But the group should not be used to help convict the purported offender. The practice of trial without representation is supposed to be illegal in U.S.A. Just three thoughts closely related to the recent general discussion of plagiarism. Respectfully, Bob Dennis rdennis@nesdis.noaa.gov [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Monday, 02 Jun 1997 17:43:26 -0400 Subject: Re: Plagiarism Isn't there a web site called "schoolsucks" where people submit papers for other students to cut and paste? I heard once about a teacher who, to see if the students were really being copying papers directly off the site or were just getting information from it, anonymously submitted a paper entitled "Christopher Shakespeare, William Marlowe, and the Epidermis of Sixteenth Cencherry [sic] Drama". Sure enough, one of his students submitted that very essay, and pleaded innocence. The teacher went into his file cabinet/ and took out a handwritten draft of the essay...! [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Windle Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 18:00:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0616 Re: Plagiarism K. Nolan is correct. Really folks if someone documents references ( or attempts to ) this means they're truly putting out an effort. Step back for a moment... How do you write about Shakespear w/ out Plagiarism ? Stephen ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 09:29:36 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0629 Re: Cassettes; More Bad Writing; Neutral Sh; King Lear MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0629. Monday, 3 June 1997. [1] From: Stuart Manger Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 20:15:45 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0622 Q: Cassettes and CDs of Shakespeare as Assignments [2] From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 15:24:55 -0400 Subj: More Bad Writing [3] From: John McWilliams Date: Tuesday, 03 Jun 1997 11:46:31 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0614 Re: Neutral Sh [4] From: Chris Clark Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 20:21:14 GMT Subj: Cordelia and the fool [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Manger Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 20:15:45 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0622 Q: Cassettes and CDs of Shakespeare as Assignments I do so agree with Ed. I frequently urge my students to listen to plays / lectures by eminent teachers. I had not thought of making my own cassettes, but that's a very good idea indeed. Modern stereo tapes / CD's actually make pretty mind-expanding listening, certainly the BBC Radio 3 productions do, digital / stereo / radiophonic workshop effects and all. FAR better than TV. Radio has far better pictures!! Stuart Manger [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 15:24:55 -0400 Subject: More Bad Writing There's a book I always carry round with me, Ted Hughes' "A Choice of Shakespeare's Verse". I bought it while in Germany just so I could have a little Shakespeare to carry around in my backpack. Hughes provides an otherwise fascinating essay at the back of the book which glances on, among other things, Bruno, Dee, hermetics and Shakespeare's use of a kind of verbal Hendiadys. If there is a name for this rhetorical figure (I would like to know it), Hughes does not himself know one, but calls it "lance-like", providing a typically Hughsean comparison saying: "[Shakespeare] seems to have modeled it almost on the pattern of a coat of arms: two families of meaning, two ancient etymological lineages each condensed to a rich sign or crest of sigil, impaled on a heraldic escutcheon." At which point (to indulge in this Hughesianess) I might compare it to the herbal Hendiadys of a good cook who mixes two families of herbage, perhaps two ancient phylalogically distinct lineages condensed into a rich sauce or basting seal, impaled on a Baltic crustacean. Anyway, Mr. Hughes goes on in this vane until, like a ticking time-bomb of metaphor, he explodes with the following paragraph: ...One is aware of it as a signaling and hinting of verbal heads and tails both above and below precision, and by this weirdly expressive underswell of a musical near gibberish, like a jostling of spirits, a bustling pressure of shapes inside every syllable. Shakespeare holds it all in dodgy focus by the audial compass course that his aerobatic syntax plots through it. When Joyce takes this sonar amplification of the word's pun possibilities to the limit in Finnigans Wake, the blazing crackle of radio interference and writhing wave-bands, somewhat smothers the instrument panel, for the reader and co-pilot, in a sort of white out... Patrick [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John McWilliams Date: Tuesday, 03 Jun 1997 11:46:31 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0614 Re: Neutral Sh Dear Ben Schneider, Thank you for your very interesting (and patient) reply to my confused/perplexed message... I think you make some important distinctions (especially re: reasons for the Shakespeare myth) which I was overlooking. I am delighted (but embarrassed) to learn that you were around in the 50s and 60s: as you may have guessed I was not, and am a muddle headed young fellow using the 50s and 60s as a kind of point against which to define aspects of modern/postmodern criticism - a dubious (yet perhaps fairly common) practice... However, I still may be confused. You say New Critics were claiming neutrality for themselves rather than for their favourite writers. I'm sure that's true and one would contrast this to modern political critics who approach a text ostensibly admitting their own prejudices and critical predispositions. So a feminist critic (of one particular sort anyway) would talk about the ways in which women are portrayed or omitted in works of literature and criticise the male created and dominated canon and so on. So to summarise my bastardised literary critical history, New Critic types claim neutrality, whilst modern political critics claim that neutrality is an impossibility (in fact, they go on to attempt to show just what ideological baggage supposedly neutral ctitics are carrying, but that's another story...). But these ways of doing things do surely map on to the writers we read, and I'm not sure that they do in the way you suggest. Critics claiming neutrality did seem to produce writers who were 'neutral'. For example, new critical readings of Marvell's Horatian Ode produced an exquisitely poised, apolitical poet who juggles radically opposing political views with breathtaking skill. On the other hand, Greenblatt (in an extremely irritating footnote somewhere) claims that the poem is simply a pro Cromwell panegyric. [In the middle of this message, I read your second message, so I'll change track a little...] Your objection to Bradshaw is a strong one: aren't we just mapping our own ambivalence onto Shakespeare in the same way that, say, Olivier's film mapped celebration of English aggression onto Henry V? I'm not sure how to answer you directly on this one - we may have reached an impasse - but I instinctively feel the mapping of stoicism would be wrong. One thought I have is that to distance Shakespeare from ourselves in the way that you do (we don't do stoicism, so we don't understand Shakespeare) is excessive. Shakespeare, as many have argued, was perhaps the most extensively influential writer in the language and we can see his influence everywhere - from the language we speak to the plots we read and watch and the way we narrate our own lives even to ourselves. To push this further, probably too far in a Bloomian kind of way, Shakespeare makes us what we are. So to suggest that he is distant and in fact playing on a whole different playing filed called stoicism, seems dubious... But I am prepared to be persuaded... Thanks Ben for the thought provoking-ness of your messages, and I'll look up your chapter references now! John McWilliams [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Clark Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 20:21:14 GMT Subject: Cordelia and the fool > Did you hear the rumor that the same actor that played Cordelia for was > also played the fool thus the tie and the reason they are never onstage > together? As far as Cordelia and the fool are concerned, they clearly serve the purpose (as was commented to me earlier) of showing Lear the truth. The inner doubts within Lear's head need to be expressed even when he is externally denying them, and the opportunity for a soliloquy is not open, because we are dealing with his subconsciously niggling doubts. Once Lear is mad (but, ironically, seeing the situation with sane judgement), there is no need for the fool... and notice how Cordelia comes in soon after, to facilitate the tragic end. This allows for her deification, and yet still allows the final ambiguity of 'My poor fool is hanged,' which would certainly make sense if it was the same actor. Cheers ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 09:32:42 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0630 Q: Shakespeare Notes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0630. Monday, 3 June 1997. From: John V Robinson Date: Monday, 2 Jun 1997 16:02:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Shakespeare Notes About a year ago or so I saw in PMLA the notice that a new journal called Shakespeare Notes was inviting short scholarly articles etc. Does anyone know anything about this journal? is it up and running? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 10:10:44 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0631 Re: New Globe Theatre MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0631. Wednesday, 4 June 1997. [1] From: Brad Morris Date: Tuesday, 3 Jun 1997 10:50:24 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: New Globe Theatre -- lighten up [2] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 3 Jun 1997 12:31:28 -0400 Subj: SHK 8.0626 Re: New Globe Theatre [3] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Tuesday, 3 Jun 1997 15:24:04 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre [4] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Tuesday, 03 Jun 1997 19:26:29 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre [5] From: John Lee Date: Wednesday, 4 Jun 1997 10:28:19 +0900 (JST) Subj: Globe [6] From: Michael Skovmand Date: Wednesday, 4 Jun 1997 12:38:01 MET Subj: Re: SHK 8.0627 Re: New Globe Theatre II [7] From: Eric Weil Date: Wednesday, 4 Jun 1997 09:20:17 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0627 Re: New Globe Theatre II [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Morris Date: Tuesday, 3 Jun 1997 10:50:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: New Globe Theatre -- lighten up >> Am I alone in wondering what exactly is the point in this seemingly >> endless quest for replication and quasi authenticity? The theatre of >> Shakespeare's day cannot be reproduced. Bob, I think that there is nothing wrong with this "quest," as you call it. The thing is this: how many people out there think Shakespeare is boring? Tons. Well, if by doing an authentic show and trying to recreate everything just so, don't you think people who normally wouldn't take an interest in Shakespeare take a second look at this? And even if that's not even remotely the point, why do you care? If it bothers you so much, don't go see anything at the new Globe. Don't read about it in the paper. I think it's a neat idea, and if I could afford to cross the pond, I'd go to a show in a heartbeat. You seem to be think that more effort should be directed towards "unfolding the language" or something like that. Well, I agree with you, but there are lots of people in the world, and people are certainly entitled to produce an "accurate" Shakespeare if they want to. Also, it's kind of like medical research-there are different researchers working on different things. Just because I think more people should be working on HIV research than cancer research doesn't mean that the cancer researchers should quit what they're doing and jump in on the HIV work. I guess the bottom line is if you don't like it, don't go see it. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 3 Jun 1997 12:31:28 -0400 Subject: SHK 8.0626 Re: New Globe Theatre Sean Lawrence thinks that the new Globe represents a 'peculiarly British sort of nostalgia'. It doesn't. The whole project has an unmistakable and entirely captivating American flavour. On its completion, the British government hastened to award its instigator the title of 'Commander of the British Empire'. I don't think he ever saw the joke. Terence Hawkes [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Tuesday, 3 Jun 1997 15:24:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre Mr. Stubbs' remarks sent me scurrying for my Preface to Hamlet, wherein Granville-Barker says the following: "... we had better not too unquestioningly thrust him back within the confines his genius has escaped, nor presume him to have felt the pettier circumstances of his theatre sacrosanct. Nor can we turn Elizabethans as we watch the plays; and every mental effort to do so will subtract from our enjoyment of them." While Poel and Granville-Barker did us a great service by getting rid of the more bizarre types of staging, a la Irving and Tree, and while they succeeded in creating renewed interest in the original texts of Shakespeare's plays, it is interesting to note that G-B himself may have disagreed with this particular, circumstantial approach at the New Globe. As a performer, I'm fascinated with the possibilities of this approach, as extreme as it may appear. And I like the revival of old staging techniques for the same reason I enjoy Sir Christopher Hogwood's recordings of the baroque on original instruments, in original tempo. I may not, in the end, prefer Hogwood's Pachelbel Canon in D, but my appreciation of the piece would be incomplete without it. Attempts to revive the old staging techniques, and especially the old dialects with which the plays were performed, may liberate future companies and reveal more legitimate ways in which to break from the BBC productions we have accepted as the standard until now. If my comments seem to be mixed, perhaps they are. As extremes go, I find this extreme approach at the New Globe to be more promising than most we have seen this century (pace Freud, Marx). Andy White Arlington, Virginia [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Tuesday, 03 Jun 1997 19:26:29 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0625 New Globe Theatre > Am I alone in wondering what exactly is the point in this seemingly > endless quest for replication and quasi authenticity? > One might as well ask what the point is in having an old-spelling edition of Shakespeare. Most of us here on SHAKSPER think such a question to be many-answered-For example, read Hardy's *Material Text*. I sometimes wonder, "What is the point of a NON-original-spelling text." The point of this is to have REAL Shakespeare-Not modern reproductions. Who wants to see D'avenant's *Macbeth* these days, for example? Nobody. We want REAL Shakespeare. > Is it not more important to unpack and understand the many layers of > meaning in Shakespeare's works than to produce what may be seen as a > Disneyesque Theme Park type event? Theme park? Best wishes to all, Gabriel Z. Wasserman P.S: Is it just coincidence that Eric Sams is exactly 362 years older than Shakespeare, or is it, perhaps, an act of God? (Eric Sams-b. May 3, 1926--new style) (William Shakespeare, b. April 23?, 1564--Old style) [Editor's Note: My paper referred to above "Valuing the Material Text: A Plea for a Change in Policy Concerning Selection of Reference Texts for Future New Variorum Shakespeare Editions, with Examples from the 1609 Quarto of SHAKE-SPEARES SONNETS" can be obtained by sending the command GET MATERIAL TEXT to listserv@ws.BowieState.edu. HMC] [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Lee Date: Wednesday, 4 Jun 1997 10:28:19 +0900 (JST) Subject: Globe Is it fair to say that the reconstruction of the Globe shares not only similarities with the authentic music movement but also with the publication of of the various quartos of the plays? These can be usefully thought of in terms of scores? and the purpose is not to recreate the original (though some seem to think it is for the texts, and the Globe does make this claim)? This argument heads back, it seems to me, into the issues of original spelling and punctuation, and the relative usefulness of various texts. Yours, John Lee [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Skovmand Date: Wednesday, 4 Jun 1997 12:38:01 MET Subject: Re: SHK 8.0627 Re: New Globe Theatre II In reply to John Drakakis and others, as to the 'relevance' of the New Globe: As someone who has just experienced both The Winter's Tale* and Henry V at the New Globe, I can attest to the fact that it is an eye- and ear-opening experience. The exact replication of every detail down to the fabric of underwear may be a relevant aspect of the Globe as an educational institution, but can be of little interest to the general playgoing audience. No - what is truly fascinating is the concrete experience of stage - audience relations in such a theatre. Academic knowledge about this is one thing - being there opens your eyes and ears to the radical difference of this kind of theatre - especially to one like myself who came straight from two 'conventional' Shakespeare performances at the RSC in Stratford. Three features which immediately strike you by their radical difference: 1: the players can see the audience, i.e. tell whether they are attentive, bored, distracted, leaving. In other words, the players are in a very real sense playing TO the audience - all of a sudden one understands all those appeals ' gently to hear, kindly to judge, our play' in Shakespeare's plays. There is a real sense of the players needing to keep their audience interested, rather than the sense of a self-contained world with the audience as Peeping Toms that we get in the traditional theatre. 2. The audience position makes for far more 'distracted viewing' (paralleling the distinction between tv and cinema viewing). We can see other people moving back and forth, buying drinks etc., we can see the groundlings, if we are in the galleries, and the groundlings see, hear and rub elbows with one another. (I tried both - you are actually allowed to leave your gallery seat and move on to the floor, if you wish). Daylight and the semicircular structure mean that there is far less 'enforced focus' than in our traditional theatre, which in turn means that the actors have to work hard to create that focus. Again, the audience relation is paramount - a constant awareness on the part of the actors whether they've got a hold on the audience - and a far less automatic obligation on the part of the audience to be nice and attentive. 3. The prominence of the groundlings. There is a kind of double vision from the gallery audience - of the stage action and of the interaction between groundlings and actors. The two plays I saw were very different in this respect: WT was a strange, curiously conceived North African - type Nomadic staging which did not invite very much audience interaction, whereas Henry V - a national monument in its own right since the 1944 Olivier film, and a play which by its very structure opens up to the audience through choric addresses and declamation, invited direct audience response again and again. Granted - this type of audience response was a bit awkward or self-conscious at times - but what is more important - you had a real feeling of RISK - of the possibility of the play getting out of hand - of actors falling out of character because of the interjections from the audience. In other words - you had a real sense of the actors having to be in control without being a spoilsport- a bit like a school teacher in a classroom of high-spirited students. Generally, it struck me how non-illusory Shakespeare's theatre actually was. Two points: one is the doubling, where e.g. in WT the (presumed dead) Hermione doubles as a servant. I found people's response to that to be mixed. The other point is to do with Henry V, where the women were played by men/boys. Is a modern INTERACTIVE i.e. undisciplined audience ready for that - or will it be responded to as drag performance, as it was that night at the Globe - at least by the groundlings, whereas the politically correct gallery audience seemed to accept the transvestites as 'representing' women ...? In conclusion, I can only urge all SHAKSPERians to shuffle off that coil of haughtiness and cynicism and give the New Globe a try. It's not the only way to play Shakespeare, but it certainly gives you a startlingly new sense of the priorities of Shakespearean conditions of writing and performance. Michael Skovmand U. of Aarhus [7]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Weil Date: Wednesday, 4 Jun 1997 09:20:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0627 Re: New Globe Theatre II The discussion of the New Globe puts me in mind of Colonial Williamsburg (in Virginia, USA) which is, to borrow from John McWilliams' posting, both meticulous scholarship and slick packaging. For example, Williamsburg went many years with little acknowledgment of slavery. Now, following considerable scholarship and a changing political climate, actors portray slaves and docents describe the contributions of slaves and free persons of color in the community. Why are slaves now portrayed? Not solely for historical accuracy, but also for increasing the potential audience (and revenue). The furniture makers are fascinating to watch; however, I have no doubt that these craftsmen with their period tools are influenced by their knowledge of modern power tools. It's unavoidable. Why shouldn't the New Globe do the same sort of thing? There are hundreds of productions of Shakespeare's plays every year that seek to reveal layers of meaning, and that's fine. I say let the New Globe be a place where the old ways are tried. Our understanding of period techniques will change, and achieving period accuracy will always be elusive. If this makes the New Globe too "Disneyesque" for some SHAKSPEReans, shucks, go to the Royal Shakespeare Co. Eric Weil Shaw U. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 10:18:24 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0632 Re: Bad Writing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0632. Wednesday, 4 June 1997. [1] From: G. L. Horton Date: Tuesday, 03 Jun 1997 10:42:16 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0629 Hughes' Bad Writing?; [2] From: Robert Applebaum Date: Tuesday, 03 Jun 1997 12:23:01 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: More Bad Writing [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: G. L. Horton Date: Tuesday, 03 Jun 1997 10:42:16 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0629 Hughes' Bad Writing?; A Patrick Gillespie says >There's a book I always carry round with me, Ted Hughes' "A Choice of >Shakespeare's Verse". Mr. Hughes goes on in this vane until, like a ticking time-bomb >of metaphor, he explodes with the following paragraph: > >...One is aware of it as a signaling and hinting of verbal heads and >tails both above and below precision, and by this weirdly expressive >underswell of a musical near gibberish, like a jostling of spirits, a >bustling pressure of shapes inside every syllable. Shakespeare holds it >all in dodgy focus by the audial compass course that his aerobatic >syntax plots through it. When Joyce takes this sonar amplification of >the word's pun possibilities to the limit in Finnigans Wake, the blazing >crackle of radio interference and writhing wave-bands, somewhat smothers >the instrument panel, for the reader and co-pilot, in a sort of white >out... But this is delicious! Hughes illustrates as well as describes the effect. Surely you are teasing us? G.L.Horton -- Newton, MA, USA ghorton@tiac.net [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Applebaum Date: Tuesday, 03 Jun 1997 12:23:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: More Bad Writing SHAKSPERians should be aware that the institution giving awards for bad writing has given the top prize to Jameson before. They should also know that the institution's agenda is fundamentally neo-conservative. You will not find examples of bad writing cited from the work of academics who are not associated with leftish, post-structuralist criticism. But you will find many expressions of _ressentiment_ by the fault-finders, whose great reward in citing this "bad writing" out of context seems to be to see their names in print on the same page as people who have published books and received recognition for it. Robert Appelbaum ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 10:25:34 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0633 Re: Neutral Shakespeare; Shakespeare Notes; Plagiarism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0633. Wednesday, 4 June 1997. [1] From: Paul Hawkins Date: Tuesday, 3 Jun 1997 10:06:20 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Neutral Shakespeare [2] From: Susan Brock Date: Wednesday, 4 Jun 1997 10:44:53 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0630 Q: Shakespeare Notes [3] From: Susan St. John Date: Yuesday, 03 Jun 97 23:26:37 +0000 Subj: Plagiarism [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Hawkins Date: Tuesday, 3 Jun 1997 10:06:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Neutral Shakespeare I was interested in John McWilliams's post of about a week ago on the merits and limitations of historical and post-structural criticisms, and largely agree with it. I was struck, however, by his reference to "New Critic types who wish to keep an apolitical universal genius of a national poet" and whose "complacent notions of Universal Genius and Neutral, Great, Timeless Literature clearly needed a severe challenge." This characterisation of the New Criticism is of course by now familiar enough; it is among the cliches of current criticism. And of course, it's a gross over-simplification, and in the main unfair. Is there any essay or comment by a prominent New Critic that really indulges in complacency about the notions listed above? Paul Hawkins [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Brock Date: Wednesday, 4 Jun 1997 10:44:53 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0630 Q: Shakespeare Notes I haven't seen any sign of Shakespeare Notes since the call for papers was received from the editor, Stephen Doloff. The contact address was: Department of English and Humanities Pratt Institute 200 Willoughby Avenue Brooklyn NY 11205 USA Susan Brock [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan St. John Date: Yuesday, 03 Jun 97 23:26:37 +0000 Subject: Plagiarism This thread was begun by the presentation of a post from another list (through Peter Herman on behalf of Charles Henebry)...I was wondering what that original list is? College professors? English teachers? I'm a high school teacher of theatre and dance and would love to confer with other high school teachers on education related topics. Any suggestions? Thanks! S. St. John BTW, I teach essentially non-writing, elective courses at the high school level, but because I am a conscientious and concerned educator I walk my students through every step of their paper-writing process. I read most of their sources as they find them and help them to pull out the main points, formulate their own opinions, and credit quotes and paraphrases appropriately. I'm shocked at how many of them are NOT getting this treatment in their English classes. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 10:46:26 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0634 Qs: Elizabethan & Jacobean Drama Texts; MM Line MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0634. Wednesday, 4 June 1997. [1] From: Jim Swan Date: Tuesday, 3 Jun 1997 13:49:54 -0400 Subj: Elizabethan & Jacobean Drama Texts [2] From: Valentin Gerlier Date: Tuesday, 03 Jun 1997 15:39:18 Subj: Interesting line in Measure for Measure [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Swan Date: Tuesday, 3 Jun 1997 13:49:54 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: Elizabethan & Jacobean Drama Texts Are there any new Elizabethan/Jacobean drama anthologies-besides Rabkin & Fraser and Brooke & Paradise? I remember, several years ago, a publisher (Norton?) asked for recommendations for a new anthology. But I don't believe anything came of it. Jim Swan English Department State University of New York [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Valentin Gerlier Date: Tuesday, 03 Jun 1997 15:39:18 Subject: Interesting line in Measure for Measure Dear SHAKSPEReans, In Measure for Measure, Isabella has this beautiful few lines that I've been looking at: But man, proud man, Dress'd in a little brief authority Most ignorant of what he is most assured - his glassy essence - Doth before high heaven play such fantastic tricks as makes the angels weep... (II ii - Line 111, if I remember rightly) I get different translations for "glassy": I found "fragile" in C.T Onions's Glossary, but other people have told me it also means transparent. Can anyone help me ? I suddenly had an insight into this line, taking glassy as meaning both fragile and transparent, that really supports my ideas in this paper I'm writing. But I want to be sure of my sources first (as almost anything can be projected into Shakespeare..) so I turn the question over to you! Ever yours, Valentin. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 10:53:32 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0635 Shakespeare Conference: Globe+RNT, London MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0635. Wednesday, 4 June 1997. From: Rosalind King Date: Wednesday, 4 Jun 1997 11:15:14 GMT0BST Subject: Shakespeare Conference: Globe+RNT, London I became involved with this at a fairly late stage. It was originally set up as a 'trade conference' for directors and the decision to open it out more generally has only just been made, and I was wondering whether it might be of interest to people on the list. I'm sorry it's such short notice. The address of the International Theatre Institute should anyone wish to become a member of it is, (London branch) Goldsmiths College, Lewisham Way, SE14 6NW, phone 0171 919 72 76, Fax 0171 919 7277, administrator, Lynne Kendrick. Yours Rosalind ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Directors Guild of Great Britain International Theatre Institute FRAMING SHAKESPEARE A Cross Media International Forum for Shakespeare Practitioners Presented by The Directors Guild of Great Britain and International Theatre Institute's Dramatic Theatre Committee and British Centre in association with Shakespeare's Globe at Middle Temple Hall, Royal National Theatre, 20th Century Fox and Theatre Museum, London Friday 27 - Sunday 29 June 1997 THE FORUM Why do we produce Shakespeare in the late 1990's? If we are to keep doing it, how should we do it? From the cutting edge of fringe theatre production to the big budget world of feature film, from student talent of the future to the most established of our profession, this forum aims to bring together actors, directors. academics and students from theatre. film. television and audio work through debates, discussions work demos, performances and screenings. It will be an opportunity to examine developments in the production and popularity of Shakespeare in all media and in a variety of languages and cultures. Those planning to participate include Augusto Boal, Michael Bogdanov, Bill Bryden, Kathryn Hunter, Brigid Larmour, Charles Marowitz, Adrian Noble, Trevor Nunn, Mark Rylance, Fiona Shaw and Jenny Tiramani and we await confirmation a wide range of Shakespeare specialists in all media from the UK and around the globe. The Forum kicks off with a glittering Gala DGGB Banquet hosted by Richard Wilson OBE which will culminate in the presentation by Natasha Richardson of the DGGB Lifetime Achievement Award to renowned theatre and television director Sir Richard Eyre Those who have already confirmed that they will attend include Brenda Blethyn, Augusto Boal, Jim Broadbent, Eleanor Bron, Simon Callow, Sinead Cusack, Sorcha Cusack, Frances de la Tour, Lindsay Duncan, Sheila Gish, Nigel Hawthorne, Jeremy Irons, Dennis Lawson, Robert Lindsay, Charles Marowitz, Julia McKenzie, Pamela Miles, Liam Neeson, Richard Pasco, Michael Pennington, Tim Pigott-Smith, Alan Rickman, Simon Russell Beale, Mark Rylance, Prunella Scales, Simon Shepherd, Timothy Spall, Imelda Staunton, David Suchet, Harriet Walter, Timothy West and John Wood. THE VENUE The opening banquet will be held at the beautiful Elizabethan Middle Temple Hall. site of the first performance of Twelfth Night. The forum, performance and screening on Saturday will be hosted by the Royal National Theatre, Shakespeare's Globe and Twentieth Century Fox, and on Sunday we will gather at Covent Garden's Theatre Museum. FEES, ACCOMMODATION AND TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS Fees cover all work demos, discussions, debates and social receptions. Lunch and coffee breaks are also included. There will be a variety of ticket price options available for performances. Forum fee #60 for DGGB and ITI members; #120 for non-members. It is cheaper to become a member of either organisation than to pay the full rates. Tickets to the Gala Banquet are #40 for DGGB and ITI members / #75 for non-members. FRAMING SHAKESPEARE Programme of Events This programme is subject to change. Friday 27 June 1997; 7:00pm - late Gala Shakespeare Banquet at the Middle Temple Hall, Middle Temple Lane, Off Embankment, LondonEC4. Hosted by Richard Wilson OBE. Natasha Richardson presents the DGGB Lifetime Achievement Award to Sir Richard Eyre. Saturday 28 June 1997 10:00am Coffee at the Royal National Theatre 10:30am- 12:30pm Framing Shakespeare debate and open discussion at the Royal National Theatre, featuring top directors of Shakespeare in all media. 12:45pm- 1:45pm Buffet lunch for delegates at the Royal National Theatre. 2:30pm - 6:00pm Performance of Henry V at Shakespeare's Globe, Bear Gardens, Southwark, London SEI. 7:00pm -7: 15pm Drinks at Twentieth Century Fox, Century House, 13-32 Soho Square, Soho, London Wl. 7: 15pm - 10:00pm Screening of William Shakespeare 's Romeo and Juliet at Twentieth Century Fox. Sunday 29 June 1997 10:00am Coffee at the Theatre Museum, Russell St, Covent Garden, London WC2. 10:30am - 12:00pm Focus Groups: A choice of three sessions o Shakespeare Unplugged - Director Brigid Larmour of the Royal National Theatre on Shakespeare for new and young audiences o Rainbow of Desire - Augusto Boal's approach to Shakespeare o Authentic Space or Museum Theatre? - Artistic Director Mark Rylance and Designer Jenny Tiramani on Shakespeare's Globe 12:15pm- 1:45pm Buffet Lunch 2:00pm - 3:30pm Focus Groups: A choice of three different sessions o Stage to Screen - Michael Bogdanov and Charles Marowitz on producing popular Shakespeare in all media o To Play The King - Fiona Shaw and Kathryn Hunter on cross gender Shakespeare o Across Boundaries - Rosalind King, Patrick Guinand, Ola B. Johannessen and Freider Weber on what makes Shakespeare: poetry, story, structure? What is left when changes are made across media, languages and cultures? 3:45pm - 4:00pm Closing remarks by Michael Bogdanov. 4 00pm - 5:00pm Optional tour of Theatre Museum and demonstration of their Video Archive as Shakespeare education material. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Registration Form FRAMING SHAKESPEARE, 27 - 29 June 1997 Name _ Address _ Phone Fax_ Production Company (if applicable) _ Area of Work Are you a DGGB or ITI Member? Will you attend the DGGB Gala Banquet? Please tick if you require a vegetarian meal How many Gala Banquet tickets will you require? Tickets are f40 per head for DGGB and lTI members plus one guest at #40 rate. Tickets are #75 per headfor non-members. Ticket price includes a three course meal and some drinks. There will also be a cash bar available. Will you attend the Framing Shakespeare Forum? Forum fees are #60for DGGB and ITI members / #120 for non-members. Delegates registering after 30 May will need to book directly with Shakespeares Globe for the Saturday matinee performance of Henry V. Please mention that you are a part of the Directors Guild party. The box office telephone number is 0171 401 9919. Please send this form and a cheque covering gala tickets and conference fees to the address below. Cheques should be payable to Directors Guild of Great Britain. Please return form and payment to: FRAMING SHAKESPEARE Directors Guild of Great Britain 15 - 19 Great Titchfield St, London W1P 7FB fax 0171 436 8646 telephone 0171 436 8626 The Corporate Team in association with the Directors Guild and International Theatre Institute has arranged special discounted rates at selected hotels for those attending the Forum . For more information call The Corporate Team on + 44 (0)171 592 7216 The Corporate Team, British Hotel Reservation Centre, 13 Grosvenor Garden~, London SWlW OBD Rosalind King School of English and Drama Queen Mary and Westfield College University of London ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 10:56:12 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0636 London/Stratford-upon-Avon Theatre MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0636. Wednesday, 4 June 1997. From: Peter Webster Date: Tuesday, 3 Jun 1997 15:31:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: London/Stratford-upon-Avon Theatre 1607, Susanna Shakespeare marries John Hall, physician in Stratford-upon-Avon. 1612, Susanna publicly slandered by John Lane, gentleman, claiming that Susanna Hall "had runinge of the reynes and had been naught with Rafe Smith at John Palmer." 1612, Susanna Hall brings a charge of defamation against John Lane at the diocesan court at Worcester Cathedral. 1996, THE HERBAL BED, a play by Peter Whelan, is produced at the RSC's Other Place space in Stratford-upon-Avon. It makes considerable use of Dr. Hall's famed casebooks, the (known) facts of the Hall/Lane case, and is a psychological/moral/ thriller. It has dramatic layers of perception/interpretation/reality that play off one another. It ends with a question, surely the most satisfying of all dramatic (and human) punctuations. This play is well-made, taut, thrilling. And the most moving and startling character is in the wings just as the curtain rings down: Shakespeare himself, too sick to walk, carried in a chair by the battling males, John and Rafe. We never see him, but the audacity of having him in the wings is breathtaking. The play is slated for a New York production in 1998, but it can be seen now in concurrent productions at the Other Space in Stratord-upon-Avon and at the Duchess Theatre on London's West End. Allow me to close with Susanna Hall's epitaph: Here lyeth Ye body of Susanna Wife to John Hall, Gent: Ye Davgh ter of William Shakespeare, Gent: Shee deceased Ye 11th of July 1649, Aged 66 Witty above her sexe, but that's not all, Wise to salvation was good Mistris Hall, Something of Shakespeare was in that, but this Wholy of him with whom she's now in blisse. Then, Passenger, hast nere a teare, To weep with her that wept with all; That wept, yet set herself to chere Them up with comforts cordiall. Her love shall live, her mercy spread, When thou has't ner'e a teare to shed. Thank you. Peter Webster ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 11:05:57 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0637 SSE Valley Season MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0637. Wednesday, 4 June 1997. From: Thomas L. Berger Date: Tuesday, 03 Jun 1997 19:48:47 EDT Subject: SSE Valley Season SHENANDOAH SHAKESPEARE EXPRESS, P.O. Box 1485, Harrisonburg, VA 22801. (504) 434-3366. 10th Season. Ralph Alan Cohen and Jim Warren, Artistic Directors. 1997 Valley Season June 17-July 26. In repertory: LLL (Ralph Cohen and Thomas Berger), MND (Betsy Tucker), 1H4 (Jim Warren). The Thomas Harrison Middle School, Harrisonburg, VA. Sshakespea@AOL.com or http://www.shakespeare.com/ShenandoahExpress. An interested but impartial observer, Tom Berger [Editor's Note: My family and I plan to be in Harrisonburg the week of July 14 for our annual summer vacation with the SSE. The Shenandoah Valley is a wonderful place to vacation. The summer is a great time for that vacation. You do not have the fall leaves or the October crowds, but you do have the Shenandoah Shakespeare Express.] ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 09:30:10 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0638 Re: New Globe Theatre MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0638. Thursday, 5 June 1997. [1] From: Valentin Gerlier Date: Wednesday, 04 Jun 1997 10:35:16 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0626 Re: New Globe Theatre I [2] From: Sean Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 4 Jun 1997 14:29:12 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0631 Re: New Globe Theatre [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Valentin Gerlier Date: Wednesday, 04 Jun 1997 10:35:16 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0626 Re: New Globe Theatre I What seems important in all this is still the amount of genuine work, passionate interest, Creativity and Insight into the works of Shakespeare. The words, and the acting of them still matter most than the venue and the costumes. (By the way, are tickets very expensive?) My sense is: if the Globe helps, why not? If it becomes just another mindless industry, then, too bad. We still have the works of the Poet; those can be misused but not changed. Ever yours, Valentin [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 4 Jun 1997 14:29:12 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0631 Re: New Globe Theatre From: Terence Hawkes >Sean Lawrence thinks that the new Globe represents a 'peculiarly British >sort of nostalgia'. It doesn't. The whole project has an unmistakable >and entirely captivating American flavour. I have no idea what you mean by an "unmistakable and entirely captivating American flavour." Ross Perot giving all the choruses in Henry V, sprinkled with strained and folksy metaphors, perhaps? Maybe you call all consumerism and tourism "American" in order to avoid any imbrication in it? Being neither American nor British I would say that I'm in a peculiarly good position to judge what the descriptions of the Globe I have read remind me of the most. As far as I know, no American production spends time dying period underwear in urine, at least not on purpose. This sort of fascination with the past as sensual and tactile reminds me far more of small Merchant-Ivory-costume-drama (where the point seems to be what wonderful natural fabrics everyone once wore) than of (say) _The Crucible_ (where the point seems to be the merits of civil disobedience), and it reminds me more of National Heritage properties than of the few American monuments I've seen. I think the comparison with Disneyland has already been thoroughly discredited. There's something quite different in the past as a set of simplistic, self-consciously superficial commonplaces (EPCOT Centre) and the past as sensuality: one produces country music, and the other produces bodice-rippers. America has an export industry in the former, and Britain in the latter. Why does America appropriate the past as a set of values, if only those of Kenny Roger's Gambler, while Britain appropriates it as fancy dress? Does it have something to do with the bourgeois worshippers of the Almighty Quid and the the left-wing total relativists ganging up to destroy any real values? Does it have to do with the fact that Britain has blamed its values for all its historical sins and seeks some sort of contrition by avoiding any values whatsoever? On its completion, the British government hastened to award its instigator the title of 'Commander of the British Empire'. I don't think he ever saw the joke. Do you always label evidence which discredits your argument as 'joke'? Cheers, Sean ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 09:36:19 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0639 Re: MM Line MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0639. Thursday, 5 June 1997. [1] From: Fred Wharton Date: Wednesday, 04 Jun 1997 14:29:45 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0634 Q: MM Line [2] From: David Crosby Date: Wednesday, 4 Jun 1997 18:28:51 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0634 MM Line [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fred Wharton Date: Wednesday, 04 Jun 1997 14:29:45 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0634 Q: MM Line Valentin Gerlier asks an interesting question about "glassy essence" in *MM*. Could "glassy" be a reference to a mirror - especially in relation to "dress[ing]" and clothes? In which case, the man who is puffed up with his own importance would be very sure that the authority-dressed figure who struts before the mirror is his real and substantial self (whereas, in fact, he does not "know himself" at all, seeing only the "shadow" of his identity). Fred Wharton Augusta State University [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Crosby Date: Wednesday, 4 Jun 1997 18:28:51 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0634 MM Line Valentin Gerlier quotes the following lines from Measure for Measure > But man, proud man, Dress'd in a little brief authority > Most ignorant of what he is most assured - his glassy essence - > Doth before high heaven play such fantastic tricks as makes > the angels weep... and asks about the meaning of "glassy," proposing both "fragile" and "transparent." I'd like to suggest another possibility: the essence in question may be the one he sees in his (looking)glass, that is, the surface image he sees each time he looks in a mirror or other reflective surface. Thus he is assured (he knows what he sees) but also ignorant (he cannot get beyond the surface). Shakespeare often uses "glass" in this sense, as in one of the early sonnets: "My glass shall not persuade me I am old, So long as youth and thou are of one date; But when in thee time's furrows I behold, Then look I death my days should expiate." David Crosby From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0640 CFP: Word and Image: Pacific Northwest Renaissance Conference MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0640. Thursday, 5 June 1997. From: Paul Budra Date: Wednesday, 4 Jun 1997 09:55:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Call for Papers CALL FOR PAPERS Word and Image: Pacific Northwest Renaissance Conference Date: April 24-25, 1988 Place: Western Washington University Bellingham, Washington USA The theme "Word and Image" is intended to be interpreted very broadly to include considerations of iconography, film, religious images, illustration, maps, set design, costume, painting and other fine arts, descriptions of images, the presentation of manuscripts, documents, books, hypertext, etc. We also welcome papers addressed to the wedding of words and images in the teaching of Renaissance texts. The PNRC is an interdisciplinary conference. Plenary speakers to be announced. Selected papers will be considered for publication in *Studies in Iconography,* a refereed journal supported in part by the English Department at Western. Located on the coast about 90 miles north of Seattle and 50 miles south of Vancouver, B.C., Bellingham is surrounded by evergreen forests, saltwater coves, mountain-fed lakes, and snowcapped peaks. A city of 60,000 residents, Bellingham preserves a mix of urban and rural activity. Western Washington University is situated on hills above the city, overlooking Bellingham Bay with views of the San Juan Islands and the Cascade mountain range. Please submit a one-page abstract of your paper by January 10, 1998, to: Marc Geisler Department of English Western Washington University Bellingham, WA 98225 fax: 360-650-4837 geisler@cc.wwu.edu Proposals for panels are also welcome and should include, in addition to the abstracts, a 100-word statement of intent from the organizer, as well as the addresses and emails of all participants. Selection/notification will be sent by February 16, 1998. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 09:44:07 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0641 Re: Bad Writing; Howlers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0641. Thursday, 5 June 1997. [1] From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Wednesday, 4 Jun 1997 11:22:10 -0400 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0632 Re: Bad Writing [2] From: David Lindley Date: Thursday, 5 Jun 1997 13:09:51 GMT Subj: Howlers [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patrick Gillespie Date: Wednesday, 4 Jun 1997 11:22:10 -0400 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0632 Re: Bad Writing >...One is aware of it as a signaling and hinting of verbal heads and >tails both above and below precision, and by this weirdly expressive >underswell of a musical near gibberish, like a jostling of spirits, a >bustling pressure of shapes inside every syllable. Shakespeare holds it >all in dodgy focus by the audial compass course that his aerobatic >syntax plots through it. When Joyce takes this sonar amplification of >the word's pun possibilities to the limit in Finnigans Wake, the blazing >crackle of radio interference and writhing wave-bands, somewhat smothers >the instrument panel, for the reader and co-pilot, in a sort of white >out... G.L.Horton writes: "But this is delicious! Hughes illustrates as well as describes the effect. Surely you are teasing us?" As always, such matters are a question of taste. I don't find it delicious Comical, silly, convoluted? Yes. Every Shakespeare "lay-person" I've ever shown the passage to finds it, well... bad. Interesting that you should like it. I was going to remark on the fact that Hughes tries to illustrate as well as describe the effect. Unfortunately, I find this sort of thing a silly indulgence prevalent among Shakespeare critics. (I know I say this in the lion's den.) It's just too cute and nerdy and they never do it as well as Shakespeare. His analogies and metaphor are a mess. Who the heck is the co-pilot? And if there is a verbal heads and tails both above and below precision, what on earth is above and below precision? And is it the heads that is above and the tales below or are there heads and tales above and below precision? What's above precision? Ur-precision? Then we suddenly have an underswell? I suppose that's coming from below precision and about to "overswell" it? Of course, we now need the audial compass course and sonar amplifications or we'll get *really* lost. First its Shakespeare navigating, then with Joyce its me and who the heck is the co-pilot? The annotations? Give me a break. Patrick [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Thursday, 5 Jun 1997 13:09:51 GMT Subject: Howlers It's exam season, and I thought just one comment from a student might be worth sharing, so far does it transcend in implication the basic error of vocabulary it contains. He wrote: 'the tradgedy of King Lear can be situated on a timeless platitude'. David Lindley School of English University of Leeds ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:42:25 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0642 Re: Bad Writing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0642. Friday, 6 June 1997. [1] From: R. D. H. Wells Date: Thursday, 5 Jun 1997 14:19:03 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0632 Re: Bad Writing [2] From: E. H. Pearlman Date: Thursday, 05 Jun 1997 08:38:49 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0641 Re: Bad Writing [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: R. D. H. Wells Date: Thursday, 5 Jun 1997 14:19:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0632 Re: Bad Writing I'm not sure that Robert Appelbaum is correct in suggesting that dislike of difficult prose is confined to the right. However, rather than simply branding this kind of writing "good" or "bad" in absolute terms, shouldn't we be asking what its purpose is? EP Thompson (whose credentials as one of England's greatest Marxist historians don't need rehearsing) has no doubt about that purpose: it is elitism (The Poverty of Theory). What better way of demonstrating your own intellectual superiority than to write prose of such impenetrable obscurity that not even your own peers can make out what you are talking about. Robin Headlam Wells [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. H. Pearlman Date: Thursday, 05 Jun 1997 08:38:49 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0641 Re: Bad Writing If the Bad Writing Awards are indeed a right-wing scheme to expose the sloppiness and pretenses of the left, as one of our correspondents has complained, then we who think of ourselves as being on the left should be grateful for the criticism. Inasmuch as the left has by far the better arguments, it should have no need to wrap its ideas in the ghastly packaging that the Bad Writing Awards have noticed. No one should write stuff that looks and sounds ludicrous; it discredits all intellectual activity. E. Pearlman ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:46:55 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0643 Re: MM Line MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0643. Friday, 6 June 1997. [1] From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 5 June, 1997 Subj: SHK 8.0639 Re: MM Line [2] From: Jay Johnson Date: Thursday, 5 Jun 1997 16:59:04 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0634 Q: MM Line [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 5 June, 1997 Subject: SHK 8.0639 Re: MM Line In re "glassy essence"-when the RSC did *Measure* in '77? '79?, the play opened with Daniel Massey as the Duke, back to the audience, dressing himself in front of an immense mirror; the production sought to develop the self-regarding elements of all the characters, and, indeed, to take self-regard as a defining feature of the play. But if that's one of the meanings in Isabella's speech it's pungently ironized-a good gloss on Macbeth's "walking shadow". Dave Evett [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jay Johnson Date: Thursday, 5 Jun 1997 16:59:04 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0634 Q: MM Line Valentin, I've always assumed that "glassy" in these lines meant "pure" or "spiritual"; the opposite of "gross," "physical," or "material." That which is most important and real about us-our spiritual essence-is that about which we are least aware or concerned. Cheers, Jay Johnson Medicine Hat College ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:56:06 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0645 Q: Pronunciation of Cloten MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0645. Friday, 6 June 1997. From: Dale Coye Date: Thursday, 5 Jun 1997 14:29:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Pronunciation of Cloten I'm investigating the pronunciation of certain Shakespearean words, testing UK vs. North American differences for an upcoming publication. I've already completed an extensive survey, but I need further input on the following words. I'm comparing the pronunciations given in glossaries to what scholars and theatre people are actually saying and I'd like to get as many opinions as possible-but please don't guess, if you're not sure, leave it blank, or if you would recommend more than one, place an x by each. Cloten CLOH tin CLOT in Desdemon (Short form of Desdemona) -mohn -mun -mon (as in RON) rigol RY gl (as in RYE) RIG l RY goal RIG oal I learned my English in: USA UK CANADA OTHER (indicate) I'm a hybrid (indicate) X here if you would be willing to look at a few more words. Native Canadians and UK speakers are especially valuable. Feel free to forward to other interested scholars or theatre people. Reply to me, not the list, at dfcoye@aol.com Thanks, Dale Coye The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Princeton ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:52:35 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0644 Re: Ideology; *The Herbal Bed* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0644. Friday, 6 June 1997. [1] From: Ben Schneider Date: Thursday, 5 Jun 1997 11:58:07 +0000 Subj: Ideology [2] From: Joanne Walen Date: Thursday, 5 Jun 1997 18:43:28 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0636 London/Stratford-upon-Avon Theatre [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben Schneider Date: Thursday, 5 Jun 1997 11:58:07 +0000 Subject: Ideology Dear Robert Appelbaum, Many thanks for your elegant answer to my question, "How would you justify such a claim as that WT is a sexist play [if there is no such a thing as truth]." Your impressive delineation of a typical "objective" answer does not answer the question, and you obviously don't believe in it, either. Your answer is just a parody of the answer that you think I would give. If the argumentum ad homimen is valid, then you have done a great job of undermining me. However, even if I am a silly person, my character is not in question here. So I'm STILL curious as to how you would justify such a claim as the one that WT is a sexist play. If you don't happen to agree with that claim, how about taking up another of the politically-based claims, like "Henry V is a cunning power-politician;" "Shylock is the victim of an exclusionist establishment;" or, "Prospero is an imperialist"? I don't see how you can substantiate (establish, validate) claims like this without assuming an objective text and the possibility of stating the truth about it. Yours ever BEN SCHNEIDER [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Walen Date: Thursday, 5 Jun 1997 18:43:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0636 London/Stratford-upon-Avon Theatre I was glad to read the energetic support of Peter Whelan's play *The Herbal Bed* which I saw in Stratford last season and liked very much. However, it is not currently running in Stratford (according to the RSC Spring/Summer program), and the London engagement is for 13 weeks only, April 10 - July 10 (according to the London Planner from BTA). Delighted to hear it is slated for New York. Perhaps it might also be picked up for the Black Swan Theater at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in '98 or '99? Joanne Walen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 06:59:40 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0646 Re: MM Line; New Globe; Neutral; Pronunciation; Bad Writing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0646. Monday, 9 June 1997. [1] From: John Boni Date: Friday, 6 Jun 1997 13:52:03 -0500 (CDT) 0Subt: Re: SHK 8.0643 Re: MM Line [2] From: Peter Paul Schnierer Date: Friday, 6 Jun 1997 18:33:26 +0200 (MESZ) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0631 Re: New Globe Theatre [3] From: Ron Ward Date: Sunday, 8 Jun 1997 23:13:33 +1200 (NZST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0614 Re: Neutral Sh [4] From: Tom Clayton Date: Friday, 6 Jun 1997 09:53:44 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0645 Q: Pronunciation of Cloten [5] From: Ann Green Date: Sunday, 08 Jun 1997 09:04:29 -0400 Subj: Re: Fwd: SHK 8.0623 The Annual Bad Writing Contest [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Friday, 6 Jun 1997 13:52:03 -0500 (CDT) 0Subject: Re: SHK 8.0643 Re: MM Line Dave Evett's reference to the RSC production of *MM* strikes a chord. The play bears on issues of human fragility. "Glassy" is among others one of the images conveying that fragility. Also, the sense of the hazards of ice are referenced. Since I am on the run, and working from memory, I cannot continue with the catalogue. However, one of the several elements that brings the play nearer to what we regard as tragedy is the serious sort of peripetia that undermines characters' certainty about self, position, value system. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Paul Schnierer Date: Friday, 6 Jun 1997 18:33:26 +0200 (MESZ) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0631 Re: New Globe Theatre Terence Hawkes writes re the Globe Theatre: > On its completion, the > British government hastened to award its instigator the title of > 'Commander of the British Empire'. I don't think he ever saw the joke. It is a bit hard on Sam Wanamaker to accuse him of not seeing the joke. After all, "on its completion" he'd been dead for a couple of years. Cheers, Peter [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Ward Date: Sunday, 8 Jun 1997 23:13:33 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0614 Re: Neutral Sh >I also claim that an >author has an intention, and that the intention is necessarily moral. A comment on the above opinion may be helpful. It is unwise to presume that an authors apparent neutrality is absolute. It may be just neutral about judgements of the morality of others actions. "Judge not lest ye be judged may be something some may actually practice. Others may think that it can not be practiced. Not projecting either your own, or local stereotypes of morality on to others may be a plug for compassion and tolerance. That sounds a bit circular, but the difference is that compassion and tolerance may be a way of life and nothing to do with any formulated code ie moral codes are generalised rules needed for the confused (which may be most of us). But like music the sound comes first not the analysis. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Clayton Date: Friday, 6 Jun 1997 09:53:44 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0645 Q: Pronunciation of Cloten This would be easier to respond to helpfully (or not at all) if one knew what authorities were being drawn on for early pronunciation. In any case, it would be helpful to many concerned if the International Phonetic Alphabet were used to indicate the pronunciations. Cheers, Tom [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ann Green Date: Sunday, 08 Jun 1997 09:04:29 -0400 Subject: Re: Fwd: SHK 8.0623 The Annual Bad Writing Contest YIKES!! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 07:07:19 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0647 Qs: Rhyming; A&EB; Middleton; Nationalism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0647. Monday, 9 June 1997. [1] From: Ron Dwelle Date: Friday, 06 Jun 1997 10:24:14 -0400 Subj: Historic Question--rhyming [2] From: John Robinson Date: Friday, 6 Jun 1997 23:27:02 -0400 (EDT) Subj: A&EB [3] From: Gareth Euridge Date: Sunday, 08 Jun 1997 10:58:37 -0400 Subj: Middleton [4] From: Ron Ward Date: Sunday, 8 Jun 1997 10:04:23 +1200 (NZST) Subj: Nationalism in S [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Dwelle Date: Friday, 06 Jun 1997 10:24:14 -0400 Subject: Historic Question--rhyming Looking at the rhyming in Othello (Iago to Desdemona, Brabantio & the Duke), I'm wondering if, in Shakespeare's day, this would have represented a typical kind of English discourse, an "elite" type of English discourse, or rather something that only the super subtle Venetians would engage in. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Robinson Date: Friday, 6 Jun 1997 23:27:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: A&EB Does anyone know if the journal Analytical & Enumerative Bibliography (Northern Illinios U.) is still active. I have tried to e-mail the editor William P. Williams but my e-mail is always returned undelivered. Please don't give me his e-mail address...IT DOESN"T WORK. Thanks for your time. John Robinson [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gareth Euridge Date: Sunday, 08 Jun 1997 10:58:37 -0400 Subject: Middleton Does anyone know when Gary Taylor's _Complete Works Middleton_ is going to hit the shelves? BIP is silent, OCLC mute, and Ohiolink dumb. I've just noticed a few mentions here and there. Thanks, Gareth M. Euridge [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Ward Date: Sunday, 8 Jun 1997 10:04:23 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Nationalism in S Has anyone noticed the peculiar parochialism in the famous Act 2 scene 1 speech of Gaunt in Richard II. He talks of a sceptred Isle and talks as if the whole Island is England, when of course it was not, even if there were claims against Scotland it seems a strange thing that he then refers to England and not Great Britain or Britain. Is this a Freudian slip. There is a long history of the English ignoring the Scots. In fact there was considerable action after the Act of Union in 1707 to change the name of the integrated country to England. Even in the 19th century there was anti Scots feeling. Was this deliberate on Shakespeare's part. Showing the limited view of Gaunt or what? I think there may be references in Lear and Cymbeline to Britain rather than England. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 07:03:38 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0648 Re: Rhyming MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0648. Tuesday, 10 June 1997. [1] From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 09 Jun 1997 07:29:38 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0647 Q: [2] From: Joseph Tate Date: Monday, 9 Jun 1997 18:33:11 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0647 Qs: Rhyming [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 09 Jun 1997 07:29:38 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0647 Q: Rhyming The Sassenachs south of Hadrian's Wall have always seemed to have appropriated the whole ruddy island. When Elizabeth was crowned at the opening of the fifties, there were many households in Scotland bearing celebratory shields proclaiming E I of Scotland and II of England. It was still all but impossible to get a BBC job without a "London" accent, and the successful Scots actors (Andrew Cruickshank, Duncan Macrae, Alastair Sim etc.) either had to appear in Scots plays or amend their modes of speech to be considered acceptable, ins spite of the fact that greatly celebrated Sir Johnston Forbes-Robertson sported what the English errob erroneously called a "brogue". Unhappily, as can be seen form this posting, I learned typing on the salt-edged North-East Scottish coast... Harry Hill [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Tate Date: Monday, 9 Jun 1997 18:33:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0647 Qs: Rhyming Ron Dwelle writes: > Looking at the rhyming in Othello (Iago to Desdemona, Brabantio & the > Duke), I'm wondering if, in Shakespeare's day, this would have > represented a typical kind of English discourse, an "elite" type of > English discourse, or rather something that only the super subtle > Venetians would engage in. Rhyming, at least in Shakespeare's plays, was not limited to the Venetians. Coriolanus speaks in heroic couplets in 2.3.113-124. Various characters in *Henry V* end speeches with a series of heroic couplets: King Henry in 1.2.307-310, again in 2.2.192-193, again in 3.3.42-43 and 57-58, etc. Nearly the entire scene of 5.6 between King Henry, Northumberland, Fitzwater, Percy and Exton of *Richard II* is in heroic couplets. *Midsummer Night's Dream* is replete with couplets, abab quatrains and other rhyme schemes. Romeo and Juliet exchange a rhymed sonnet in 1.5. Hamlet ends his soliloquies in 2.2 and 4.4 with couplets. The list goes on. Criticism has not been able to single out, satisfactorily, a definitive character type that rhyme is limited to. Much study has been done on the distinction between prose and verse in the plays, but little seems to be around that concerns the distinction between blank verse and couplets or rhymed verse, a distinction arguably easier to perceive in performance. I hope this is of some help... Joseph Tate U. of Washington ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 07:08:14 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0649 Re: English Xenophobia; Nationalism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0649. Tuesday, 10 June 1997. [1] From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 09 Jun 1997 07:50:52 +0000 (HELP) Subj: English Xenophobia [2] From: Andrew Murphy Date: Monday, 9 Jun 97 15:44:18 BST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0647 Q: Nationalism [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 09 Jun 1997 07:50:52 +0000 (HELP) Subject: English Xenophobia When I made it down to the last eight out of three hundred for a directing apprenticeship at Granada Television in Manchester in 1963, I saw clearly the prevailing elitism of the English, when I from Aberdeen and another lad from Leeds were passed over in favour of six Oxbridge boys. Of course I suppose they may have been better.. When my Aberdonian friend Mildred Imray was hired as the BBC "continuity girl" her first name was changed to June and her vowels went through the same sort of training as Eliza Doolitle. The superb North American actor Douglas Campbell's Glasgow "u"'s had to soften themselves a bit. Nowadays, however, a provincially accented speech is considered colo[u]rful, thank heavens. My own recording of "A Funeral Elegy" has one Aberdeen vowel in it that a Canadian colleague noticed...to my shame, as I thought I'd anglicized the whole thing. Harry Hill [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Murphy Date: Monday, 9 Jun 97 15:44:18 BST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0647 Q: Nationalism Actually, Philip Edwards wrote about the anomaly of England's becoming a 'sceptred isle' in _RII_ as long ago as 1979 (_Threshold of a Nation_). There is now quite a rich literature on Shakespeare & nationalism-see, eg, the relevant sections of Richard Helgerson's _Forms of Nationhood_ and very interesting recent work on Renaissance lit & the 'British problem' by Willy Maley. A new collection of essays on _Shakespeare & National Culture_ was published just recently, edited by John Joughin and published by Manchester University Press (UK) / St Martins Press (US). Andrew Murphy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 07:14:34 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0650 Re: Middleton Edition MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0650. Tuesday, 10 June 1997. [1] From: Richard Dutton Date: Monday, 9 Jun 1997 11:39:00 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0647 Q: Middleton [2] From: Richard A Burt Date: Monday, 09 Jun 1997 12:14:38 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0647 Q: Middleton [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Dutton Date: Monday, 9 Jun 1997 11:39:00 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0647 Q: Middleton Gareth Euridge asks about the Oxford Middleton. I am a somewhat interested party myself, since I am doing a (completely separate) edition of Four Middleton Plays for the World's Classics. So I asked Gary Taylor when I met him in Washington, immediately after the Shakespeare Association meeting, in April. He told me then that he expected to submit final copy this summer. So I imagine it will be some time before the edition is published. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A Burt Date: Monday, 09 Jun 1997 12:14:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0647 Q: Middleton Re: Gary Taylor's Middleton edition. Last Gary told the contributors and editors (SAA), there is no expected date of publication. Gary says that the edition and companion volume of criticism will be published. He just can't say when at this point. Best, Richard Burt ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 07:19:49 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0651 Re: MM Line; Neutrality; Stoic Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0651. Tuesday, 10 June 1997. [1] From: John Boni Date: Monday, 9 Jun 1997 08:18:01 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0646 Re: MM Line [2] From: Ben Schneider Date: Monday, 9 Jun 1997 17:06:32 +0000 Subj: Neutrality; Stoic Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Monday, 9 Jun 1997 08:18:01 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0646 Re: MM Line Well, my face is red. Perhaps I can blame two weeks' vacation. When I read my brief post on *MM*, obviously hastily dashed off, I saw, "Also the sense of the hazards of ice *are* referenced." Sorry. John M. Boni [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben Schneider Date: Monday, 9 Jun 1997 17:06:32 +0000 Subject: Neutrality; Stoic Shakespeare Dear John McWilliams, In answer to my assigning neutrality to the new critic, but not the author, you objected that "Critics claiming neutrality did seem to produce neutral authors," and gave some good examples. Not always. It depended on the prominence of the author's politics in the work. Critics of Paradise Lost, Gulliver's Travels, Prelude, Leaves of Grass, For Whom the Bell Tolls, could not easily avoid the author's politics. Of course: the writer can be as engaged as he wants to be, but the new critic must (try to) be neutral. Since the new historicist's apparent mission is to find politics in works never suspected of having any-that's what we pay them for-they will do so; and they have dug up great fossil pits of politics buried under the surface of high art, Shakespeare being a prime case in point. * * * * * As you correctly surmise, Stoicism would constitute a whole new "playing field" for Shakespeare appreciation. How can we displace the foundation of a writer who is so deeply imbedded in our culture? As you say, "Shakespeare makes us what we are," and it seems "dubious" to introduce a "distant" Stoic Shakespeare, instead of the familiar face we have come to know so well. My first answer would be, "What if it's true?" Copernicus once required us to stop thinking of Earth as the center of the universe, and we managed to do so, although it was demeaning. Stoicism, however, is not totally foreign; it still lives in hunter-gatherer bands, in African villages, on south-sea islands, in Zen communities, in old-fashioned families, in English public schools, in successful business corporations, in football teams, and in many customs, such as holding the door open for the next guy. Yes, Shakespeare is what we are; but so is Stoicism. It's our roots, too: Adam Smith economics drive it underground, but just drop a natural disaster on us, and we instantly revert to Stoicism, all for one and one for all. Finally, by adding the Stoic dimension to Shakespeare, we increase, rather than diminish, his power. A new light shines on the action, motives clarify, flocks of nuances fly up where none were suspected. If nuances per square inch are the measure of a great author (and I think they are), Shakespeare becomes greater. Maybe I haven't spoken to your question. Perhaps you are saying that one can't roll back progress, like those who object to the New Globe as a form of Disneyland. Maybe so. Yours ever, BEN SCHNEIDER ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 07:27:10 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0652 16th International Conference on Elizabethan Theatre MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0652. Tuesday, 10 June 1997. From: Lynne Magnusson Date: Monday, 09 Jun 1997 23:14:57 -0400 Subject: 16th International Conference on Elizabethan Theatre You are invited to attend: The 16th WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ELIZABETHAN THEATRE Special Topic: THEATRE AND NATION 21-25 July 1997 University of Waterloo, Canada Tentative Schedule Monday 21 July 8:00-10:30 Reception Tuesday 22 July 9:45-12:15 Terence Hawkes (University of Cardiff, Wales), "Bryn Glas" Paul Yachnin (University of British Columbia), "Millenarian Ghosts: Belatedness and Nationhood in Hamlet" 2:00-4:15 Jean Howard (Columbia University), "City and Nation in Jacobean City Comedy" Margo Hendricks (University of California, Santa Cruz), "Natio, Nation, Generation: The Making of 'Race' in Elizabethan England" 8:00 The Taming of the Shrew (Festival Theatre, Stratford) Wednesday 23 July 8:45-9:45 A.J. Hoenselaars (University of Utrecht), "The Topography of Fear" Janelle Jenstad (Queen's University), "Defending England's Royal Exchange:Nationalism and Commerce in Heywood's 2 If You Know Not Me You Know Nobody" 11:00 Panel Discussion on "Race, Gender, Nation" (Festival Theatre,Stratford) 2:00 Richard III at the Tom Patterson Theatre 8:00 Coriolanus at the Patterson Theatre or Romeo and Juliet at the Festival Theatre Thursday 24 July 9:00-10:00 Steve Sohmer (Bel Air, CA), "12 June 1599: Opening Day at Shakespeare's Globe" Benjamin Griffin (Umpqua, OR), "The English Saints and the Formation of National-History Drama" 10:30-12:45 Michael Neill (University of Auckland, New Zealand), "Mercantile English Nationalism and The Island Princess" Paul Stevens (Queen's University), "Milton, Drama, and the Nation" 2:15-4:30 Leanore Lieblein (McGill University), "Shakespeare, Prince du Québec" Irena Makaryk (University of Ottawa), "Macbeth and the Birth of a Nation" 4:30-5:00 Business Meeting 8:00 Death of a Salesman at the Avon Theatre, Stratford Friday 25 July 9:30-10:30 Mark Stephenson (Queen's University), "'Staging Exclusions' and Robert Wilson's The Cobbler's Prophecy" Lloyd Edward Kermode (Rice University), "Alien Nation: Robert Wilson's Three Ladies of London and the Corruption of the English" 10:30-11:30 Richard Helgerson (University of California, Santa Barbara), "Weeping for Jane Shore" 12:30-2:30 Conference Banquet (University Club) For further information contact one of the Associate Directors: Lynne Magnusson, lmagnuss@watarts.uwaterloo.ca, (519)888-4567, ext. 2759 Ted McGee, cemcgee@watarts.uwaterloo.ca, (519)884-8111, ext. 280 Todd Pettigrew, thjpetti@watarts.uwaterloo.ca, (519)888-4567, ext. 2462. ********************************** REGISTRATION FORM: 16th International Conference on Elizabethan Theatre THEATRE AND NATION, 21-25 July 1997 NAME:___________________________________________________________________ MAILING ADDRESS: ______________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ PHONE:__________________E-MAIL:____________________ AFFILIATION AND ADDRESS AS YOU WISH THESE TO APPEAR IN THE DIRECTORY OF PARTICIPANTS: ________________________________________________________________________ 1. Registration fee (including Goods and Services Tax) Regular $53.50 (Canadian) Student $26.75 _______ 2. Banquet lunch, Friday 25 July All participants $20.00 _______ 3. Theatre tickets for the Stratford Festival Tuesday 22 July ___ ticket(s) for The Taming of the Shrew at the Festival Theatre @ $47.25/ticket _______ Wednesday 23 July Afternoon ___ ticket(s) for Richard III at the Tom Patterson Theatre @ $47.25/ticket _______ Evening ___ ticket(s) for Coriolanus at the Tom Patterson Theatre @ $47.25/ticket _______ OR ___ ticket(s) for Romeo and Juliet at the Festival Theatre @ $47.25/ticket _______ Thursday 24 July ___ tickets for Death of a Salesman at the Avon Theatre @ $30.00/ticket _______ Subtotal for theatre tickets _______ Total Payment _______ Conference theatre tickets are limited in number. Tuesday's and Wednesday's ticket prices are quotes at the 20% group rate reduction for the A category of seating. Thursday's are a 2-for-1 special rate. Orders will be filled as they are received until 15 June 1997. Your theatre tickets will be held for you to pick up at the Conference Registration Desk. Please make your cheque or money order payable in Canadian funds to the "University of Waterloo" and return it with your completed registration form to Todd Pettigrew, Elizabethan Theatre Conference, c/o Department of English, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1. 4. Accommodations Most people attending the Conference stay on campus in the Ron Eydt Village (formerly Student Village 2), where the sessions also take place. We shall reserve accommodations for you there if you wish. Payment should be made when checking in. ____ Please reserve single accommodation @ $31.80 /night (plus taxes) in the Ron Eydt Village for ____ nights. ____ Please reserve double accommodation @ $25.30 /night/person (plus taxes) in the Ron Eydt Village for ____ nights. ____ I shall be making other arrangements for accommodations while in Waterloo. DATE OF ARRIVAL: ____________________ DATE OF DEPARTURE: ____________________ 5. Airways Transit ($48.00, payable to the driver) The most convenient, but not the least expensive, way of getting from Pearson International Airport in Toronto to the University of Waterloo is by means of Airways Transit. We shall try to coordinate the trips of people attending the conference if you will fill out the following: ____ Please arrange for Airways Transit to meet my flight (Airline:_____________ Flight # ___________) scheduled to arrive from ____________ at ______ o'clock on the _____ of July. 6. The Conference will open with a reception at 7:30 p.m. on Monday 21 July in the Common Room, St. Jerome's College. Note to Ontario Students: Registration is free for graduate students registered at Ontario universities, although all extra fees still apply. Please pre-register using this form. The Conference acknowledges the support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 07:04:59 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0653 Re: Middleton Edition; A&EB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0653. Wednesday, 11 June 1997. [1] From: Gary Taylor Date: Tuesday, 10 Jun 1997 16:11:06 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Middleton Edition [2] From: John Robinson <1>Ucbubba@aol.com Date: Tuesday, 10 Jun 1997 12:42:08 -0400 (EDT) Subj: A&EB [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gary Taylor Date: Tuesday, 10 Jun 1997 16:11:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Middleton Edition In their accounts of the state of the forthcoming Oxford edition of "The Collected Works of Thomas Middleton," both Dutton and Burt are technically correct, although the apparent difference between them may seem confusing. It is certainly the intention and expectation of myself and my fellow general editors that the editorial and general editorial work will be finished by the end of this summer; at least 95% of it is already completed. How soon after that the edition appears in its dual format-in print, and electronically-depends upon factors outside my control, which is why I am unwilling to forecast a date of publication: that will be determined by how quickly the electronic editor, John Lavagnino, can solve the few remaining software problems, and how quickly Oxford University Press can print and bind the text from the computer-generated bromides of the pages which Lavagnino will deliver. Once the Press has bromides in its possession, it usually takes only three months for publication: six weeks for printing and binding, another six for distribution before the official publication date. USA publication will probably lag behind UK publication by a further six weeks, as is usual in such cases. I do not expect that publication will be delayed for "a considerable time", nor do I want to give the impression conveyed by Burt that the whole edition is just a distant gleam at the end of an interminable tunnel. Lavagnino has taken (unpaid) leave from his other work in order to concentrate on finishing his part of the edition, and I will return to working on it as soon as I finish this sending this email. Gary Taylor Director, Hudson Strode Program in Renaissance Studies regular email address: gtaylor@english.as.ua.edu [2]------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tuesday, 10 Jun 1997 16:11:06 -0400 (EDT) From: John Robinson <1>Ucbubba@aol.com Date: Tuesday, 10 Jun 1997 12:42:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: A&EB Professor Williams asked me to pass this information along. AEB is still sort of in business. We are currently under threat of having our college and university funding cut off. If that happens then we are out of business. The last issue published, this spring, was N.S. 9.2. The email problem is that the third character in my address (tb0wpw1@mvs.cso.niu.edu) is a zero, not an O. This appears to be a problem with many screens which do not show the slashed zero. William Proctor Williams ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 07:07:51 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0654 AYL MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0654. Wednesday, 11 June 1997. From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Tuesday, 10 Jun 1997 17:12:53 -0400 Subject: AYL Recently I saw the production of AYL by The Acting Company, directed by Liviu Ciulei. It was a rather conservative production. But I did find the relationship between Celia and Rosalind one of the best I have seen in a long time. They were loving sisters, throwing arms around each other, kissing, holding hands-but in an entirely non-sexual way. After the excellent homoerotic interpretations-and then the less wonderful copycat versions, this production's interpretation felt new again. In general, I think Americans are suspicious of physical affection. Celia was not at all upset by Rosalind's love antics, though she had to shake her head about it all. Any homoerotic tension came from the attraction Orlando felt for Ganymede. One thing that became clear-without jealousy and anger to provide her with motivation, Celia is left pretty much to be a mere bystander without much to do. So one can see a reason for beefing up her part with a love interest in Rosalind. Since The Acting Company, established by John Houseman, travels around the country, they may be or may have been around your neighborhood. Perhaps others have already seen it and would care to comment? For info about their schedule, they probably can be reached at P. O. Box 898 Time Square Station, New York, NY 10108. Phone 212-564-3510 --though their NYC gig is over. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 07:16:18 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0655 Re: Pronunciation; Rhyming; Appropriation; Neutrality MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0655. Wednesday, 11 June 1997. [1] From: Rosalind King Date: Tuesday, 10 Jun 1997 14:08:26 GMT0BST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0645 Q: Pronunciation of Cloten [2] From: Mark Mann Date: Tuesday, 10 Jun 1997 17:59:01 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0648 Re: Rhyming [3] From: Jonathan Hope Date: Wednesday, 11 Jun 1997 08:54:35 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0648 Re: Appropriation [4] From: John McWilliams Date: Wednesday, 11 Jun 1997 09:50:58 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0651 Re: Neutrality; Stoic Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rosalind King Date: Tuesday, 10 Jun 1997 14:08:26 GMT0BST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0645 Q: Pronunciation of Cloten I'm a native English (southern UK) speaker and say 'Clohten' - but only because it's usually spelt 'Cloten' in modern spelling editions. But a very cursory glance through the Folio shows that the spelling Clotten is actually preferred for most of the play except on aaa4v and aaa6r+v, so maybe that's how we should be pronouncing it. Clotten suggests of course clot 1) congealed liquid or 2) hardened lump of earth (clod) and hence 'thick head' - a usage that OED ascribes to Ben Jonson in the 1630's. However a 'clote' is a burdock or the prickly seedheads thereof which stick to your clothes (the word is also connected to clayey stickey earth). I suppose the character does have some characteristics of a clote in that he sticks and its impossible to shake him off, but he is definitely a clod. I no longer know which way to pronounce it! Rosalind King School of English and Drama Queen Mary and Westfield College University of London [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Mann Date: Tuesday, 10 Jun 1997 17:59:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0648 Re: Rhyming << the successful Scots actors (Andrew Cruickshank, Duncan Macrae, Alastair Sim etc.) either had to appear in Scots plays or amend their modes of speech to be considered acceptable >> Harry Hill brings up a point mentioned in MacNeil's The Story of English-that Scots heading south to make their ways in life often had to amend their dialects to be considered for employment. A parallel circumstance happens in the U.S. with one difference: there is no single American style of speech which everyone agrees upon as the standard. We have the provincial dialects, the Southern, the hillbilly, New Yawk, New England, Midwestern nasal ( being an Ohioan, I offer myself as an expert there), and many others-and there is discrimination of a sort against some of these ( such as hillbilly types of speech), but there is no basic mode of speech to learn to copy ( unless you count the speech of our national newscasters, and even there you have Dan Rather's modified Texas dialect). Seems funny to hear Brits criticizing each other's speech, when to Americans, even the Cockney, even the Aussie, sounds snooty and hi-falutin'. In Shakespearean productions, in the companies I've acted and directed for, the first rule of preparations always seems to be " No Brit dialects!!" But it gets hard sometimes when all the recordings one hears of Shakespeare are made by Brits, and pronunciations favor the Brit style of speech ( I hear, but am not convinced yet, that Will may well have hailed from England). The theatre company I currently head is preparing to make recordings of some of the canon, in American speech, and the discussions have gotten rather deep and heated on the question of what, after all, is "American speech." Any ideas out there? It sounds perfectly natural on British recordings to have the nobles speak in the public school style, and to have the low-borns speak in provincial dialects ( indeed the 1st recording I heard, in high school, was an Iago speech delivered in a virtually incomprehensible ( to a Yank teen, anyway) Cockney. Yet, in an American production, it doesn't do to have the low-borns speaking like Kentucky Bluegrassers. Why is this? Branagh has stated that he tries to cast a variety of actors in his films to avoid the " plummy" style of Brit classical acting. So there seems to be a reaction against the old classical " raund and abaut thutty paunds" style of speech. All this is a way of simply asking, What is acceptable to y'all on the Shakespearean stage? What fails ( other than bad acting-we're talkin' 'bout s peakin' here). And what suggestions, if any, are there for our recordings. Thanks....Mark Mann [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Hope Date: Wednesday, 11 Jun 1997 08:54:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0648 Re: Appropriation It's not just the perfidious English who go round appropriating territory. Harry Hill might want to check the location of Hadrian's Wall on a map. Quite a few 'sassenachs' are born and raised to the north of it. Jonathan Hope Middlesex University [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John McWilliams Date: Wednesday, 11 Jun 1997 09:50:58 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0651 Re: Neutrality; Stoic Shakespeare Dear Ben Schneider, I feel we have reached an impasse... I can't help picking you up on just one point of your last message however. You say "[i]t depended on the prominence of the author's politics in the work" as to whether new critics 'depoliticised'. Well you can't get much more overtly politically engaged than Marvell's 'Horatian Ode' can you? John McWilliams Department of History and Philosophy of Science Cambridge ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 06:40:37 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0656 Textual Problem in 1 Henry IV? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0656. Thursday, 12 June 1997. From: Pervez Rizvi Date: Wednesday, 11 Jun 1997 17:10:52 +0100 Subject: Textual Problem in 1 Henry IV? In the long opening speech to 1 Henry IV ('So shaken as we are, so wan with care,') Henry declares his intention to launch a Crusade and says that he will go: As far as to the sepulchre of Christ - Whose soldier now, under whose blessed cross We are impressed and engaged to fight - (1.1.19-21) The phrase 'Whose soldier now' puzzles me. Its meaning is clear enough but I can't think of another example where Shakespeare inserts a similar ungrammatical phrase into a speech which, without it, makes perfect sense. The only examples I can think of are exclamations ('Filial ingratitude!'), which 'Whose soldier now' clearly isn't. I wondered if this might be an example of textual corruption. I've looked in several editions of 1H4, as well as the Oxford 'Textual Companion'; none of these say anything about this line. If I were to play at being an editor, I might say that perhaps a couple of words were lost in the printing process and the lines should actually read: As far as to the sepulchre of Christ - Whose soldier now we are, under whose blessed cross We are impressed and engaged to fight - Or even that 'Whose soldier now' might be a false start which was inadvertently printed, so that it should be omitted from modern editions and the surrounding text realigned to regularize the metre. Brushing aside my amateurish suggestions, does anyone want to defend the original text? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 06:45:59 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0657 A rose by any other name.... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0657. Thursday, 12 June 1997. From: Barbara Montgomery Date: Wednesday, 11 Jun 1997 19:13:59 -0700 Subject: A rose by any other name.... Hello! I'm researching my maiden name. Trying to contact as many Shakespeares as possible in my quest. My father's name is William Shakespeare and he was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. His father's name was also William, but that's about as much as I know. Care to share any background? Thanks, Barbara Shakespeare Montgomery P.S. If I've already e-mailed you regarding this, I extend my apologies. It's a little difficult keeping track of all the names that have come up on the internet! [Editor's Note: I generally do not post messages from non-members unless they are of interest to the majority of the membership; however, the request above was sufficiently unusual for me to send it out. If you have a response to it, PLEASE send it directly to Barbara Shakespeare Montgomery at monty@mail.voyageronline.net and NOT to the list itself. HMC] ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 06:49:00 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0658 Re: Pronunciation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0658. Thursday, 12 June 1997. From: Peter D. Holland" Date: Thursday, 12 Jun 1997 11:32:34 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0655 Re: Pronunciation The current Royal Shakespeare Company production of *Cymbeline* - which I saw in Stratford last night - makes good capital out of the Clohten/Clotten pronunciation problem. Cloten clearly prefers to call himself and be referred to as Clohten. Others tend, behind his back, to call him Clotten. The gag is set up in an opening prologue scene (added to the production using material from the opening of 1.1), when the prologue calls the character Clotten and the actor playing the role stands up, outraged, to correct it to Clohten. In a play so fascinated by names (think of the games with 'Leonatus'), this joke seems entirely appropriate - a good example of a performance making effective use of our doubts. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 07:06:06 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0659 Re: Textual Problem in 1 Henry IV? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0659. Friday, 13 June 1997. [1] From: G. L. Horton Date: Thursday, 12 Jun 1997 10:10:06 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0656 Textual Problem in 1 Henry IV? [2] From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Thursday, 12 Jun 1997 09:56:30 PST Subj: SHK 8.0656 Textual Problem in 1 Henry IV? [3] From: Sean Lawrence Date: Thursday, 12 Jun 1997 09:30:32 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0656 Textual Problem in 1 Henry IV? [4] From: Ed Peschko Date: Thursday, 12 Jun 1997 11:46:06 -0600 (MDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0656 Textual Problem in 1 Henry IV? [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: G. L. Horton Date: Thursday, 12 Jun 1997 10:10:06 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0656 Textual Problem in 1 Henry IV? Pervez Rizvi doesn't like > As far as to the sepulchre of Christ - > Whose soldier now, under whose blessed cross > We are impressed and engaged to fight - and asks >Brushing aside my amateurish suggestions, does anyone want to defend the >original text? If an amateur is entitled to an opinion, I must say I like the line better than Rizvi's emendation. Were I acting it, or directing an actor who was having trouble with it, I think I'd insert a mental (As) As far as to the sepulchre of Christ - > (As) Whose soldier now, under whose blessed cross > We are impressed and engaged to fight - But of course I approve of the difficulty here because I disapprove of the sentiment: serving the "turn the other cheek" martyr by killing people seems a bad idea to me, and one that ought to strain the speaker's grammar. Marching ahead with unimpeded metrical regularity offends my sense of fitness. G.L.Horton -- Newton, MA, USA ghorton@tiac.net [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Thursday, 12 Jun 1997 09:56:30 PST Subject: SHK 8.0656 Textual Problem in 1 Henry IV? With reference to Professor Rizvi's query, whether or not the text is corrupt, it seems to me that the phrase "Whose soldier now" adds some concreteness to "under whose blessed cross/We are impressed and engaged to fight." However ungrammatical it may appear on the page, I should think the phrase can sound quite natural when spoken by an actor, perhaps more so than when it is made more grammatical by adding, as Professor Rizvi suggests, the words "we are." Best, Dan Lowenstein UCLA Law School [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Thursday, 12 Jun 1997 09:30:32 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0656 Textual Problem in 1 Henry IV? Pervez Rizvi was wondering about the following sentence: As far as to the sepulchre of Christ - Whose soldier now, under whose blessed cross We are impressed and engaged to fight - (1.1.19-21) I'm not an expert in these sorts of things, but I just want to suggest that "Whose soldier now" and "under whose blessed cross" might both serve as subjective completion to the verb "are"--i.e., we are his soldier; we are impressed to fight under his cross. I'm not sure that the construction is so much ungrammatical as merely awkward, and this awkwardness is appropriate to the character who is speaking. A compositorial omission of "we are" after "whose soldier now" would stretch the line to an unusual twelve syllables. Cheers, Sean. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Peschko Date: Thursday, 12 Jun 1997 11:46:06 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0656 Textual Problem in 1 Henry IV? Well, there is a simpler explanation... As above, it stands as 3 lines of 10 syllables each, whereas grammatically correct it is 12. Ed ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 07:13:35 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0660 Re: Pronunciation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0660. Friday, 13 June 1997. [1] From: David M Richman Date: Thursday, 12 Jun 1997 14:37:30 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0658 Re: Pronunciation [2] From: Daly Lyles Date: Thursday, 12 Jun 1997 15:26:38 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0655 Re: Pronunciation [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Thursday, 12 Jun 1997 14:37:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0658 Re: Pronunciation Peter Holland describes a superb solution to the problem of pronouncing Cloten's name. If those who talk about him pronounce his name with the short O so as to rhyme with "rotten," they can make capital of Guiderius's "I haue sent Cloten's clot-pole down the streame." (Pronounce clot-pole to rhyme with "hot sole.") Cloten himself would, of course, eschew this pronunciation. As to performing the plays with American accents, north Americans have been doing that for years-from Stratford Ontario through Stratford Connecticut, through Ashland and San Diego-not to mention myriad colleges and community theatres. I'd avoid any codification. Let the individual circumstances of your production determine your choices. Many years ago, I had an actor from Virginia playing Feste. He made Feste sound like a Southern gentleman, and he made Sir Topas sound like Billy Graham. It worked. David Richman [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daly Lyles Date: Thursday, 12 Jun 1997 15:26:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0655 Re: Pronunciation In regards to Mark Mann's question about what's "acceptable" dialect in American Shakespeare... Here in Newnan, GA, Theatre Mecca of the Universe , we'll take anything, as long as it's intelligible. Of course, a really thick Southern drawl is comic even to us, so we try to restrain it in the nobler bits, but in this fall's MND those Rude Mechanicals will probably be wearing Red Man gimme caps, in their hearts if not on their heads. We don't do British in our Shakespeare. In Shaw, yes, but not in Shakespeare. We figure as long as one is going to be provincial, might as well stick to one's own province. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 07:16:35 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0661 Renaissance Sources Project MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0661. Friday, 13 June 1997. From: Greg Crane Date: Thursday, 12 Jun 1997 14:04:44 -0400 Subject: Renaissance Sources Project -- Revised list of works to be entered We are planning a library of electronic Renaissance source materials to supplement and in some cases consolidate texts already on-line from various sources. Feedback to a preliminary list of sources posted here in May has allowed us to revise this list considerably. A new version of the list is available at: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Renaissance.html If you are interested, please take a look. We are especially keen at this point to hear about major sources that can be readily entered and that we have not included. Gregory Crane Perseus Project Tufts University ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 07:21:34 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0662 Re: Neutrality MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0662. Friday, 13 June 1997. From: Ben Schneider Date: Thursday, 12 Jun 1997 15:48:20 +0000 Subject: Neutrality Dear John McWilliams I'm sorry if I've led us to an impasse because I think our differences are minimal. The question is whether new critics removed the politics from the authors they studied. Case in point, Marvell's Horatian Ode, to which you say Stephen Greenblatt restored the author's politics after the new critics had removed them. I said that the degree to which politics figured in an author's work determined whether or not the new critics dealt with them. But Marvell is as political as can be, and, according to Greenblatt, the nc's pay no attention to his politics; therefore my thesis that they do politics when they are prominent is wrong. I question the claim that the new critics ignored Marvell's politics. T S Eliot's essay on Marvell devotes a page to Marvell's politics (Selected Essays, 1950, p253) before going on to discuss his wit. As for the Horatian Ode, Eliot simply discusses the quality of its wit, having isolated and defined that commodity, as another might discuss a poet's rhymeing technique. Since Eliot is a founder of new criticism-the essay on Marvell was some sort of a New Critical Manifesto -- one may say that new criticism does NOT rule out politics. But it does focus on apolitical matters like wit. The fact that I isolate someone's campaign strategy for analysis does not mean I deny that person's political dimension. It's just not my topic. So: If by "neutrality of the author" we mean that new critics systematically ignore the presence of politics in an author's work, I disagree. If it means that they don't really care very much about an author's politics, I agree, and I hope this clears away the impasse. Yours ever BEN SCHNEIDER ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 07:27:59 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0663 CFP: Q/W/E/R/T/Y and As You Like It MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0663. Friday, 13 June 1997. From: Bertand Rouge Date: Friday, 13 Jun 1997 08:35:27 +0100 Subject: Q/W/E/R/T/Y and As You Like It Q/W/E/R/T/Y 7 (October 1997) CALL FOR PAPERS I'm preparing the October 1997 issue of QWERTY, an English and American Studies journal published by the University of Pau (France), that will be partly devoted to *As You Like It*. The issue will include from 40 to 50 articles. The journal is indexed in the MLA Bibliography and the World Shakespeare Bibliography, among other places. Articles should be submitted by September 1st. The list of works and subjects dealt with in the issue will be as follows (articles should preferably-but not exclusively-concentrate on the titles indicated): William Shakespeare, *As You Like it* (1600) George Herbert, *The Temple* (1633) Daniel Defoe, *Moll Flanders* (1722) Katherine Mansfield, *Selected Stories* (1920-1924) Jean Toomer, *Cane* (1923) N. Scott Momaday, *House Made of Dawn* (1966) Hanif Kureishi, *The Budha of Suburbia* (1990) The News Media in the US Since 1945 English Society at War (1939-1945) The History of the Republican Debate in Australia I hope that some among you will be interested, or may know friends or colleagues who might be. If so, you should get in touch with me now, at: bertrand.rouge@univ-pau.fr Yours, Bertrand Rouge Universite de Pau France========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 07:13:41 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0664 Re: Pronunciation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0664. Monday, 16 June 1997. [1] From: Ron Ward Date: Saturday, 14 Jun 1997 00:15:55 +1200 (NZST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0660 Re: Pronunciation [2] From: Dale Lyles Date: Saturday, 14 Jun 1997 08:15:35 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0660 Re: Pronunciation [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Ward Date: Saturday, 14 Jun 1997 00:15:55 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0660 Re: Pronunciation Accents in King John could be French as John probably knew little English. You can go too far, with a John Wayne accent for Macbeth as one famous comic does it. Some contrast between the rustics and the nobility needs to be maintained and this can highlight the variety that existed. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Saturday, 14 Jun 1997 08:15:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0660 Re: Pronunciation David Richman recalls a Feste whose Sir Topas sounded like Billy Graham... Ours sounded like Ernest Angsley, and it worked even better: the actor got the cadences, the shrieks, and even the smacks to Malvolio's forehead ("Be HEALED!") exactly right. That raised an interesting frisson, actually: since Malvolio was a "kind of Puritan", Sir Topas must have been Church of England, come to correct him. Our fundamentalist Sir Topas was exactly the opposite of what the script indicated. Oh, well, anything for a laugh, as Bill used to say. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 07:24:05 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0665 Re: Textual Problem in 1 Henry IV? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0665. Monday, 16 June 1997. [1] From: Harry Hill Date: Friday, 13 Jun 1997 07:42:07 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0659 Re: Textual Problem in 1 Henry IV? [2] From: J. Kenneth Campbell Date: Sunday, 15 Jun 1997 03:53:27 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0656 Textual Problem in 1 Henry IV? [3] From: Pervez Rizvi Date: Monday, 16 Jun 1997 10:43:40 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0656 Textual Problem in 1 Henry IV? [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Friday, 13 Jun 1997 07:42:07 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0659 Re: Textual Problem in 1 Henry IV? G.L.Horton's metrical justification for the seemingly ungrammatical structure of this line is right on the button, I think. It is just such rhythmic undertow that creates character and mental state in the auditor. Harry Hill [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: J. Kenneth Campbell Date: Sunday, 15 Jun 1997 03:53:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0656 Textual Problem in 1 Henry IV? Pervez Rizvi wrote he had trouble with the construction of line 20 of H4,1 As far as to the sepulchre of Christ - Whose soldier now, under whose blessed cross We are impressed and engaged to fight - Mr. Rizvi, I think your instincts are correct about it being an unusual construction. The signal to the actor is the double anapestic ending in the second line. It is the royal "We". The inference is, that it is repeated Bolingbroke, who has usurped the throne, might be somewhat uncomfortable with the the title "we", and so he of course repeats it. He underlines to the rebels, he has summoned to the chamber that he, Bolingbroke is the rightful King. "God commands me to serve him. I command you, in His name, to serve us." [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pervez Rizvi Date: Monday, 16 Jun 1997 10:43:40 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0656 Textual Problem in 1 Henry IV? I am grateful to the people who responded to my posting on 1H4. A few more thoughts, specific and general: Lines of 12 syllables are not all that rare in Shakespeare (see Othello) so I wouldn't rule out a reading only because it makes the line hypermetrical. It is just one of the criteria to consider. What struck me was that a loose phrase in the middle of an otherwise coherent speech looks odd and ought at least to be considered as a candidate for error. I agree that the original lines sound natural when spoken on stage, which is what Shakespeare was writing for. More generally, my posting was not motivated by a burning desire to persuade the world of my suggestion; rather, it was to see what interest there is on this list for discussions of textual issues. I know that these things require expertise, yet it is beguilingly easy to think that anyone can 'have a go'. S. Schoenbaum, in a chapter of Shakespeare's Lives called 'Other Amateurs' writes, after reviewing a particularly bad biography: 'It illustrates what can happen when a totally uncritical mind operates upon the materials for a Life and mimics the processes of scholarship.' I am only too aware that a similar charge can be laid against postings like mine. But I also think that it is legitimate for people genuinely interested in Shakespeare to think about the texts which have come down to us, to question what we don't understand and not merely 'leave it to the experts'. If the most effective way of doing that is to put up suggestions to be shot down, then that's fine. If we remember our limitations and give due respect to the findings of scholars who have studied the texts in depth, then we *can* 'have a go'. I'd like to see more discussion of textual issues on Shaksper, particularly as we have several distinguished textual scholars among us. Hope others feel the same. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 07:34:47 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0666 *Comedy of Errors* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0666. Monday, 16 June 1997. [1] From: David Hale Date: Friday, 13 Jun 97 14:11:34 EDT Subj: [*Comedy of Errors*] [2] From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Saturday, 14 Jun 1997 16:33:16 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Comedy of Errors [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Hale Date: Friday, 13 Jun 97 14:11:34 EDT Subject: [*Comedy of Errors*] SHAKSPEReans in or passing through upstate New York may be interested in the production of "Comedy of Errors" through June 29th at GeVa Theatre in Rochester. Ephesus has been reimagined as New Orleans during Mardi Gras. Most of the costumes are quite elaborate-Duke Solinus as King Neptune, Luciana as a "sweet mermaid" (3.2.45), and so on. The cast has been augmented by an assortment of revelers and two "courtesanettes" who enjoy a scene with Antipholus in a hot tub. There are six strolling musicians who play frequently through the performance in a variety of styles-blues, gospel, etc. There are big musical numbers before 1.1 and at the end, with lyrics pieced together from the play and the sonnets. The Antipholuses and Dromios are doubled, distinguished by hats; this works well, even at the end when hats are changed frequently to indicate changes in speakers. One notable bit is in the courtship scene. Antipholus's "give me thy hand" (3.2.69) leads to an increasingly passionate embrace, rather than postponing any positive response until the end. Generally it's a well paced and enjoyable performance. David Hale SUNY Brockport [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Saturday, 14 Jun 1997 16:33:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Comedy of Errors Will be directing CofE in the fall with all female cast...am working on it now...any help from those who have directed it . . . specific questions #1 how long does it run uncut..I know it is the shortest of the plays but not too sure how much I should cut. #2 any suggestions on staging the opening 'story" I.i? #3 how did you distinguish between twins? Any suggestions or ideas gratefully appreciated. Just bought a ticket to THE HERBAL BED . . . anyone seen it or know anything about Susanna's adultery accusation other than that there was one...with a Quiney was it? or was that who Judith married? Can't keep them straight . . . thank God she wasn't in the US military . . . Thanks in advance ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 07:38:08 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0667 Re: Lear; Cordelia MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0667. Monday, 16 June 1997. From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Saturday, 14 Jun 1997 14:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0475 Re: Lear; Cordelia Framji Minwalla wrote: > "Do we pity Lear? Possibly, yes. We see him, at the end of the play, > as 'more sinned against than sinning', as Caroline Spurgeon puts it > [Shakespeare's Iterative Imagery], 'a human body in anguished > movement-tugged, wrenched, beaten, pierced, stung, scourged, dislocated, > flayed, gashed, scalded, tortured, and finally broken on the rack.' I tried unsuccessfully to locate the Spurgeon citation. Is it a book, an article, or a selection in a book by another title? Whatever the case, to apply this to Lear without qualification is to fail to relate it to Lear's development in the play. It represents the stage of Lear's selfishness and lack of self-knowledge, as commented on by his wicked daughters. In the play Lear proceeds from pre-occupation with self towards concern for others, as evidenced by his recognition that to continue to harbor resentment leads to madness, to his realization that he had far too little concern for his subjects, and, most important of all, his asking Cordelia to forgive him. Cordelia would have a much better claim to being more sinned against than sinning, but she doesn't waste emotion on self-pity. > "Once Lear's wits turn, he finally begins to lay his insides out, to > inspect more honestly than ever before the world he helped make. But > it's not that Lear changes or grows wise; rather, he becomes more > aware. Barbara Everett ("The New King Lear") captures this nicely: > 'Lear commands attention continually by the degree to which the simplest > discoveries become, through him, a matter of immediate physical > experience, felt both intensely and comprehensively.' I do not understand the distinction you are making between becoming wise and becoming more aware. They would seem to be positively correlated. Roger Schmeeckle ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 07:41:26 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0668 Will and Testament MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0668. Monday, 16 June 1997. From: Fredric Stone Date: Friday, 13 Jun 1997 11:04:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Will and Testament-theatre bookings announcement Will and Testament (a life after death comedy) written by Fredric Stone and William Shakespeare is an original one person show performed by acclaimed Chicago actor, Fredric Stone. It seamlessly fuses a dozen Shakespeare selections into a contemporary storyline set in Heaven. Shakespeare and God are characters as well. This unique work is both entertaining and educational and is available for touring. It travels easily. For information, please see the Will and Testament website at members.tripod.com/~fstoneact/w_t.html or contact Fredric Stone Will and Testament Productions 5040 N. Marine Drive Chicago, Il 60640 773-334-4196 E-mail: fstoneact@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 07:46:50 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0669 Midsummer Study Guide Update MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0669. Monday, 16 June 1997. From: Amy Ulen Date: Sunday, 15 Jun 1997 23:50:06 -0700 Subject: Midsummer Study Guide Update FYI-I recently updated my Midsummer study guide (http://www.ivgh.com/amy/shakespeare/). The site now includes Quarto Software's Guide to A Midsummer Night's Dream for the PC. Mr. Donald L. Stoneman is graciously offering his program as freeware. If you own a PC, this is a must-have program! Amy Ulen amy@ivgh.com http://www.ivgh.com/amy/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 21:32:43 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0670 Re: MM "Glass"; Q?U/E/R/T/Y; Lear MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0670. Tuesday, 17 June 1997. [1] From: Sean Lawrence Date: Monday, 16 Jun 1997 10:46:01 -0700 Subj: MM "glass" [2] From: Rebecca C Totaro Date: Monday, 16 Jun 1997 15:39:05 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0663 CFP: Q/W/E/R/T/Y and As You Like It [3] From: Stuart Manger Date: Tuesday, 17 Jun 1997 00:24:56 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0667 Re: Lear; Cordelia [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Monday, 16 Jun 1997 10:46:01 -0700 Subject: MM "glass" Hi, folks. One possibility that I'm surprised no one has mentioned in explication "His glassy essence" is that it's a Biblical reference. My copy of Cruden's lists three uses of 'glass' excluding the Apocalypse: 1 Corinthians 13.12, 2 Corinthians 3.18, and James 1. 23. Given that Isabella is a nun, a biblical reference might very well be intended. The first of these is probably the most interesting: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." It's not just that this is the most famous usage: it also links the properties of glass (i.e., "glassiness") with the weakness of our merely human knowledge. The chapter as a whole, interestingly enough, discounts human knowledge, even prophecy, in favour of "charity". It's the perfect reference, then, for a nun who is urging charity to a man prideful enough to think his judgement sufficient to kill a man, and urging him to recognize himself fragile and human rather than omniscient and god-like (hence the metaphor about the ape, which follows the phrase in question). The other two references, I think, support a reading of "glassy" as indicating both human ignorance and weakness generally. 2 Corinthians 3.18 implies that people are glasses wherein the image of God is seen, and which merely (passively?) reflect the glory revealed to us. It is preceded by a description of how the glory of God is 'veiled' in the Old Testament. Finally, James 1.23 argues that anyone who hears the law should act according to it. To those who do not truly appropriate the law, it appears as little more than one's personal reflection, transitory and ephemeral. "For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass." [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rebecca C Totaro Date: Monday, 16 Jun 1997 15:39:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0663 CFP: Q/W/E/R/T/Y and As You Like It I'm unable to contact Professor Bertrand Pau at the e-mail address given in his call for papers. Can anyone help? Thank you, Rebecca Totaro rt@english.umass.edu [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Manger Date: Tuesday, 17 Jun 1997 00:24:56 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0667 Re: Lear; Cordelia >> "Do we pity Lear? Possibly, yes. We see him, at the end of the play, >> as 'more sinned against than sinning', as Caroline Spurgeon puts it >> [Shakespeare's Iterative Imagery], 'a human body in anguished >> movement-tugged, wrenched, beaten, pierced, stung, scourged, dislocated, >> flayed, gashed, scalded, tortured, and finally broken on the rack.' > >I tried unsuccessfully to locate the Spurgeon citation. Is it a book, >an article, or a selection in a book by another title? > >Whatever the case, to apply this to Lear without qualification is to >fail to relate it to Lear's development in the play. It represents the >stage of Lear's selfishness and lack of self-knowledge, as commented on >by his wicked daughters. In the play Lear proceeds from pre-occupation >with self towards concern for others, as evidenced by his recognition >that to continue to harbor resentment leads to madness, to his >realization that he had far too little concern for his subjects, and, >most important of all, his asking Cordelia to forgive him. > >Cordelia would have a much better claim to being more sinned against >than sinning, but she doesn't waste emotion on self-pity. > >> "Once Lear's wits turn, he finally begins to lay his insides out, to >> inspect more honestly than ever before the world he helped make. But >> it's not that Lear changes or grows wise; rather, he becomes more >> aware. Barbara Everett ("The New King Lear") captures this nicely: >> 'Lear commands attention continually by the degree to which the simplest >> discoveries become, through him, a matter of immediate physical >> experience, felt both intensely and comprehensively.' > >I do not understand the distinction you are making between becoming wise >and becoming more aware. They would seem to be positively correlated. > > Roger Schmeeckle I have been very slow in catching up with this debate- UK often is many ours behind, I fear. What I simply cannot get to grips with is the enormity of Lear's crimes - dismemberment of a kingdom (prime Shakespearian crime, surely?), the dismemberment of a family - nay TWO families indirectly - being the catalyst of horrors beyond belief (Glos' eyes), and then having the temerity to presume upon our sympathy, our compassion. And IS he ever mad? In what sense? Lear makes me both very angry and very chilly, and very inhumane: perhaps that is the subtle savour of the play's power? That it invites the kind of cold-heartedness in its critics and students that creates the kind of crimes perpetrated by Lear and Cornwall? I simply cannot go along with the notion that he is a poor old great old man brought low by maltreatment, misunderstanding by two heartless daughters, and then suffering a series of punishments out of all proportion to his crimes. I have indeed seen some wonderful Lears on stage, I have sat in audiences sponsored by Kleenex tissues, but in 30 years of theatre going and many fine shows, I have never been moved by it. I have taught it at least a dozen times to a variety of students, and never been able to explian my reticence to them. The postings I am replying to encapsulate a real problem with the play that I think much of the critical consensus seems to avoid: they all seem to assume (at least the ones I read!) that we collectively share compassion and awe as we watch the grand old man tottering towards death with the daughter in his arms he has effectively persecuted and sent to her death. This century is littered with examples of corrosive, destructive masculine dictatorship, the terrifying exercise of power for incredible and discreditable ends, and yet we are still bidden to sympathise with the archetypal careless dictator? Sorry. I can't. Stuart Manger ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 21:41:54 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0671 Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival Measure for Measure MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0671. Tuesday, 17 June 1997. From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 16 Jun 1997 15:43:42 -0400 Subject: Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival Measure for Measure The Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival's Measure for Measure is their best production so far, or, at least, that's what auditor after auditor told me during intermission last Saturday night. Chris Reeder's set has three distinct levels and allows the actors a great deal of choice. The present production begins with a extra-textual dumb show. Vincentio (Dan Kenney) enters on the highest level of the stage and falls asleep. He dreams of a sexually promiscuous city, a writhing orgy which he cannot subdue. After this disturbing dream, the Duke decides to turn over the reigns of government to Angelo. Kenny's Duke is a genuinely comic duke, and he recurrently turns a baffled face to the laughing audience. When Angelo comments, "I perceive Your Grace, like power divine,/Hath looked upon my passes" (5.1.377-78 Bevington), the audience hears ironic discrepancy, not an ideological endorsement of the divine right of dukes. Kenney's Duke is too inept, and too pleasure loving, to be godlike. When the Provost (William Sweeney) hands the Duke Ragozine's head-"Here is the head" (4.3.102)-the Duke drops it in dismay. The Provost looks at him archly and says, "I'll carry it myself (102). The business is added, of course, but it's right in line with Kenney's character. To account for the authority granted him, Friar Lodowick (the Duke in disguise) reveals himself to the Provost -"You know the character, I doubt not, and the signet is not strange to you" (4.2.193-4)-by showing him the signet ring on his finger. Earlier (3.2) he reveals himself to Escalus (Kristin Chase) by pulling back his hood. By the way, the Duke's hood in this production is a genuine disguise. His face cannot be seen. Khris Lewin's Angelo is precise and prenzy, a character the audience likes to hate. Lewin's Angelo speaks with a certain careful precision that suggests an inner restraint, a lack of full-bodied ebullience. One wonders how he ever falls of Isabella (Marni Penning). Since Penning usually plays one of the dominant roles for the CSF, it's interesting that her Isabella is understated. She does not steal the limelight from the bumbling Duke. Rich Kelly's Lucio speaks with a Tennessee/Arkansas accent that reminds the audience of both Ellis (the costume and the moves help) and Bill Clinton. This is very well done-probably Kelly's finest performance for the CSF. Lisa Penning's Mariana is neatly ambiguous. She is, of course, dressed in black, but when the Friar enters (4.1.7), she is listening to her Walkman-in a rather sensuous way. And, in fact, the audience soon realizes that her black shirt is see-through, that she is wearing a rather provocative garter belt that exposes a good deal of-well-flesh. We might wonder why the Duke has been coming regularly (in disguise) to visit her: the seed of doubt is cast, and the doubt is not resolved. Since Marni and Lisa Penning are sisters, trading places in Angelo's bed is (in terms of realism) less problematic. Nick Rose as Nikki Hrothgar plays Mistress Overdone in an overdone auburn wig. I'm not sure how many of the auditors realize that Mistress Overdone is being played in drag-until of course her/his wig is removed late in the action. I suppose the idea is that disguise is recurrent in the Vienna of the play. Jim Stump plays an excellent Pompey; Colby Codding, a crazed Abhorson (as well as Friar Peter); Charles Schereen, a fearful Claudio; and Nicole Franklin-Kern, a very pregnant Julietta. And the production gets better and better. I've seen it twice, and expect to see it again. Opening night it was good, but a week later it was magnificent. I recommend it. It runs until June 22 at the Aronoff Center in downtown Cincinnati. For information and tickets, call 513-559-0642. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 21:49:42 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0672 NYSF *H8* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0672. Tuesday, 17 June 1997. From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Monday, 16 Jun 1997 19:38:32 -0400 Subject: *H8* I'll be seeing the NYSF (Public Theare)'s *Henry the Eighth* in New York's Central Park tomorrow night. Their *Henry the Fift* was very good, so... Will anyone else on this list be there? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 21:55:07 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0673 Re: Pronunciation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0673. Tuesday, 17 June 1997. [1] From: Jonathan Hope Date: Tuesday, 17 Jun 1997 09:22:19 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0664 Re: Pronunciation [2] From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Tuesday, 17 Jun 1997 08:54:59 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 13 Jun 1997 to 16 Jun 1997 [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Hope Date: Tuesday, 17 Jun 1997 09:22:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0664 Re: Pronunciation Anyone who wants to look into the issues to do with Elizabethan pronunciation/accents should read the chapter on phonology in Charles Barber's _Early Modern English_ - just reissued in revised form by Edinburgh University Press. It's very, very good. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Tuesday, 17 Jun 1997 08:54:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 13 Jun 1997 to 16 Jun 1997 "David Richman recalls a Feste whose Sir Topas sounded like Billy Graham... Ours sounded like Ernest Angsley, and it worked even better: the actor got the cadences, the shrieks, and even the smacks to Malvolio's forehead ("Be HEALED!") exactly right. That raised an interesting frisson, actually: since Malvolio was a "kind of Puritan", Sir Topas must have been Church of England, come to correct him. Our fundamentalist Sir Topas was exactly the opposite of what the script indicated." In the National Theatre's production of *Bartholmew Fair*, Zeal-of-the -Land Busy was made to bellow in the voice of the Rev. Ian Paisley, which worked very well in the context of the play. And I like the "Americanization" of Queen Elizabeth and Rivers in the McKellen *Richard III*, which produces the hierarchical snottiness felt by the Yorks toward the interlopers by making reference to the "Edward VIII/Mrs. Simpson" business. I remember seeing a monologue by Julie Walters once, in which she was a director addressing the cast of the amateur dramatic company "Pie Crust Players'" production of *Hamlet*. I saw it years ago, but bits of it have lodged themselves in my head, like "Lines, people, lines! This is Shakespeare . . . it's not like Pinter where you can say what you like as long as you leave enough gaps." My favorite, though, is reference to the use of regional accent: "Derek? Drop the Geordie accent for Hamlet, love. It's not coming across." [for non-brits, the Geordie accent is a notoriously strong regional accent from the NorthEast of England: Newcastle-upon-Tyne.] I'm rambling. But the recent interest in regionalism in British cinema of late (*Trainspotting*, *Brassed Off* etc.) has made me think about regionalism in the Elizabethan/Jacobean theatre-as it is seen (or heard) through accent. Jonson transcribes accent in *Bartholmew Fair* in the west country's Puppy, the North's Northern, the Irish Whit. Shakespeare does it too-sometimes (shouldn't the Keepers in III.i of *3H6* speak like Northern?). What effect did this produce in an audience? Was it used only as a form of ridicule of provinciality, a mockery of regional difference to promote a new urban identity in recent immigrants to the City? Or is there any room to suggest "celebration" of this variety of accent? London must have been fairly diverse in its population in terms of regionalism and accent during this period, right? Any thoughts? Simon ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:02:04 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0674 Re: *Comedy of Errors* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0674. Tuesday, 17 June 1997. [1] From: Cary M. Mazer Date: Monday, 16 Jun 1997 08:36:59 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0666 *Comedy of Errors* [2] From: David M Richman Date: Tuesday, 17 Jun 1997 13:26:26 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0666 *Comedy of Errors* [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cary M. Mazer Date: Monday, 16 Jun 1997 08:36:59 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0666 *Comedy of Errors* Virginia M. Byrne asked about Comedy of Errors: >any suggestions on staging the opening 'story" I.i? I've long had a truly perverse production idea for the opening of the play, which I've tried to persuade several friends directing the play at various venues to employ (e.g. my regional colleague Jim Christy, who directed it for Three Rivers Shakespeare Festival a few years ago), but my idea so flies in the face of why theatres produce the play, and why audiences come to see it, that no one has yet nibbled at the bait. Why not stage the whole play after 1.1 as a fantasy, a la Ambrose Bierce's "An Occurence at Owl Creek Bridge?" Egeon learns that he is to be put to death, and his quest to reconstitute his family will remain unfulfilled. The stage plunges into color, festivity, and comedic disorder, and for the length of the play we see exactly what Egeon had longed for: the reconciliation of opposites, the reunion of lost love-ones, the closure of wholeness, etc. The final scene reaches its conclusion, and then we're suddenly plunged back into the world of life-and-death issues and capital punishment. Egeon's head is (literally) back on the block, and the axe falls. Too much of a downer, obviously, for the average summer Shakespeare Festival, with undergraduate interns dancing in "green shows" on the lawn before the show, etc. But, as I told Jim Christy, "hey, when I staged a version of Peter Pan, Tinkerbell stayed dead, so what else would you expect from me?" Lugubriously, Cary [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Tuesday, 17 Jun 1997 13:26:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0666 *Comedy of Errors* Solutions to production problems depend so heavily on circumstances that vary from production to production that I hesitate to address questions about productions without knowing more about those circumstances. With that caveat, I will try to respond to the recent query about The Comedy of Errors. Several years ago, I directed a traveling production-eight performers-intended for travel to high schools and college campuses. Each set of twins was played by a single actor. An on-stage stage manager would fling to the actor, as he entered, a Red E or a red S-pun intended-depending on which twin was to be represented. This became a running gag. At the end, we introduced puppets when all four characters had to appear on stage simultaneously. Each Ephesus twin had a puppet brother representing the Syracusian half. The puppets were made closely to resemble the human actors. I'll say immodestly that the reactions of many audiences were gasps of astonished joy and ovations. One doesn't often get applause like that. As to the shipwreck, we did it story theatre style-enacting the events as Aegon narrated them. Our production was cut down to ninety minutes-no intermission. David Richman ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:09:16 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0675 Authors' Politics; Renaissance/Shakespeare Resources MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0675. Tuesday, 17 June 1997. [1] From: Kezia Sproat Date: Tuesday, 17 Jun 1997 07:20:00 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0662 Re: Minor Sidelight on Authors' Politics [2] From: Stephen Windle Date: Tuesday, 17 Jun 1997 16:24:04 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0661 Renaissance Sources Project [3] From: Chris Clark Date: Tuesday, 17 Jun 1997 16:20:07 -0400 Subj: Shakespeare Resources List [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kezia Sproat Date: Tuesday, 17 Jun 1997 07:20:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0662 Re: Minor Sidelight on Authors' Politics On new critics and politics: In the 1950s I read an interview with TS Eliot, perhaps in the ?Christian Century, in which, as I remember, he said he wrote Murder in the Cathedral as anti-Nazi propaganda. I wrote my senior paper at Vassar (where new criticism reigned supreme) showing how that might be, but didn't appreciate it fully until seeing the production at Stratford Ontario in the ?1980s. It then worked very powerfully. If anyone knows the source of Eliot's statement, I'd like to find it again. Kezia Sproat [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Windle Date: Tuesday, 17 Jun 1997 16:24:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0661 Renaissance Sources Project There's a fairly decent website, including the 154 sonnets at : http://www.ludeweb.com/poetry Stephen Windle Escondido, California [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Clark Date: Tuesday, 17 Jun 1997 16:20:07 -0400 Subject: Shakespeare Resources List I think it might be an idea to compile (assuming one does not exist) a list of Shakespeare resources on the net so that the resultant file can then be made available on the file board... can anyone please send me URLs of decent Shakespeare archives etc (preferably analysis, rather than texts, as I assume this is of more interest to most people) to myself so that I can compile such a list... URLs/comments welcome. Thanks..... Chris ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:32:00 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0676 Shakespeare Resources on the Web MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0676. Wednesday, 18 June 1997. [1] From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Tuesday, 17 Jun 1997 23:31:35 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0675 Renaissance/Shakespeare Resources [2] From: Amy Ulen Date: Tuesday, 17 Jun 1997 22:34:50 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0675 Shakespeare Resources [3] From: Michael Best Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 1997 09:21:27 -0700 Subj: Shakespeare Resources on the Web [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Tuesday, 17 Jun 1997 23:31:35 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0675 Renaissance/Shakespeare Resources Chris Clark wrote: > I think it might be an idea to compile (assuming one does not exist) a > list of Shakespeare resources on the net so that the resultant file can > then be made available on the file board... But such a thing does exist. The best guide to net resources on Shakespeare (in my opinion) is Terry Gray's "Mr. William Shakespeare and the Internet", at http://www.palomar.edu/Library/shake.htm. It's annotated, divided into sections, and quite thorough. Another good site is the First Folio Web, at http://www.ludweb.com/msff/sonnets/links.html. This one just has the links without much description, but they're all one one page. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amy Ulen Date: Tuesday, 17 Jun 1997 22:34:50 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0675 Shakespeare Resources > I think it might be an idea to compile (assuming one does not exist) a > list of Shakespeare resources on the net so that the resultant file can > then be made available on the file board... Chris, Save yourself some time and visit Mr. William Shakespeare and the Internet at http://www.palomar.edu/Library/shake.htm . Terry Gray has gathered an amazing list of Shakespeare links. This is the first place that I send my students when researching Shakespeare on-line. Amy Surfing with the Bard ~ http://www.ivgh.com/amy/ [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Best Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 1997 09:21:27 -0700 Subject: Shakespeare Resources on the Web The best site to use as a gateway to research resources on the Web remains Terry Gray's "Mr. William Shakespeare and the Internet" at . It is attractive and well-maintained, with sections on the texts of the plays, criticism, sources, and so on. There is also the MIT site, , as well as listings at The Voice of the Shuttle () and Yahoo (). I maintain (intermittently) two pages of text-only links at , and am always happy to hear of more items to add. The pages can easily be downloaded for reference. Michael Best Department of English, University of Victoria Coordinating Editor, Internet Shakespeare Editions ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:55:02 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0677 Re: Pronunciation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0677. Wednesday, 18 June 1997. [1] From: Anna I. Mueller Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 1997 09:45:14 MET Subj: Re: SHK 8.0673 Re: Pronunciation [2] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 1997 11:15:47 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0673 Re: Pronunciation [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anna I. Mueller Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 1997 09:45:14 MET Subject: Re: SHK 8.0673 Re: Pronunciation Now that we're still talking pronunciation: are there any recordings at all of actors reading (attempting to read) Early Modern English (as there are for Middle and Old English)? Any suggestions welcome. Thank you, Anna I. Mueller [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 1997 11:15:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0673 Re: Pronunciation A friend of mine here in Arlington, VA, toured England with a Shakespeare troupe in the late 60's (the one that spawned Ms. Linklater's work in voice production, it turns out), and he distinctly recalls using his home-grown Kentucky mountain dialect in a scene from one of the histories in front of John Barton. Rhymes that seemed impossible suddenly began to appear, and Barton was left scrambling for the text. Given the colorful Scottish dialects which are still in use today, and that dialect's subsequent evolution here in the States, I'm all for the idea of producing plays at the New Globe with the thickest of brogues; where else in the English language can you find "love" rhyming with "move", for instance? It's my understanding that RP is a form of English that is utilitarian in nature, whose sole virtue is that it can be universally understood. Given Shakespeare's love of dialect and certain character types, I hope we can look forward to more productions under Mr. Rylance's direction that chuck the BBC's diction out the window. Andy White ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:11:14 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0678 Re: Lear MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0678. Wednesday, 18 June 1997. [1] From: Syd Kasten Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 1997 16:49:01 +0200 (IST) Subj: Lear [2] From: James Marino Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 1997 12:10:46 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0677 Lear [3] From: Ed Pixley Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 1997 14:49:23 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0670 Re: Lear [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Syd Kasten Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 1997 16:49:01 +0200 (IST) Subject: Lear Stuart Manger (SHK 8.0670) ended his citation against Lear with the comment: >This century is littered with examples of corrosive, >destructive masculine dictatorship, the terrifying exercise of power for >incredible and discreditable ends, and yet we are still bidden to >sympathise with the archetypal careless dictator? Sorry. I can't. Poor Lear, after all he went through, being compared to the likes of Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and others whose name I don't like ennobling in print. Lear's main fault, like those of some others in the play was to be out of synch with the times. Cordelia's fault, for example, was to be to stuck in the old values of directness, truth and simplicity of expression. Lear on the other hand, was ahead of his times. Much of the excess of rule and its eventual failure, to this day, can be laid to the unwillingness of the autocrat to relinquish rule. This is true not only in national politics, but in just about any social organization one can think of, down to the family business and even to the nuclear family. Recognizing the approach of infirmity, appreciating the need of young blood and young ideas to maintain the vigour of the kingdom in changing times, anticipating the internecine strife that is liable to follow the death intestate of a long-lived king, he sought obviate disaster by dividing the heretofore peaceful kingdom among his supposedly loyal and fraternally (sororally?) loyal offspring. The symmetry of his plan was destroyed by his reaction to Cordelia's response. One can argue that this was due to a constitutional tendency to explosiveness or need to dominate. The persistent loyalty of a person like Kent and the continuing devotion of Cordelia tend, for me, to deny this. I see, rather, the author portraying in Lear the emotional lability typical of mild organic deterioration of brain function, which was to show itself so starkly as the play developed. Goneril and Regan don't give us a clue as to why they went bad. Perhaps Lear should have remarried to give his children a mother's upbringing; perhaps he should have spent less time at the office. Was he too indulgent? We will never know to what degree he was responsible. But his contemplating peaceful transition of power and its decentralization can only be admired as an attempt at a thoughtful, even insightful, act of modern statesmanship. Unfortunately his world wasn't ready for it. Soncerely Syd Kasten [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Marino Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 1997 12:10:46 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0677 Lear Stuart Manger joins the others in what is certainly an accurate indictment of Lear. I can't agree that the catalogue of his sins sufficiently overwhelms any possibility of redemption, but, more importantly, I think there is a mildly surprising confusion of the demands of Christian charity and the interpretive response of a given audience. The sermon on the mount lays it out clearly for Cordelia (Matt 44-48): You don't wait for your enemy to merit forgiveness or love; it is to be given regardless of crimes against you. Cordelia doesn't just forgive Lear. She refuses to recognize that he has done her harm, Her "No cause" transcends forgiveness. (This Christ-like charity is the part that exceeds my ability to accept her as believably human-which I fear is self-revelatory) Because she is a plain dealer we must accept that she means what she says, or believes what she says; we certainly are given no reason to doubt her honesty at this point. The lesson is one of true love, of the sort one usually associates with parent and child. ("I can't believe my Sonny is a serial killer, he was always such a good boy"). On the other hand, I react as audience and share the general revulsion at the high cost of Lear's infantile egocentrism. As I do that of Romeo and Coriolanus and of the monstrous imaginations of Othello and Leontes. They DON'T merit forgiveness; but I think that is the point. Regards, James [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pixley Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 1997 14:49:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0670 Re: Lear > I have been very slow in catching up with this debate- UK often is many > ours behind, I fear. What I simply cannot get to grips with is the > enormity of Lear's crimes - dismemberment of a kingdom (prime > Shakespearian crime, surely?), the dismemberment of a family - nay TWO > families indirectly - being the catalyst of horrors beyond belief (Glos' > eyes), and then having the temerity to presume upon our sympathy, our > compassion. And IS he ever mad? In what sense? Lear makes me both very > angry and very chilly, and very inhumane: perhaps that is the subtle > savour of the play's power? That it invites the kind of cold-heartedness > in its critics and students that creates the kind of crimes perpetrated > by Lear and Cornwall? I simply cannot go along with the notion that he > is a poor old great old man brought low by maltreatment, > misunderstanding by two heartless daughters, and then suffering a series > of punishments out of all proportion to his crimes. I have indeed seen > some wonderful Lears on stage, I have sat in audiences sponsored by > Kleenex tissues, but in 30 years of theatre going and many fine shows, I > have never been moved by it. I have taught it at least a dozen times to > a variety of students, and never been able to explian my reticence to > them. The postings I am replying to encapsulate a real problem with the > play that I think much of the critical consensus seems to avoid: they > all seem to assume (at least the ones I read!) that we collectively > share compassion and awe as we watch the grand old man tottering towards > death with the daughter in his arms he has effectively persecuted and > sent to her death. This century is littered with examples of corrosive, > destructive masculine dictatorship, the terrifying exercise of power for > incredible and discreditable ends, and yet we are still bidden to > sympathise with the archetypal careless dictator? Sorry. I can't. > > Stuart Manger I'm not a Lear scholar, so my feelings about the play and its power may not carry much weight. Thus, I decided to reply off list. If once you have read my thoughts you are moved to any reconsideration, you may want to put them out where others can react as well. I am moved by Lear in my reading of the text, though among productions, only that of James Earl Jones (New York Shakespeare Festival-mid l970s) has moved me. You are absolutely right in describing his crimes, even to effecting the transformation of Goneril from a graceful and aristocratic lady into a monster. Regan seems to be suffering, from the start, from a second child syndrome, but she is hardly a monster. In many ways, I would agree with the person to whom your response was addressed, Schmecker, I think, that Lear undergoes significant change during the play. But I want to address aspects of that change that he overlooks-as well as your question about his "having the temerity to presume on our sympathy and compassion." Bear with me, but I don't believe he does presume on our sympathy-though perhaps Shakespeare does. That's another story. Shakespeare has, from the beginning, introduced a technique for giving a character sympathy by extension, a method he builds on as the play progresses. At the very onset of Lear's arrogance, as he god-like usurps the very role of nature by asserting "we have no such daughter," as he gives life and death dictums from the royal power which he, in fact, has already given away, etc., Kent steps in with his full support of the welfare of Lear as a human as well as a king. He is, of course, banished for his pains, but will soon reappear to provide that support again. He says he has no purpose in this world but to serve Lear, and, functionally, he certainly has no purpose in Shakespeare's plot but to do the same, a support that will extend up to his final line of Act V. Cordelia, briefly at the end of I.i, expresses a sympathetic concern in warning her sisters, but that we will not see developed until late in the play. To Kent's sympathetic support, the Fool is added in I.iii. Whereas Kent's and Cordelia's bluntness in I.i added to Lear's arrogance, both Kent's and the Fool's bluntness in I.iii begin to humanize him. His raging curse on Goneril, however, shows us still dealing with a man who is not worthy of any sympathy. You are absolutely right in saying that Lear dismantles both the kingdom and the households. His actions drive Goneril and Regan into the monstrous actions that they finally perform-but they do allow themselves to be so driven, and Shakespeare holds them accountable for those actions. Cordelia, Kent, and Edgar preserve their moral judgments when they are driven from grace, and, thus, become the instruments of grace that will bring absolution to Lear. (BTW, the "more sinned against than sinning" line is not a valid judgment. It is Lear's own judgment early in Act III, when he is still far from being ready for absolution.) Edgar and Gloucester, of course, also provide sympathetic extension. Both of them fit the "more sinned against than sinning" description far better than Lear, and yet both find a part of them that feels deeply for Lear. In fact, they claim that their own sufferings pale in front of his. I still may not like him or sympathize with him, but I like and sympathize with the characters who do. In the storm scene, Lear, for the first time, begins to notice the suffering of others, first the Fool, then creatures of the night who "love not such nights as this," then "poor Tom." "Here's three on's are sophisticated. Thou art the thing itself, poor unaccommodated man. . . ." Moreover, he wants to learn from "this philosopher": even to taking off his sophisticated clothes and donning Poor Tom's weeds. To me, then, he is starting to earn my sympathy: as someone who has discovered pity and as someone who has acknowledged his own ignorance. Shakespeare now makes an unusual choice at this point, following all the history plays and even the earlier tragedies of state (Hamlet and Macbeth), where restoring the health of the state was an important part of resolving the tragedy. He divides the action into what appears to me to be two parallel worlds-which are shown to us in alternating scenes: the world of the state and that world out on the heath where Lear is being schooled. Once we learn of the invasion by France and Cordelia, for the purpose of restoring the crown to Lear, that world of the state becomes a melodramatic world of "the good guys vs. the bad guys." Cornwall, Goneril, Regan, Edmund, and Oswald have become the villains we love to hate; while Cordelia, Edgar, Kent, and (gradually) Albany are the good guys, righting the wrongs, stamping out evil, etc. The world of the heath is a philosophical one, where a very human Gloucester and Lear, oblivious to the melodrama, struggle with definitions of power and life and humanity-two old men, one mad, one blind- uttering profundities, such as, "the great image of authority; a dog's obeyed in office."-so much for crowns. Other lines in the scene dismiss the validity of justice. Lear, of course, will be rescued from both the heath and the ire of the villains-by Cordelia. But notice how in this scene, where he perceives her as a "soul in bliss," they outdo each other in asking for forgiveness, and Shakespeare has indicated through dialogue that Lear is now garbed in simple white gown-suggesting simplicity and purity. Both will next be captured by Edmund's forces, but here one only has to see how Lear perceives freedom, not as power but as a state of mind. James Earl Jones, in this scene, as they were being led off in chains, took the chains in his hands and flipped them as though they were reins by which he was directing the movement of his jailers. Even though Lear has been brought back into the world of melodrama, he has brought with him his schooling from the world of the heath, and he shares his new-found perspective with Cordelia, and they are united through it. Meanwhile, back in the melodramatic world, notice how the bad guys are getting killed off, first Cornwall, then Oswald, then Regan, then Goneril, and finally Edmund. Hey, how can we not have a happy ending with all the bad guys dead? and all of the good guys are still standing. "Oh, see. Oh, see." Lear enters with the dead body of Cordelia. It is important that it is Cordelia, not Lear, because we must see the change in him and the change in what he deems important. Albany, as the only monarch still standing, proceeds to restore the order that is supposed to resolve tragedies (and melodramas) by meting out poetic justice all around-to reward the good and to punish the evil. But Lear's arrival has interrupted that melodramatically expected resolution. He tries to resolve the order in an even more appropriate way by offering Lear back his crown. After all, isn't that what the war was all about? In fact, isn't that what started this whole mess back in Act I? But Lear does not even notice. Only the breath of life in the angelic Cordelia matters now. When Lear himself dies, presumably of a broken heart, Albany tries to offer the crown to Kent. But he has to follow his master, and in Jones's production, he lay down and expired right there on the stage. So there is Albany, still holding the crown. Nobody wants the damned thing. If order has been restored, nobody understands what that order is, because Lear's arrogant and reckless action set in motion a power that dismantled not just families and kingdoms but an entire value system that now no longer makes any sense. I can sympathize with Lear because he came to know and act upon what his foolishness had brought to light, but it was too late. Had the old value systems still been in place, he would have accepted the crown and the old kingdom would have been restored. But out of this waste, something new has to be formed. Perhaps that is why Samuel Johnson found the play too awful to be endured, or why Jan Kott sees it parallel to the absurdism of Endgame. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:17:01 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0679 Re: *Comedy of Errors* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0679. Wednesday, 18 June 1997. [1] From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 1997 09:45:13 PST Subj: A good test case [2] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 1997 16:47:10 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0674 Re: *Comedy of Errors* [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Lowenstein Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 1997 09:45:13 PST Subject: A good test case In a recent posting, Cary Mazer suggested that "Comedy of Errors" be staged by framing it in the manner of Bierce's short story, "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge." When the play ends, it would be revealed that it was all Egeon's instantaneous dream, and the ax would fall on his head. I believe Mazer's suggestion poses an excellent test case for discussing the responsibility, if any, that a director of Shakespeare's plays has to an audience to remain faithful to Shakespeare's script and, as best it can be gleaned, Shakespeare's conception. (I have been a subscriber to this list for a year or so. If this issue was debated at length before I joined, please forgive me.) The reason Mazer's suggestion is such a good test case is that it is devoid of some of the considerations that sometimes cloud the debate. Those, such as myself, who tend to the traditionalist side of the question, are likely to believe that usually, a director's "creative innovations" will detract from the play and, in any event, will run into innumerable small and large conflicts with the script. Pretty clearly, these drawbacks do not apply to Mazer's suggestion, which would greatly change the experience of the play, but cannot, in my opinion at least, be said to detract from it. Bierce's idea was a good one that has intrigued numerous generations of readers, and Mazer seems correct that "Comedy of Errors" lends itself very nicely to that idea. Furthermore, because the innovation applies only to the framing and not to the body of the play, there should be no conflicts with the script at all. On the other side of the debate, a common claim is that we don't know what Shakespeare intended anyway and, even if we did, we could never reproduce the effect he intended because current-day audiences bring such different assumptions and expectations into the theater than did Shakespeare's contemporaries, that a production that was physically identical to the original production would produce a completely different (and possibly incomprehensible) experience in the onlookers. But one's relativism would have to be pretty extreme to apply this argument with a straight face to Mazer's suggestion. If Shakespeare's production had an ending that cast the whole play retrospectively in an ironically tragic light, there is no reason why the script should not so indicate. And audiences at both ends of a span of 400 years would surely sense that Mazer's proposal is a drastic change in the play. Thus, if anyone is inclined to engage this discussion, I think it could go forward on two assumptions: 1) that Mazer's suggestion does not detract from Shakespeare's play and arguably improves it; and 2) that Mazer's suggestion radically changes the nature and experience of the play, as Shakespeare intended it, as his audiences received it, and as all directors and audiences since then have understood it. Since Mazer's suggestion sounds to me like good theater, I am reluctant to assert that a director who accepted it would be acting irresponsibly. Nevertheless, a large percentage of any audience (especially a summer festival audience) is likely to be seeing the play for the first time and to have little or no background. Shouldn't an audience that pays to see a play by Shakespeare get to see a play by Shakespeare? Of course, there is a virtually infinite number of possible conceptions of what the play by Shakespeare is, but isn't the audience entitled to what the director genuinely believes is the best conception, by whatever lights? If Mazer's suggestion is folloWednesday, should the play be billed as an adaptation of "Comedy of Errors"? -- Dan Lowenstein UCLA Law School [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 1997 16:47:10 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0674 Re: *Comedy of Errors* Cary Mazer asks: >Why not stage the whole play after 1.1 as a fantasy, a la Ambrose >Bierce's "An Occurence at Owl Creek Bridge?" Egeon learns that he is to >be put to death, and his quest to reconstitute his family will remain >unfulfilled. Very nice idea. I suppose there would have to be an extratextual dumb show after the first scene, a dumb show in which Egeon goes to sleep, and another at the end of the play where the audience sees him wake up? Anyway, I'd use the concept-were I a director. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:22:40 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0680 Re: MM "Glass" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0680. Wednesday, 18 June 1997. [1] From: Susan St. John Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 97 09:31:52 +0000 Subj: Re- MM Line [2] From: Ron Ward Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 10:29:57 +1200 (NZST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0670 Re: MM "Glass" [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan St. John Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 97 09:31:52 +0000 Subject: Re- MM Line John Boni wrote: " one of the several elements that brings the play nearer to what we regard as tragedy is the serious sort of peripetia that undermines characters' certainty about self, position, value system." I was boggled by this sentence so I looked up "peripetia"; it's not in my dictionary. Is it perhaps a typo? or an unusual form of another word (like paripatetic)? I humbly request: Could you please elucidate? Thanks in advance Susan. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Ward Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 10:29:57 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0670 Re: MM "Glass" Sean Lawrence says about glass, that there are biblical referencees, at least in the King James version(?). Yet glass was not available for windows in the period of Paul. Glass beads and glass ornaments and vases even were made in Egypt and Phonecia. What the Bible actually said would be interesting to know. Glass stated to be used (for windows) in England in Henry VII's time (according to my English encyclopaedia). There may have been stained glass in churches before that but certainly not in 1-70 AD. KJ version also does some strange things with musical instruments which could not be translated by scholars of the time. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:27:48 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0681 Re: CSF MM; Textual Problem MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0681. Wednesday, 18 June 1997. [1] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 17 Jun 1997 22:22:16 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0671 Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival Measure for Measure [2] From: Rosalind King Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 1997 10:17:56 GMT0BST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0665 Re: Textual Problem in 1 Henry IV? [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 17 Jun 1997 22:22:16 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0671 Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival Measure for Measure I'd like to add a note on the conclusion of this production. Isabella (Marni Penning) removes her wimple in the last scene-a suggestion that she will not be returning to the convent. But the production ends with a hesitation dance, as Kenney (the Duke) and Penning embrace, move apart, and finally stand looking at each other (Kenney with longing eyes) across the now empty stage. Will they, or won't they? The ambiguity seems right on target. Yours, Bill Godshalk [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rosalind King Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 1997 10:17:56 GMT0BST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0665 Re: Textual Problem in 1 Henry IV? I encountered similar difficulties with the word 'which' when preparing the text for the production of Damon and Pythias at the Globe last summer. eg. The old man is sober, the young man rash, the lover triumphing in joys, The matron grave, the harlot wild and full of wanton toys - Which all in one course they no wise do agree, So correspondent to their kind their speeches ought to be. Here 'which' obviously refers to the old man, the young man the lover , matron and harlot, not toys. The following caused our actors some difficulty, but the repeated (to us) odd usages of 'which' here are not exactly incorrect. In line 3 it refers to Pythias but in line 6 it means 'about anyone who' (i.e. any of the 'we' engaged in hot talk). Eubulus is specifically referring to Dionysius, but being a good courtier keeps his criticism suitably veiled -the awkwardness is thus in keeping with the difficulty of addressing a tyrant. Nothing have I done but this: in talk I over-thwarted Eubulus When he lamented Pythias' case to King Dionysius, Which tomorrow shall die but for that false knave Damon - He hath left his friend in the briars and now is gone. We grew so hot in talk, that Eubulus protested plainly Which held his ear open to parasitical flattery, And now in the King's ear like a bell he rings, Crying that flatterers have been the destroyers of kings - Which talk in Dionysius' heart hath made so deep impression, That he trusteth me not as heretofore in no condition, As is so often the case, the difficulty is for the reader, not (once the performer knows how to point the line) for the listener - it simply mirrors the slight dislocations prevalent in ordinary speech. Yours, Rosalind King School of English and Drama Queen Mary and Westfield College University of London ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:31:00 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0682 Q: The Sonnets MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0682. Wednesday, 18 June 1997. From: Carl Fortunato Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 97 19:18:00 -0400 Subject: Re: Sonnets I have here an edition of the Sonnets Published in London by J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., and edited by M.R. Ridley, MA, in 1935. This edition contains a different order of the sonnets than the usual. Mr. Ridley says he based the order of sonnets the theory of one Sir Denis Bray (*The Original Order of Shakespeare's Sonnets,* Sir Denis Bray, Methuen 1925). Ridley provides no details, but says that it uses a "rhyme-link" - a purely mechanical procedure - which keeps together sonnets that must be kept together, and separates none that have always been recognized as pairs. I quote from the intro: I wish to claim for Sir Denis Bray's order no more than this, that by the application of a perfectly mechanical criterion, which is in no way dependent on the idiosyncracies of any editor, an order of the sonnets is produced which makes them a far more coherent and readable series than the order of 1609. And even if the production of that order were a mere accident, which I find difficult to believe, we might well be grateful for an accident which so much enhances out pleasure. Reading the book, Bray's order *does* make more sense than the original (which is obviously arbitrary, and not Shakespeare's order at all). Does anybody know anything about this? Has Bray been tried and found wanting? Is there anything there, or is it just one more theory that crumbled like dust the moment it was examined? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:06:58 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0683 Tax on Tuition Waivers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0683. Thursday, 19 June 1997. From: Joseph Tate Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 1997 19:15:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Tax on Tuition Waivers Subject: House Cmte Votes 1000% Tax Increase on Grad Students ALERT 6/13/97 Tax Scenarios Show Loss of Section 117d Could Increase Grad Student Taxes by up to 1000% or more than $500/month SEVEN STUDENT TAX RETURNS BELOW Washington, DC . . . The House Ways and Means Committee has voted in favor of a tax bill that includes among its provisions a tax increase on graduate teachers and researchers of up to 1000% (one thousand percent). In a vote strictly on party lines, the Committee approved the tax proposal originally offered by Chairman Bill Archer (R-TX). Quick surveys done by NAGPS have concluded that the tax proposal would dramatically increase tax burdens on graduate students making less than $15,000 per year. Among the various changes to the tax code, the Chairman's proposal would eliminate Section 117d of the Internal Revenue code. Section 117d currently protects from taxation the tuition waivers often granted by universities to graduate teaching and researchers in return for teaching up to 40% of the courses on some of the nation's largest university campuses. Because the value of tuition waivers often exceeds stipends also paid to TAs and RAs, counting those waivers as income has the potential to increase taxes by thousands of dollars per student per year. Seven student scenarios (listed below) illustrate how some students will pay 1000% (one thousand percent) more in taxes, or up to more than $500 per month. In response, NAGPS (the National Association of Graduate-Professional Students) is calling upon students, faculty and administrators throughout the United States to contact members of Congress to protest this new tax. Graduate students throughout the US have expressed shock and surprise at the proposal, with email listserves, web sites and word-of-mouth quickly alerting students. "It is sad that a bill being offered to make taxes `more fair' has instituted a brand new tax on students many of whom earn less than $15,000 per year," said NAGPS Executive Director Kevin Boyer. "It is also a shame that, instead of taking a pro-graduate-education stance in this bill, the committee chose instead to offer no incentives for graduate education." NAGPS had anticipated that the tax legislation would extend a tax deduction for student loan interest, and would offer a tax incentive to employers who sought to pay for employees' graduate school. Both provisions have widespread bipartisan support and were promised in 1996 Congressional or Presidential campaigns. Those interested in learning more about the tax bill should visit the NAGPS web site at http://www.nagps.org/NAGPS/. NAGPS is also running a legislative alert email list. To be placed on the list, send an email request to nagps@netcom.com ##### NAGPS Asked: What if Section 117d were eliminated? What could be the effect on your tax bill? These students represent some of the effects. STUDENT #1 Female PhD Student Asian Languages & Culture University of Michigan/Ann Arbor CURRENT LAW SCENARIO 1997 Gross: $ 8,333 Projected 1997 Income Tax: $ 268 1997 Net Income $ 8,065 NO SECTION 117D SCENARIO Stipend Income: $ 8,333 Tuition waiver (2 x $9470): $18,940 Total Income: $27,273 Projected 1997 Income Tax: $ 3,109 (+ 1160%) Tuition Paid: $18,940 1997 Net Income $5,224 (-$237/mo) STUDENT #2 Married Couple, filing jointly; Male PhD student at the University of Alabama/Huntsville, both residing in Huntsville, Alabama. Recently married. Husband is student at the University of Alabama/Huntsville. Wife lost her job in 1996 and has augmented income with painting homes. CURRENT LAW SCENARIO 1996 Gross: $39,836 1996 Tax: $ 4,405 1996 Net Income $35,431 NO SECTION 117D SCENARIO Stipend Income: $39,836 Fellowship Income: $ 6,000 Total Income: $45,836 Projected 1996 Income Tax: $ 5,081 (+ 15%) Tuition Paid: $ 6,000 1996 Net Income $34,755 (-$56/mo) STUDENT #3 Female PhD Student Worcester Polytechnic Institute Resides in Millbury, Massachusetts CURRENT LAW SCENARIO 1996 Gross: $14,400 1996 Federal/State Tax: $ 2,390 1996 Net Income $12,500 NO SECTION 117D SCENARIO Stipend Income: $14,400 Tuition Waiver Income: $10,680 Total Income: $25,080 Projected 1996 Income Tax: $ 3,992 (+67%) Tuition Paid: $10,680 1996 Net Income $10,488 (-$168/mo) Student says: "This would leave me with 10,400, or about 870 per month. I pay 450 in health insurance, 600 in car insurance, 400 per month for rent, and about 100 per month for utilities. This leaves me about 280 per month for food, clothing, books, entertainment, gas, and other incidental expenses. I have enough trouble as it is living on the 1000 dollars per month that I currently make after taxes. I never see the extra 10,680 dollars that go for my tuition ; they are not in my pocket. If this tax bill is passed, I would seriously consider leaving graduate school, as I do not think that I could afford to live on the pay that I would take home." STUDENT #4 Male PhD Student University of Delaware Resides in Newark, Delaware CURRENT LAW SCENARIO 1997 Gross: $ 9,600 1997 Federal/State Tax: $ 838 1997 Net Income $ 8,762 NO SECTION 117D SCENARIO Stipend Income: $ 9,600 Tuition Waiver Income: $11,250 Total Income: $20,850 Projected 1997 Income Tax: $ 2,527 (+201%) Tuition Paid: $11,250 1996 Net Income $ 7,073 (-$141/mo) Student says: "To offset the tax difference ($1,713 at least) for me, and to compensate for the increased tax withheld from an increased stipend, the university would have to increase my stipend by more than 20 percent $1,985 bringing it from $9,600 to $11,585." How can they do this without increasing tuition? STUDENT #5 Male PhD Student is a Research Assistant on an EPA Grant and studies at Worcester Polytechnic Institute Resides in Worcester, Massachusetts. CURRENT LAW SCENARIO 1996 Gross: $14,000 1996 Federal/State Tax: $ 549 1996 Net Income $13,451 NO SECTION 117D SCENARIO Stipend Income: $14,000 Tuition Waiver Income: $11,280 Total Income: $25,280 Projected 1996 Income Tax: $ 3,797 (+691%) Tuition Paid: $11,280 1996 Net Income $10,203 (-$270/mo) Student says: Each year, I pay $3960 rent, $480 health insurance, $360 bus pass, $240 phone, $600 other utilities, $130 membership in two professional societies (American Chem. Soc. and Water Environment Fed.), and $60 to maintain a checking account, for a total of $5830 in expenses before food. I spend another $300 on books and supplies (grad books are expensive!). I'm frugal - I can maintain a home and eat for $10/day, or $3650/yr. That leaves $3671, or $306/month for entertainment, clothing, Christmas presents for my nieces, prescription medicines, non-prescription medicines, film developing, and a suit when I graduate. But this bill would leave me with $299, or $16.58/month. Maybe I won't need that suit." STUDENT #6 Female PhD Student Involved with Dartmouth College Graduate Student Council, Resides in Hanover, New Hampshire CURRENT LAW SCENARIO 1996 Gross: $13,538 1996 Federal/State Tax: $ 1,429 1996 Net Income $12,109 NO SECTION 117D SCENARIO Stipend Income: $13,538 Tuition Waiver Income: $29,128 Total Income: $42,665 Projected 1996 Income Tax: $ 7,709 (+539%) Tuition Paid: $29,128 1996 Net Income $ 5,828 (-$523/mo) Student says: "Therefore, Dartmouth graduate students would have paid $6280 more in taxes, which would have made our income $7258 for the year (46% decrease). It would not be possible to live in the area on that wage. For 1997, the tuition is now $30,528. I hope this helps! I sent the word out to all Arts and Sciences graduate students at Dartmouth yesterday (291 of us we're a small grad institution) and all who have responded are very upset. It just would not be possible for any of us to pursue a career in research and education if this tax bill passes. As graduate students, we do not expect high incomes in our chosen fields and, to be here now, we are sacrificing health benefits, pension plans, and high incomes during our 20s and 30s. All of this we do to become educators and educated researchers for the United States. Shouldn't theybe encouraging us?? STUDENT #7 Married Couple Wife is a student at George Washington University. Husband employed by federal government. Resides in Alexandra, Virginia CURRENT LAW SCENARIO 1996 Gross: $50,528 1996 Federal/State Tax: $ 5,950 1996 Net Income $44,578 NO SECTION 117D SCENARIO Stipend Income: $50,528 Tuition Waiver Income: $ 9,050 Total Income: $59,578 Projected 1996 Income Tax: $ 8,164 (+37%) Tuition Paid: $ 9,050 1996 Net Income $42,364 (-$185/mo) ==================================================================== The National Association of Graduate - Professional Students 825 Green Bay Road, Suite 270 PHONE: 847-256-1562 Wilmette, IL 60091 FAX: 847-256-8954 Toll Free 1-888-88-NAGPS * Email to: NAGPS@NETCOM.COM ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:41:32 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0684 Re: MM "Glass" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0684. Thursday, 19 June 1997. [1] From: Sean Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 1997 20:56:47 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0680 Re: MM "Glass" [2] From: Steve Sohmer Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 08:13:30 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0680 Re: MM "Glass" [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 18 Jun 1997 20:56:47 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0680 Re: MM "Glass" Ron Ward points out, quite rightly that glass would have been physically almost unavailable to Paul, and certainly unlikely to be his metaphor. I don't mean to dispute this, but I just want to point out that the KJV would nevertheless form an intertext to Isabella's phrase. An equally interesting line of research would be to uncover what other contemporary Bibles (say, Tyndale, Douai) do with the verse I cited, , and whether any of the contemporary sermons and homilies expound it. Cheers, and I'd be interested to see what anyone uncovers. Sean. [Editor's Note: I looked up the passage in my modern-spelling Tyndale (Yale UP, 1989), "Now we see in a glass even in a dark speaking . . ." and in my Geneva facsimile (Pilgrim Press, 1989), "For now we {s}ee through a gla{ss}e darkly . . ." The Geneva also contains this note: "The applying of the {s}imilitude of our childhood to this pre{s}ent life, wherein wee darkely behold heauenly things, according to the {s}mall mea{s}ure of light which is giuen vs, through the vnder{s}tanding of tongues, and hearing the teachers and mini{s}ters of the Church: of our mans age and {s}trength, to that heauenly and eternall life, wherein when wee behold God him{s}elfe pre{s}ent, and are lightened with his full and perfect light, to what purpo{s}e {s}hould wee de{s}ire the voice of man, and tho{s}e worldly things which are mo{s}t imperfect?" HMC] [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 08:13:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0680 Re: MM "Glass" Dear Friends, I think Sean Lawrence quite closely touches the glassy essence of "glassy essence" as a reference to the "outer" or visible man. Saint Paul didn't write "glass darkly," he wrote "esoptron en-ainigma." "Esoptron," which broadly means "to gaze into a place" was the word for a mirror-which in Paul's day were made of polished metal, not glass. In "en-ainigma" our root of "obscurity" is recognizable. My pal, Ansgar Kelly, the formidable medievalist, thinks Paul somehow means "to look through a mirror to the dark world on its far side," ala Alice's venture through the looking-glass. The KJV uses "glass" as polished metal mirror in Job 37:18; Isa. 3:23; 1 Cor. 13:12; 2 Cor. 3:18; Jas. 1:23. Also, John describes a sea like glass (Rev. 4:6 and 15:2), i.e. calm. And in Rev 21:18,21 he describes a new Jerusalem with streets of gold as clear as glass, i.e. pure. But Shakespeare's knew Tyndale's translation (in one or another of its incarnations), not James's, and one needs to exercise caution before relying on the KJV. In point: 1 Cor 13 ends with "charity" in the KJV and "love" in Geneva. I have been thinking that Shakespeare parodies Paul a good deal in his works 1599 - 1603. 1 Cor 12 seems to lurk behind the "Tell me good Brutus, Can you see your face?" exchange in JC 1.2, and Feste's closing ditty in TN 5.2: "When that I was and a little tiny boy . . . But when I came to man's estate, etc." I'd be glad to hear from anyone who's been thinking along these lines. All the best, Steve Sohmer ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:47:10 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0685 Conference on Medieval and Early Modern Studies, NZ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0685. Thursday, 19 June 1997. From: Kim Walker Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 19:02:19 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Conference on Medieval and Early Modern Studies, NZ Conference on Medieval and Early Modern Studies, New Zealand, 2-5 February 1998. The Australia and New Zealand Association of Medieval and Early Modern Studies (ANZAMEMS) Conference will be held in Wellington, New Zealand on the 2nd-5th February 1998. ANZAMEMS is an interdisciplinary organisation, and the conference theme for 1998 is to be "Borderlines: Crossings and Conflicts". We hope to attract papers that reflect on such topics as cultural borrowings and exchanges across time and space; on disciplinary and period divisions and exchanges; on the significance of institutionalised distinctions between medieval studies and early modern studies; on how scholarship with a national or vernacular or regional focus bears upon notions of "Europe", "Latin Christendom", etc. To date, we have had acceptances from several prominent scholars in the field to act as plenary speakers at the conference. These include Professor Douglas Gray from Oxford University (Medieval Literature), Professor MacD. P. Jackson, University of Auckland (Early Modern Literature), Professor Norm Jones, Utah (Early Modern History), Professor Jo Ann McNamara from Hunter College, New York (Medieval History), Dr A. J. Pollard, Teesside University (Tudor History), and Dr Diane Purkiss, from the University of Reading (Early Modern Literature). For further information, please contact Dr Kim Walker, Department of English, School of English, Film and Theatre, Victoria University, P.O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand; fax: +64 4 4955148; email: kim.walker@vuw.ac.nz Kim Walker Department of English Victoria University, P.O. Box 600 Wellington, New Zealand Phone: 64 4 472 1000 ext. 8814 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:53:31 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0686 Re: Accents and Pronunciation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0686. Thursday, 19 June 1997. [1] From: Jonathan Hope Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 11:07:59 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0673 Re: Accents in Shakespeare's Plays/London [2] From: Harry Hill Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 08:06:49 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0677 Re: Pronunciation [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Hope Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 11:07:59 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0673 Re: Accents in Shakespeare's Plays/London The thing that strikes me is how *little* explicit comment on accent, and representation of it there is in Shakespeare. There are a few very stereotyped set pieces - but put alongside the constant fascination with and comment on semantics, there is an absence of accent. I'm sure Early Modern London was full of different accents, and suspect the various acting companies were too (one piece of authenticity the Globe has probably got right) - I also suspect that accents weren't really such an issue. If you live in a speech community where the language is undergoing standardisation, you have a relatively high tolerance for variation in phonology and syntax. Jonathan Hope Middlesex University [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 08:06:49 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0677 Re: Pronunciation Andy White Is quite right: RP and BBC can't stir the bowels because of their vowels. That, it strikes me, is the cause of the watery verse-speaking that seems to have begun at the turn of the century. If we listen to Ben Greet, Forbes-Robertson and even the early Maurice Evans, our ears are touched by purer, less diphthongised vowels. Hearing Arthur Bouchier do some Macbeth reminds us of the effect that a richly imagined dagger can have on the soul, as the `a' of the word does not stray from its near verticality. He still uses, as does Forbes-Robertson, the `meh' for 'my', however. To listen to Gielgud's `Oh that this too too solid flesh' is to here a truly RP `o' at the beginning; to hear Burton's is to join in the exclamation ourselves. Harry Hill ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:58:33 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0687 Qs: Book on Stephen Greenblatt; OJ and Othello MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0687. Thursday, 19 June 1997. [1] From: Jurgen Pieters Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 08:40:26 +0200 Subj: Book on Stephen Greenblatt [2] From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 97 15:32:00 PDT Subj: OJ and Othello [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jurgen Pieters Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 08:40:26 +0200 Subject: Book on Stephen Greenblatt Dear list-members, As a spin-off of work on my doctoral thesis on the theoretical sources of Stephen Greenblatt's New Historicism, I am currently preparing a collection of essays on Greenblatt's work. Some of them have been presented on a conference at the University of Ghent (Belgium) where Professor Greenblatt was one of the keynote speakers. Other contributions included papers on Greenblatt and Certeau, Greenblatt and Girard, a theoretical expose on Greenblatt's notion of social energy etc. I am still looking for a number of texts to be included in the collection, which I hope to finalize somewhere in the spring of next year. Theoretical contributions will be preferred to practical applications of NH. Any list-members having any suggestions can contact me privately at the following address: jurgen.pieters@rug.ac.be Jurgen Pieters Vakgroep Ned. Lit & ALW Blandijnberg 2 B-9000 Gent 0032/9/264.40.97 (tel) 0032/9/221.46.80 (fax) Thanks, Jurgen [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 97 15:32:00 PDT Subject: OJ and Othello This is a bit "old hat" by now, but I've had an inquiry trying to identify the best 1-5 sources that summarize the OJ/Othello motif. There were, of course, various editorials, articles, etc. but I'm interested to know what SHAKSPERians think were the "top" among this group. Thanks in advance for this foray into another part of pop culture (after you all did so well with Shakespeare in modern music!). Georgianna Ziegler Folger Library ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:04:26 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0688 Re: peripetia; *Comedy*; Lear MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0688. Thursday, 19 June 1997. [1] From: David Crosby Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 09:13:32 -0500 Subj: Re: peripetia [2] From: Cary M. Mazer Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 11:33:19 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0679 Re: *Comedy of Errors* [3] From: Ed Pixley Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 12:30:32 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0678 Re: Lear [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Crosby Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 09:13:32 -0500 Subject: Re: peripetia Dear Susan: I'm sure you'll get many responses to your request for elucidation. I would suggest that you may want to find a fuller dictionary. My copies of the Random House Collegiate and American Heritage both list "peripeteia" with "peripetia" as an alternate spelling. Its meaning is a sudden turn or change of direction, especially in a literary or dramatic work. By the way, it is not directly related to "peripatetic"; the prefixes are the same, but the root is different. For a fuller explication of "peripeteia" you should consult a dictionary of literary terms, of which there are many good ones. David Crosby [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cary M. Mazer Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 11:33:19 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0679 Re: *Comedy of Errors* I don't want to continue this thread unless there is widespread interest, and I normally shy away from the questions of intentionality and fidelity that Daniel Lowenstein raises in his generous response to my posting about Comedy of Errors (if you're interested, you might want to check out my article on the subject, "Rebottling: Dramaturgs, Scholars, Old Plays, and Modern Directors," in Dramaturgy In American Theatre: A Casebook, ed. Susan Jonas, Geoffrey Proehl, and Michael Lupu [Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1997], pp. 292-307). Suffice it say for now that directors and their collaborators make a theatre piece out of the raw materials at hand, including, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, the dramatic script, and that the resulting works is THEIRS and not the dramatists. Lowenstein does raise an important and valid point, though, about whether the resulting work should be advertised as being THE work by THE playwright. Charles Marowitz wisely gave new titles to his collages after Shakespeare plays, as Dryden, Davenant, et. al. *sometimes* did in to their Restoration "improvements." I should note, though, that the reasons for doing this do *not* necessarily correlate to one's fidelity to the script, but to how much the "story" one is choosing to tell with the script deviates from the story that is (evidently) being told by the dramatist. With Peter Pan, we used the entire 1920s published version of the 1904 script, virtually uncut, and without a single line altered; but the story we were telling was so different from the one that Barrie wrote (at least the *surface* play that he wrote)--in our theatre piece, six people act out the script of Peter Pan in order to understand why their Peter-Pan-obsessed friend killed himself, and discover that the play resonates with issues of sex and death, or, more specifically, masturbation and suicide-that we chose to call the resulting theatre piece "Playing with Peter" (pun intended), and we advertised it as "incorporating the text of J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan (unsuitable for children)." Cheers, Cary [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pixley Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 12:30:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0678 Re: Lear Sorry, folks. I really thought I was sending my long response to Stuart Manger about Lear off-list. Since it did actually get on, I hope some of you had the patience to read through it. I would be particularly interested in reactions to my two-world theory for the last half of the play. If you have reactions, feel free to send them off list to pixleyee@oneonta.edu-unless you feel that they have enough merit for general discussion. Ed Pixley ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 07:16:16 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0689 Q: *Shakespeare Survey 46* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0689. Friday, 20 June 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, June 20, 1997 Subject: Q: *Shakespeare Survey 46* About six months ago, I discovered that I had misplaced my copy of *Shakespeare Survey 46: Shakespeare and Sexuality,* leaving a noticeable gap on my bookshelf. At the MLA Convention in December, I ordered a copy to replace it, only to find months later that Cambridge UP has no more copies. I've also tried several companies that specialize in locating book, all to no avail. Does anyone know where I can purchase a copy of *Shakespeare Survey 46*? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 07:20:44 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0690 Re: MM "Glass" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0690. Friday, 20 June 1997. [1] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 21:23:44 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0680 Re: MM "Glass" [2] From: Joe Shea Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 23:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0684 Re: MM "Glass" [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 21:23:44 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0680 Re: MM "Glass" I haven't followed this entire thread, so I ask from ignorance: has anyone cited G. K. Hunter's little essay (published some 30 years ago) on "glassy essence"? I was writing an explanatory note on the passage at the time, but after reading Hunter, I realized that I had nothing substantial to add. The "glassy essence" is a reflection in a looking glass, and apes were represented in the Renaissance as partial to making mouths at themselves in mirrors. Yours, Bill Godshalk [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Shea Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 23:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0684 Re: MM "Glass" Wouldn't "glass" be the Shakespearean "glass," i.e., a telescope -- looking through a telescope in the dark, which-until night visions scopes-reveals little or nothing of the landscape? The King James version would be consistent with that interpretation in terms of its timing. Best, Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 07:24:43 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0691 Re: Accents and Pronunciation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0691. Friday, 20 June 1997. [1] From: Joseph Tate Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 19:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0686 Re: Accents and Pronunciation [2] From: Syd Kasten Date: Friday, 20 Jun 1997 08:02:52 +0200 (IST) Subj: Pronunciation [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Tate Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 1997 19:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0686 Re: Accents and Pronunciation If Jonathan Hope is addressing the lack of commentary on accent in the plays, I'd suggest a look at *Henry V*, a play which is very aware of the accents of its characters. Joseph M. Tate U. of Washington, Seattle [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Syd Kasten Date: Friday, 20 Jun 1997 08:02:52 +0200 (IST) Subject: Pronunciation Anthony Burgess wrote a book, whose name I don't remember, about the death of the poet Keats, in which among other things he discussed the pronunciation of the poet's name. He suggested that it should be closer to "kates" than to "keets", basing himself on what he perceived as Shakespearian pronunciation. He proposed that this vocalization of "ea", persisting today sometimes before the letter "r" (wear, bear tear etc.) would illuminate puns otherwise hidden. One selection he offered that sticks in my mind (I am not Shakespearian enough to remember the source) goes "love has its reasons" where love is compared to a cake with its raisins. Best wishes, Syd Kasten ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 10:52:49 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0692 Re: O.J. and Othello MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0692. Friday, 20 June 1997. [1] From: Mark Mann Date: Friday, 20 Jun 1997 03:51:25 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0687 Q: OJ and Othello [2] From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, June 20, 1997 Subj: O.J. and Othello and SHAKSPER [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Mann Date: Friday, 20 Jun 1997 03:51:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0687 Q: OJ and Othello >his is a bit "old hat" by now, but I've had an inquiry trying to >identify the best 1-5 sources that summarize the OJ/Othello motif. For my money, the best is the letter his friend read on TV as OJ fled, which was rich with " Speak of me as I am..." parallels...of course, a case could be made for Kato Kaelin's report of hearing " The handkerchief !" being repeated over and over around the time of the murders....cheers, Mark Mann [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, June 20, 1997 Subject: O.J. and Othello and SHAKSPER The subject of the similarities between the O.J. Simpson case and *Othello* was discussed on SHAKSPER in June of 1994. To read the postings in that thread send the command "GETPOST SHAKSPER 2409 2411 2420 2422 2427 2429 2433 2438 2443 2447 2448 2461" to listserv@ws.bowiestate.edu. PS: I developed this list by using the SEARCH command. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 12:05:07 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0693 Q: "Original Oxford English Dictionary on Compact Disc" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0693. Friday, 20 June 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, June 20, 1997 Subject: Q: "Original Oxford English Dictionary on Compact Disc" I have not been able to get my Department's "Original Oxford English Dictionary on Compact Disc" to work under Windows 95. The CD-ROM, single disc version, was copyright 1987 by Oxford University Press and published on Compact Disc by Tri Star Publishing of Fort Washington, PA. The program to access the CD simply hangs up in Windows 95, in a MS-DOS window, and in the MS-DOS mode. I have called the two numbers in the documentation, but they are no longer assigned to Tri Star or Oxford UP USA. I would like to buy the OED 2 on CD-ROM for the Department, but I just hate not being able to use this $600 plus CD. Has anyone had and solved this problem? How? Is there a Windows 95 interface? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 21:32:41 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0694 Re: Accents and Pronunciation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0694. Saturday, 21 June 1997. [1] From: Jonathan Hope Date: Friday, 20 Jun 1997 12:47:46 +0000 (GMT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0691 Re: Accents and Pronunciation [2] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Friday, 20 Jun 1997 10:05:32 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0691 Re: Accents and Pronunciation [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Hope Date: Friday, 20 Jun 1997 12:47:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0691 Re: Accents and Pronunciation Joseph Tate suggests *Henry V* as a play which is 'aware' of the accents of its characters - in fact this was one of the plays I had in mind when I said that what treatment of accent there is in Shakespeare tends to be stereotyped. I've always found the use of accents in the play unsubtle and tokenist - and consequently not very interesting. Jonathan Hope Middlesex University [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Friday, 20 Jun 1997 10:05:32 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0691 Re: Accents and Pronunciation > Anthony Burgess wrote a book, whose name I don't remember, about the > death of the poet Keats, in which among other things he discussed the > pronunciation of the poet's name. He suggested that it should be closer > to "kates" than to "keets", basing himself on what he perceived as > Shakespearian pronunciation. He proposed that this vocalization of > "ea", persisting today sometimes before the letter "r" (wear, bear tear > etc.) would illuminate puns otherwise hidden. One selection he offered > that sticks in my mind (I am not Shakespearian enough to remember the > source) goes "love has its reasons" where love is compared to a cake > with its raisins. > > Best wishes, > Syd Kasten > I've always thought that the "correct" Shakespearean pronunciation of "ea" was "ee", as Horace Howard Furness said many times in his *New Variorum Shakespeare's. For example, he exposes J. P. Collier's forgery in adding of a line in *LLL* on the basis of rhyme. I don't have the *New Variorum LLL* right here right now, but I know that the last syllable in Collier's line had an "ea" rhyming with an "ay" in the following line. Also, in *MND*, II. ii. 27-34: What thou seest when thou dost wake, Do it for thy true love take; Love and languish for his sake. Be it ounce, or cat, or bear, Pard, or boar with bristled hair, In thy eye that shall appear When thou wak'st, it is thy dear: Wake whensome vile thing is near. (Please forgive me for using a modernized text [the Riverside Shakespeare, 2nd ed.] 'Tis all that I can find right for the moment.) Furness comments that the last five lines originally rhymed, (pronounced thus: beer, heer, appeer, deer, neer) but that we need not perform them in an "original" accent, because now there is a rhyming couplet followed by a rhyming triplet. Has Furness been disproven in the past hundred years? --Gabriel Z. Wasserman P.S: Has anyone mentioned this web site yet?: http://www.resort.com/~banshee/Faire/Language/language.html ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 21:41:09 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0695 Re: Cordelia and Lear MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0695. Saturday, 21 June 1997. [1] From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Friday, 20 Jun 1997 14:36:55 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Cordelia [2] From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Saturday, 21 Jun 97 16:31:56 EDT Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 17 Jun 1997 to 18 Jun 1997 [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Friday, 20 Jun 1997 14:36:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Cordelia > > Louis C Swilley wrote: > > >Cordelia could say - would be expected to say - that she loves > > >everything else because of him. Not only would this be true, it is the > > >last step in the development of any true love (the sisters have given > > >the first two steps). Roger Schmeeckle wrote: > > It would not be true. To love everyone else because of a person is > > appropriate language and theology for a Christian's love of God, and > > other persons because of God's love for them. But Cordelia recognizes > > that Lear is not God; hence to love him as her sisters have professed, > > or to love other persons because of him, would be a form of idolatry. Louis: > If I say that I love a person, and because of that love see everything > else as lovable - and this seems to be what true lovers feel - am I > idolatrous in my love for that person? Surely not? Roger: What true lovers "feel," and the Christian meaning of love, are two different things. You seem to be referring to romantic infatuation, which, though not bad in itself, is not the same as and should not be confused with true love. I would argue that true love may or may not be accompanied by the feelings you describe. Christ said: "If you love God keep the commandments;" which is exactly what Cordelia did by honoring but not flattering her father. Louis: > Cordelia's possible remarks would be based on the above phenomenon which > presumably is analogous to one's perfect love of God. My original point, > perhaps clumsily made, was that a Christian audience would be acutely > aware of the three *theological* steps and would expect to hear the > human *analogy* completed by Cordelia. Cordelia does not/need not > presume Lear to be God to make this point, and make it truthfully. Roger: I agree that there is an analogy between love for a human being and love of God. But things that are analogous, while similar, are also different in some aspect. In this case, I would say that a Christian's love of God should be absolute, unlimited; love for a human being, including one's parent, is relative, limited. Cordelia implies this when she mocks her sisters' flattering pretensions by referring to the love they owe their husbands. I do not see this as quantifying love at all; it is not meant to be taken quantitatively, but figuratively. Louis: > I agree that Cordelia should tell the truth, and I have argued above and > earlier what that truth is. It is Cordelia's love for the whole world > through her love for her father. If she loves him - and her subsequent > actions indicate that she does - that is available to her. (This very > point, by the way, stresses the truth that love is not quantifiable, > divisable - as both are so stupidly maintaining - in fact, love > develops, grows by its being given to another). Roger: We seem to agree that this is a Christian play. Christians should not love the world, although they are commanded to love all other persons, including their enemies. I do not know what you mean when you refer to loving the whole world through her love for her father. Such a love seems contrary both to Christianity and to human experience. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Saturday, 21 Jun 97 16:31:56 EDT Subject: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 17 Jun 1997 to 18 Jun 1997 Lear: Oops. We're missing something if we see the end of the play in terms of good / bad dichotomies. The script (scripts) deeply complicate the options as, for example, when Albany promises that all friends shall taste the wages of their virtue, and all foes the cup of their deservings." Albany himself fought AGAINST Lear and Cordelia. Does he get wages or nasty tastes from that awful cup? That sorting-out is put aside by Lear's eruption, an answer maybe to Albany's totting-up accountancy. Also, there seems to be a slippage of categories in the recent postings about what kind of guy Lear is as poppa or king. We've seen monsters. He ain't one. The game he asks the daughters to play is mild and merely property distribution compared to the poisoning and other slaughters elsewhere in life and fiction. Maybe my term as chair has made me more sympathetic with autocrats; it surely sensitized me to discriminate between autocrats and murderers. Nice-guy murderers like Brutus leave me cold, shivering. Lear? Along with the Fool and Kent, I'll follow his track best as I can. I'll make my own errors, but try to sing with that passion, energy, and commitment to life. Home from seeing Venice and Athens and Delphi, Steve Urkowitz ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 21:46:45 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0696 Qs: WT Gloss; Williams as Hamlet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0696. Saturday, 21 June 1997. [1] From: Stephen Orgel Date: Friday, 20 Jun 1997 09:57:22 -0700 Subj: Help, Please [2] From: Richard A Burt Date: Friday, 20 Jun 1997 15:35:22 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Robin Williams as Hamlet on Saturday Night Live [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Orgel Date: Friday, 20 Jun 1997 09:57:22 -0700 Subject: Help, Please In glossing Winter's Tale 3.3.128 ("This is fairy gold, boy...keep it close") Staunton cites Ben Jonson: "A prince's secrets are like fairy favours,/ Wholesome if kept; but poison if discovered." I've been unable to locate the passage anywhere in Jonson. I've tried it on Anne Barton and Jonas Barish, and drawn a blank. Can any SHAKSPERian help me find it? Thanks, cheers, S. Orgel [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A Burt Date: Friday, 20 Jun 1997 15:35:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Robin WIlliams as Hamlet on Saturday Night Live I recently taped a skit with Robin Williams doing Hamlet on Saturday Night Live. Does anyone know the original air date? Thanks. Best, Richard Burt ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 21:49:39 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0697 Re: Stoic Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0697. Saturday, 21 June 1997. From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Saturday, 21 Jun 1997 16:23:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0597 Re: Stoic > From: Ben Schneider > Date: Saturday, 24 May 1997 11:25:05 +0000 > Subject: Stoic Shakespeare > A. You have stated the doctrine of the neutral Shakespeare, very > popular in our non-judgmental postmodern times. I suppose I would have > to say that all works of art take sides in some way. > Unless the artist tickles our presuppositions about right and wrong, he > makes no impression on us. When we leave the theatre we say, "What was > he getting at?" Even the most amoral-seeming > works of art speak to our moral sense: Jackson Pollock challenges our > partiality for objective realism. _Pulp Fiction_, by fabricating comedy > out of atrocity, makes a statement about our dehumanized society. > Similarly, Shakespeare cannot have avoided making statements: what were > they? Until we study the cultural matrix in which the plays were > written and staged, we cannot answer that question. As Terence Hawkes > said recently (quoting somebody) "The past is another country; they do > things differently there." Amen. Re: Pulp Fiction: it not only makes a statement about our dehumanized society; it provides an answer to the dehumanization and that answer has a profound moral dimension. I refer to the religious conversion of the protagonist, suggesting that, no matter how hardened the individual sinner, and it is significant that Tarantino uses a hitman to make his point, God can change that person in an instant, and, when he does, the person's behavior will be transformed. In the movie, the hitman prevents destruction and probably saves lives in the final restaurant scene, so from one who destroys life he has become one who serves life. This suggests how a work of narrative art can make a statement, applicable not only to Tanantino, but to Shakespeare: by what happens in the narrative. This is not to deny the importance of what you call the cultural matrix, only to question its centrality. Some suggestions as to some statements of Shakespeare: Macbeth says that the wages of sin are death and despair; Hamlet says that one should not usurp the divine prerogative of rendering justice, but that one might be an instrument in that rendering; Lear says that one can be purified of one's self-indulgence through suffering, that it is blessed to forgive, and that the product of suffering and forgiveness is reconciliation. Roger Schmeeckle========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 07:36:46 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0698 Re: Accents and Pronunciation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: . Monday, 23 June 1997. [1] From: Joseph Tate Date: Saturday, 21 Jun 1997 22:23:39 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0694 Re: Accents and Pronunciation [2] From: Syd Kasten Date: Sunday, 22 Jun 1997 16:50:07 +0200 (IST) Subj: Accents and Pronunciation [3] From: Dale Coye Date: Sunday, 22 Jun 1997 10:10:39 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0694 Re: Accents and Pronunciation [4] From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Sunday, 22 Jun 1997 14:31:33 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0694 Re: Accents and Pronunciation [5] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Monday, 23 Jun 1997 06:18:13 -0400 Subj: SHK 8.0694 Re: Accents and Pronunciation [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Tate Date: Saturday, 21 Jun 1997 22:23:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0694 Re: Accents and Pronunciation Jonathan Hope writes: > Joseph Tate suggests *Henry V* as a play which is 'aware' of the accents > of its characters - in fact this was one of the plays I had in mind when > I said that what treatment of accent there is in Shakespeare tends to be > stereotyped. I've always found the use of accents in the play unsubtle > and tokenist - and consequently not very interesting. To the modern ear, Shakespeare's treatment of the Scottish captain Jamy could easily come across as unsubtle and tokenist: It sall be vary gud, gud feith, gud captens bath, and I sall quite you with gud leve, as I may pick occasion. That sall I, marry. (3.2.101-3) Even Fluellen's "athversary" (3.2.60) and Macmorris's incessant "ish" can be seen as uninteresting portraits of accents, I agree. Yet, accents are used as they are not used in other plays. They may appear as uninteresting representations to us, but in historical context they could have remarkable jingoistic shadings. Macmorris, for example, can come across as little more than a dolt: "so Chrish sa' me, la!" (3.2.112). Yes, it's not a question that the interpretation of accents have little depth, but what does that tell us? How can the play get away with being "unsubtle"? Or better yet, does it get away with being unsubtle? Joseph Tate U. of Washington, Seattle [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Syd Kasten Date: Sunday, 22 Jun 1997 16:50:07 +0200 (IST) Subject: Accents and Pronunciation I'm not sure what he means by "tokenist". *Henry V* has indeed struck me as an example of Shakespeare's use and non-use of accents. Princess Katharine's accented English has to be taken in the context of her natural French, and is clearly there to supply some innocent off colour humour. It will be later complemented by King Henry's proposal, which gives him another human dimension and should endear him to anyone who has tried to express a though of minimal complexity in a newly adopted language. The Welsh accents and usages in the context are clearly a badge of honour. Local English accents in other plays seem usually to convey at least some serious social commentary. My question in their regard is to what extent do they evoke the real thing. What seems to my more interesting is that the enemy speaks a clear and undistorted English. So does the foreigner Othello, and the outsider Shylock for other examples. What this says to me is that Shakespeare, if not neutral, is at least fair, allowing the "bad guys" to express themselves with eloquence. I have to admit that in reading *Henry VIII* I detected the hint of a strange rhythm in the speech of Queen Katharine, which I eventually concluded was the remnant of her Spanish accent. I found this substrate to her eloquence as something that highlighted her plight as a pawn of fate. I certainly did not find it gross enough to be caricature. Am I missing something similar in the cadences of the French in *Henry V*? Best wishes Syd Kasten [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Coye Date: Sunday, 22 Jun 1997 10:10:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0694 Re: Accents and Pronunciation << Furness comments that the last five lines originally rhymed, (pronounced thus: beer, heer, appeer, deer, neer) but that we need not perform them in an "original" accent, because now there is a rhyming couplet followed by a rhyming triplet. >> Cercignani 1981 points out that in Eliz. Eng. many of these words (fear, bear, dear) could vary between the vowel of bee and the vowel of bay, and Shk used them both ways, just as he did the final vowel in words like melody, which could rhyme with bee, or buy. On the subject of dialect speech, the Shk's spelling is certainly stereotyped in places, with the Welsh Evans for example showing confusion with the f and v phonemes, which I believe (correct me someone if I'm wrong) is not a feature of Welsh English, but outsiders sometimes think it is because the phoneme v is spelled f in Welsh (Dafydd is David). Dale Coye Princeton NJ [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Sunday, 22 Jun 1997 14:31:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0694 Re: Accents and Pronunciation About 99 years ago, when I was in graduate school, we read A. C. Baugh's *History of the English Language*, which, in a section called "The Great Vowel Shift," declares, "most of the long vowels had acquired at least by the sixteenth century (and probably earlier) approximately their present pronunciation. The most important development that has taken place since is . . . [that] whereas in Shakespeare *clean* was pronounced like our *lane*, it now rimes with *lean*.[At this point Baugh adds a note: "A pronunciation approximating that of today was apparently in use among some speakers but was considered substandard."] The change occurred at the end of the seventeenth century and had become general by the middle of the eighteenth." [Another note here: "There are three exceptions: *break*, *great*, *steak*"] [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Monday, 23 Jun 1997 06:18:13 -0400 Subject: SHK 8.0694 Re: Accents and Pronunciation I can't agree with Jonathan Hope that the use of accents in Henry V is 'unsubtle and tokenist' and 'not very interesting'. Fluellen's 'Welsh' accent makes a massively important political point. For instance, it underlines the fact that he speaks English, not Welsh. He thus on one level embodies the ramshackle notion of unity and common purpose lying at the heart of Henry's agenda. Isn't the play's careful and disturbing probing of that project one of its major concerns? Terence Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 07:45:34 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0699 Re: Greenblatt; Cordelia/Lear; Stoic Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0699. Monday, 23 June 1997. [1] From: R. D. H. Wells" Date: Sunday, 22 Jun 1997 12:51:24 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0687 Q: Book on Stephen Greenblatt [2] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Sunday, 22 Jun 1997 07:58:32 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0695 Re: Cordelia and Lear [3] From: John McWilliams Date: Monday, 23 Jun 1997 10:10:47 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0697 Re: Stoic Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: R. D. H. Wells" Date: Sunday, 22 Jun 1997 12:51:24 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0687 Q: Book on Stephen Greenblatt Jurgen Pieters invites suggestions for essays on Stephen Greenblatt for inclusion in a collection of essays on his work. One essay that has attracted considerable interest and is, I have heard, widely used by academics in teaching Henry V is Tom McAlindon, "Testing the New Historicism: 'Invisible Bullets' Reconsidered," Studies in Philology, 92 (Fall, 1995), 411-438. Robin Headlam Wells [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Sunday, 22 Jun 1997 07:58:32 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0695 Re: Cordelia and Lear > What true lovers "feel," and the Christian meaning of love, are two > different things. You seem to be referring to romantic infatuation, > which, though not bad in itself, is not the same as and should not be > confused with true love. I would argue that true love may or may not be > accompanied by the feelings you describe. Christ said: "If you love God > keep the commandments;" which is exactly what Cordelia did by honoring > but not flattering her father. Love is essentially the wishing all good for another, even at the expense of one's own pain. This is the kind of love that ideally leads to marriage; it is not mere infatuation. My suggestion that Cordelia could say that she loves everything because she loves her father is not flattery but truth. The love for human beings redounds to become the love of all that God has created. (Read Richard Wilbur's "Love Calls Us to the Things of This World.") Of course, there was another alternative: Cordelia might have said, "Look, Dad, this is really a private, family matter; let's not discuss it in public." > I agree that there is an analogy between love for a human being and love > of God. But things that are analogous, while similar, are also > different in some aspect. In this case, I would say that a Christian's > love of God should be absolute, unlimited; love for a human being, > including one's parent, is relative, limited. Cordelia implies this > when she mocks her sisters' flattering pretensions by referring to the > love they owe their husbands. I do not see this as quantifying love at > all; it is not meant to be taken quantitatively, but figuratively. Cordelia may be mocking her sisters, as you say (although mockery is not appropriate to this character, methinks). To my mind, she is saying exactly what she thinks: she thinks that love is divisible, quantifiable - just as her father does - and she is tragically wrong. To interpret her remarks about her sisters' carrying "part" of their love to their husbands and about her own intention of carrying "half" her love to her prospective husband as "figurative" rather than as literal, is to miss one of the best points of the play: Cordelia the daughter is contributing to the tragedy of Lear the father by accepting and extending his horrific errors that love is divisible and public, and that the country should be divided, and divided on the basis of private love - as though the country were private property and not a public trust. The almost-coincident deaths of Lear and Cordelia at the end of the play seem to underline their co-responsibility for the tragedy. > We seem to agree that this is a Christian play. Christians should not > love the world, although they are commanded to love all other persons, > including their enemies. I do not know what you mean when you refer to > loving the whole world through her love for her father. Such a love > seems contrary both to Christianity and to human experience. I am using the term "world" as Richard Wilbur uses it in the poem I mentioned above, not in Wordsworth's sense in "The World is Too Much With Us," or in the theological sense of "The world, the flesh and the Devil." God created the world (as Wilbur and I are using the term); as God's creation, the world deserves - indeed, commands - our love. Louis [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John McWilliams Date: Monday, 23 Jun 1997 10:10:47 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0697 Re: Stoic Shakespeare Dear Roger Schmeeckle, When Ben Schneider talks about all works of art (and in particular Shakespeare) "tak[ing] sides in some way", I don't think he meant us simply to go through Shakespeare plays and find bits which might have a Christian message... and I'm not wholly convinced by a Christian reading of Pulp Fiction(!) A case of Jesus tinted spectacles perhaps? John McWilliams ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 07:50:34 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0700 Q: Ben Iden Payne MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0700. Monday, 23 June 1997. From: Bill Gelber Date: Sunday, 22 Jun 1997 23:06:28 -0700 Subject: Ben Iden Payne inquiry I am writing to request any information that any of the members of this group may have on the life and work of Ben Iden Payne. I am currently writing my dissertation on Payne and "Modified Elizabethan Staging" but I also would enjoy hearing from anyone who worked with him or saw any of his productions. (He was a contemporary of Shaw's. He worked at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre in the late thirties and early forties. He staged productions both at the Goodman Theatre in Chicago and in New York. He also taught at the University of Texas at Austin until the mid-1970's. He was the model for the old actor manager in the musical The Fantastiks.) Thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, Bill Gelber ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 10:30:37 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0701 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: SEARCH FUNCTION MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0701. Monday, 23 June 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Monday, June 23, 1997 Subject: New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: SEARCH FUNCTION As of today, SHAKSPEReans may retrieve instructions for searching the SHAKSPER archives (SEARCH FUNCTION) from the SHAKSPER file server. To retrieve these instructions, send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET SEARCH FUNCTION". Should you have difficulty receiving this or any of the files on the SHAKSPER file server, please contact the editor at or . Because the file is rather small, I am appending it below. Should you need to retrieve these instructions, you may order this file from the fileserver. ************************************************************************ INSTRUCTION FOR SEARCHING THE SHAKSPER ARCHIVES The basic method for searching the archives is to send to listserv@ws.bowiestate.edu the following command (filling in the KEYWORD you wish without the square brackets): Search SHAKSPER [Keyword] For example, if you wished to see all occurrences of "Pericles" in the archives, you would send the following message: Search SHAKSPER Pericles You can also search using the BOOLEAN operators AND, OR, NOT: Search SHAKSPER Pericles AND Kinsmen Further, you can limit your search by DATES: Search SHAKSPER Pericles from 93/7/1 to 96/12/31 Search SHAKSPER Pericles since 96/1/1 In return, you will receive a list of "matches," identified by "item number." To order a copy of this/these postings, send the following command to listserv@ws.bowiestate.edu: GETPOST SHAKSPER [item number/s] To help you decided what items to order, the file you receive from your query also contains a Key Word in Context listing of the matches. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 06:39:16 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0702 Re: Accents and Pronunciation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0702. Tuesday, 24 June 1997. [1] From: Keith Ghormley Date: Monday, 23 Jun 1997 07:07:14 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0698 Re: Accents and Pronunciation [2] From: Roy Flannagan Date: Monday, 23 Jun 1997 08:41:43 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0698 Re: Accents and Pronunciation [3] From: Andrew Murphy Date: Monday, 23 Jun 97 13:13:37 BST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0698 Re: Accents and Pronunciation [4] From: David Evett Date: Monday, 23 Jun 1997 12:26 ET Subj: SHK 8.0698 Re: Accents and Pron [5] From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 97 10:21:00 0BS Subj: Accents [6] From: David Evett Date: Monday, 23 Jun 1997 11:23 ET Subj: SHK 8.0677 Re: Pronunciation [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith Ghormley Date: Monday, 23 Jun 1997 07:07:14 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0698 Re: Accents and Pronunciation > What seems to my more interesting is that the enemy speaks a clear and > undistorted English. So does the foreigner Othello, and the outsider > Shylock for other examples. What this says to me is that Shakespeare, if > not neutral, is at least fair, allowing the "bad guys" to express > themselves with eloquence. Paul Scofield's Othello (BBC / Caedmon) speaks with a distinct accent. Is none of that derived from the text? Keith Ghormley Lincoln, Nebraska krg@binary.net [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roy Flannagan Date: Monday, 23 Jun 1997 08:41:43 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0698 Re: Accents and Pronunciation >I'm not sure what he means by "tokenist". *Henry V* has indeed struck >me as an example of Shakespeare's use and non-use of accents. Princess >Katharine's accented English has to be taken in the context of her >natural French, and is clearly there to supply some innocent off colour >humour. In the hands of excellent actors like Emma Thompson and Geraldine McEuen, the French-English scenes in *Henry V* come off as very funny, and not just off-color or token anti-French (different from the tennis ball joke). McEuen's pronunciation of words like "elbow" and Emma Thompson's decent French make the scene between them in the movie very funny and seemingly true to the play. Probably the Welsh and even the Scottish accents (King James was a-coming doon soon) can be rendered sympathetically within the limits of Elizabethan English ethnocentrism. What about the malapropism and ignorance displayed in Bottom and Dogberry? Both are funny, stupid, and lovable. Roy Flannagan [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Murphy Date: Monday, 23 Jun 97 13:13:37 BST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0698 Re: Accents and Pronunciation I would agree with Terry Hawkes' comment on the use of accents in _HV_. Far from being 'unsubtle and tokenist', the way in which the dialogue of the three Celtic captains is handled is decidedly complex and is deeply scored by the colonialist discourse of the time. Fluellen in particular is very curiously positioned in relation to his use of English. For anyone interested in this issue, quite a deal has been written on the colonial context of the scene-especially the portrayal of the Irish captain (I'm thinking particularly of the work of David Baker & Willy Maley). Andrew Murphy [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 23 Jun 1997 12:26 ET Subject: SHK 8.0698 Re: Accents and Pron Our discussion of regional and social accents should recognize that whatever orthography appears in the text only cues actors and others, though in somewhat different ways. In the text-as-script, it cues the actor to do the role in an accent; in the text-as-book, it cues the reader that the actor did the role in an accent. Actual theatrical or imaginative interpretation by either actor or reader (indeed, by audience member responding to actor-Terence Hawkes is likely to hear any Fluellen differently than I, whose Welshness is only ancestral) must arise from all the usual messy and complex interactions of expectation and experience, in the context of a particular reading or performance of the whole play, in the context of a whole life, in the context of a whole society. That's why (to connect with the thread arising from D. Lowenstein's questions about Cary Mazer's intriguing approach to *Err*) the whole issue of intention is so impossible to deal with. (Why am I suddenly hearing the bus song that ends with the phrase, "the whole in the ground"?) Politics is crucial here. Remember that the thread got (re)started with a question about American regional accents. Directing *Troilus and Cressida* I asked our Trojans to talk Rebel and our Greeks to talk Yank; the distinction seemed (and seems still) to pick up a personal honor/lost cause romanticism present in the play's treatment of the Trojans, and of course it fed on the historical outcome of our Civil War. Similar things might be said about an approach through RP English and Irish-but the mixture would, I suppose, be far more tendentious and explosive to a British audience. For similar reasons I might enjoy an Appalachian Fluellen but would be less comfortable with a Native American one-though the latter would be far more politically interesting. Dave Evett [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 97 10:21:00 0BS Subject: Accents I found Syd Kasten's point about Katherine of Aragon possibly retaining a Spanish accent very interesting. I once tried to argue (in the Dutch journal _Folio) that at times in the _Henry VI_ plays the French lords may be speaking with a French accent, especially in their pronunciation of proper names. I felt I was on rather shaky ground, but the idea kept nagging at me until I'd tried to work it through. I also thought Terence Hawkes was absolutely right about the importance of remembering that Fluellen is speaking English in the first place. For what it's worth, as a Welshwoman myself (though one whose own Welsh is very basic), I find the representation of Fluellen's 'Winglish' perfectly acceptable. Lisa Hopkins Sheffield Hallam University L.M.Hopkins@shu.ac.uk [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 23 Jun 1997 11:23 ET Subject: SHK 8.0677 Re: Pronunciation Northern Broadsides, the North Country one-trunk company directed by Barrie Rutter, has been performing Shakespeare in broad Yorks to great applause in the UK and abroad. Barrie's theory is that the short vowels and strongly voiced consonants of northern dialects have a vocal energy and speed that lift the other elements of performance with them. I'd be interested in comments from list members who have had a chance to see-and hear-the company perform. Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 06:49:25 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0703 Re: Ben Iden Payne MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0703. Tuesday, 24 June 1997. [1] From: David M Richman Date: Monday, 23 Jun 1997 13:41:19 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0700 Q: Ben Iden Payne [2] From: Susan Brock Date: Monday, 23 Jun 1997 16:35:13 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0700 Q: Ben Iden Payne [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Monday, 23 Jun 1997 13:41:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0700 Q: Ben Iden Payne Ben Iden Payne had a short and tempestuous stint as director at the Abbey. It was an experiment in bringing an English director to this Irish Company. Lively correspondence on the subject among Yeats, Synge, and Lady Gregory can be found in Saddlemyer's collection of their correspondence "Theatre Business." (Don't recall publisher and date--1982, or thereabouts?) Payne gives his own take on all this in his memoir "The Wooden O." David Richman [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Brock Date: Monday, 23 Jun 1997 16:35:13 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0700 Q: Ben Iden Payne Iden Payne's work at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre is documented in the Theatre's archive now deposited in the care of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust at the Shakespeare Centre in Stratford-upon-Avon. This includes promptbooks and photographs but, unfortunately, not the associated business records which are in private hands. Michael Mullins' Theatre at Stratford-upon-Avon: a Catalogue/Index to Productions of the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre/Royal Shakespeare Theatre 1879-1978. 2 vols (Westport CT: Greenwood Press, 1980) lists cast details and reviews. For further information contact the Senior Librarian at the address below. Susan Brock Head of Academic Resource Development Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Stratford-upon-Avon CV37 6QW UK Tel. (+44) 1789 201802 Fax. (+44) 1789 294911 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:48:46 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0704 Q: Final Scene of *The Changeling* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0704. Tuesday, 24 June 1997. From: Gareth Euridge Date: Monday, 23 Jun 1997 13:54:01 -0400 Subject: Final Scene of *The Changeling* In the absence of the listserv "Middleto" . . . please forgive. I'm writing on _The Changeling_, using the Regents Ren Dr. series, edited by George Walton Williams (1966) and am interested in how B-J dies. It seems a critical commonplace that D-F stabs her during that bizarre "ooh, oooh, oooooh, 'tis coming to you" closet scene (and yes, the sex thing too), but I don't see how we know this. In my copy, the stage direction (5.4.175) for D-F "[stabs himself]" is an editorial edition and not included by Middleton. And, if this is the case and Middleton didn't provide SD's for such things, at least in this play, is it possible that B-J also stabs herself in this scene at line 180? Could the "token" that D-F gives B-J (176) be the knife he uses on himself? Or could the "token" be his willingness to commit suicide? And does she then follow suit? Am I am advocating a kinder, gentler, more gushy reading of this scene . . . a tragic statement of doomed love in this, our cruel universe? Well, sort of, perhaps. Gareth M. Euridge ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:56:31 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0705 Various Questions Related to *Ham.* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0705. Tuesday, 24 June 1997. [1] From: Chris Clark Date: Monday, 23 Jun 1997 15:05:48 -0400 Subj: Hamlet's Madness [2] From: Chris Clark Date: Monday, 23 Jun 1997 16:42:42 -0400 Subj: Shakespeare Criticism [3] From: Chris Clark Date: Monday, 23 Jun 1997 16:45:27 -0400 Subj: Polonius/Laertes [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Clark Date: Monday, 23 Jun 1997 15:05:48 -0400 Subject: Hamlet's Madness A few ideas, outlining the skeleton of an essay I intend to produce on the subject of whether Hamlet is mad. Hamlet describes himself as 'but mad north-north-west,' and Polonius observes that 'there is method in his madness.' Hamlet also clearly states (to Gertrude?) that he will assume the appearance of madness (to excuse his actions?). Some would argue that Hamlet is mad, but only in the sections in which he speaks in rhyme (or when the wind is blowing in the wrong direction, such as in the final scene with southerly wind, which would logically aggravate Hamlet's madness), but this feigned madness is surely counterpointed by that of Ophelia, which we are presumably to accept as genuine, in that it truly represents loss of reason. Possibly his madness lies in his willingly following the ghost, and he loses his soul at this point. Others would contend that his madness is lack of reason in that he cannot resolve behind one course of action, but views each case in so many different ways, and that each action he does take is not considered, but taken impulsively (killing Rosencrantz & Guildenstern, and Polonius). His deification of his father also seems unreasonable, while his indecision proves fatal. Comments? Cheers, Chris [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Clark Date: Monday, 23 Jun 1997 16:42:42 -0400 Subject: Shakespeare Criticism Is there an online bibliography of books/journals dealing with criticism of Shakespeare? I realise this is a huge undertaking, but I would like to find such a resource, or possibly even produce one, because, knowing it would be of use to me in researching related subjects in which I am interested, I know it could be of use to other students... Anyone have any ideas? Specifically at the moment I am searching for Hamlet and his madness material, which I am studying and submitting an essay to school for [but I had a free choice of any book of any time period, and chose this of my own volition, and read it alone, analysing it in great detail], so any related info would be cool... Thanks very much.. Chris [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Clark Date: Monday, 23 Jun 1997 16:45:27 -0400 Subject: Polonius/Laertes I have searched for ages, but can see no reason why Polonius sends Reynaldo off to check up on Laertes... excluding the theme of surveillance which is common in the play, is there any reason you can think of? [this is curiosity, and does not relate to my work at all] Cheers, Chris ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 10:01:01 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0706 Re: *Lear* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0706. Tuesday, 24 June 1997. From: Carl Fortunato Date: Monday, 23 Jun 97 21:05:00 -0400 Subject: Re: Cordelia >We seem to agree that this is a Christian play. Christians should not >love the world, although they are commanded to love all other persons, >including their enemies. I do not know what you mean when you refer >to loving the whole world through her love for her father. Such a love >seems contrary both to Christianity and to human experience. While there is a great amount of "Christianity" in the play, in many ways it seems to depict a world a chaos and randomness, that is almost anti-Christian. Many people see in Gloucester's famous line: "As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods. They kill us for their sport." a summation of the entire philosophy of the play. And it is particularly noticeable that Albany says of Cordelia, "The gods defend her" just before: "*Enter Lear with Cordelia in his arms.*" This most unacceptable thing in the play - the death of Cordelia - is the one thing that most enforces this feeling that all is random and *the gods don't care.* This, of course, is Shakespeare's own addition to his source, and is so unacceptable that the ending was usually changed by editors until fairly recently. Two questions I have about King Lear (that are unrelated to the "Christianity" in the play) are: 1) Does Lear die thinking Cordelia is still alive? and 2) What is Gloster referring to with: Edg. Men must endure Their going hence, euen as their coming hither, Ripenesse is all come on. Glo. And that's true too. What do you think Gloster is thinking of with "too"? Perhaps Gloster just finished reading Hamlet, and he was busy pondering "The *readinesse* is all"? Any other ideas? - Carl | carl.fortunato@moondog.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:16:52 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0707 Re: Accents and Pronunciation: N. Broadsides, H5, H6, Shylock MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0707. Wednesday, 25 June 1997. [1] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 14:10:16 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0702 Accents and Pronunciation [2] From: Wes Folkerth Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 10:01:11 -0400 Subj: Accents and pronunciation [3] From: Bill Gelber Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 09:46:25 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0702 Re: Accents and Pronunciation [4] From: Joseph Tate Date: Wednesday, 25 Jun 1997 00:04:11 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Shylock's Speech [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 14:10:16 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0702 Accents and Pronunciation I can't make a contribution on accents, but Dave Evett solicits comments on Northern Broadsides. The best show in the Wanamaker Globe 'prologue' season (autumn 96) was the Northern Broadsides Midsummer Night's Dream. An especially thrilling moment was when Bottom, in support of the claim "I could play 'Erc'les", noticed and pointed to the keystone of the central opening upon which was depicted Hercules supporting the globe. In imitation of this picture, Bottom raised his joint-stool over his head, and his theatrical colleagues looked back and forth between the boastful clownish claimant to the role and the ideal embedded in the fabric theatre. The company arrived at the Globe in the morning, rehearsed in the afternoon, and performed in the evening. (Presumably that's what an Elizabethan touring company would do in a new town). The metatheatrical resonances of Pyramis and Thisbe were undoubtedly amplified by authentic staging conditions. Gabriel Egan [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wes Folkerth Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 10:01:11 -0400 Subject: Accents and pronunciation Speaking of accents and pronunciation, I was wondering if anyone on the list knew whether or not the real Henry V spoke French? One would imagine, given his noble upbringing, and time spent on the Continent, that he could probably have managed at least a little "franglais." Wes Folkerth tfolke@po-box.mcgill.ca [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Gelber Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 09:46:25 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0702 Re: Accents and Pronunciation Lisa Hopkins was talking about the possible French accents in Henry VI, and I was reminded of Peggy Ashcroft's French accent in the Wars of the Roses which I thought very effective (although at times the "w" sound which replaced the "r" reminded of parodies of Barbara Walters). She also played the character on the Caedmon recording of Richard III with Robert Stephens and used the accent for Margaret again there. What struck me though was the idea that she was now speaking English but retaining some of her former accent. [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Tate Date: Wednesday, 25 Jun 1997 00:04:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Shylock's Speech In regards to the recent postings on pronunciation, I have a question regarding Shylock's English. Although certainly speaking a fluent English, Shylock's speech often repeats words and sounds to an extreme that a character feels justified to mock. In 1.3.1-7 Shylock simply repeats all that Bassanio says and ends each line with "well." The scene with Tubal in 3.1 especially: "What, what, what? Ill luck, ill luck?" and "I am very glad of it. I'll plague him, I'll torture him. I am glad of it." Those are only two of the lines of many from 3.1. In 4.1 his long speech responding to the Duke repeats the words pig, cat, answer, reason, etc. a number of times. Shylock's repetition is even mocked by Solanio in 2.8: As the dog Jew did utter in the streets: "My daughter! O, my ducats! O, my daughter! Fled with a Christian! O, my Christian ducats! Justice, the law! My ducats, and my daughter! ... Could this repetitive speech that Solanio mocks be an instance of rage unable to find other words or possibly a foreigner unable to find other words? Joseph Tate Graduate Student Department of English U. of Washington, Seattle ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:38:27 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0708 Re: *Lear* and *Leir* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0708. Wednesday, 25 June 1997. [1] From: Syd Kasten Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 18:29:13 +0200 (IST) Subj: Love in Lear [2] From: David Mycoff Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 12:12:52 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Assorted Lear Questions [3] From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 08:25:05 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0706 Re: *Lear* [4] From: John E. Perry Date: Wednesday, 25 Jun 1997 01:31:21 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0706 Re: *Lear* [5] From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 13:46:11 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0535 Re: Leir [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Syd Kasten Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 18:29:13 +0200 (IST) Subject: Love in Lear It might be of interest to those discussing love in the light of religious thought to see what the *Ethics of the Fathers*, (a section of the Mishnah, the oral Rabbinic tradition that was set down in writing in the second or third century of the Christian era) has to say about love: "If love depend on some material cause, and the cause passes away, the love vanishes too; but if it do not depend on some material cause, it will never pass away. Which love was it that depended on a material cause? This was the love of Amnon and Tamar (II Samuel, 13, v.1ff). And which love was it that was not dependent on a material cause? Such was the love of David and Jonathan. (I Samuel 18, v.1; II Samuel, 1, v. 26)" Mishnayot Nezikin, Avot (Fathers),Ch.V, 16 Ed. Philip Blackman, The Judaica Press, New York Goneril and Regan on the one hand and Cordelia or Kent on the other could serve as equally good illustrations to the rabbinic aphorism, substituting wealth and power for "some material cause". Best wishes, Syd Kasten [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Mycoff Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 12:12:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Assorted Lear Questions (1) Elton's KING LEAR AND THE GODS is still very good in showing why it is quesionable to characterize LEAR as doctrinally "Christian" in a sense that would be recognizable to its contemporaries. Elton's view is consistent with Carl Fortunato's point on the question. (2) On Fortunato's question of whether or not Lear thinks Cordelia still lives as he himself dies, Rosenberg's THE MASKS OF KING LEAR provides interesting history of the varieties acting choices that have been made in response to this open question (along with much else, of course). (3) If forced to pick one passage that would "summarize the philosophy" of the play, I don't think I'd take the "wanton flies" one. How about, instead, the concluding lines, variously attributed to Albany or Edgar (I prefer Edgar for interpretative, not textual-critical reasons): "The weight of this sad time we must obey, / Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say. / The oldest have borne most. We that are young / Shall never see so much, nor live so long." If the play affirms anything, it is honesty of vision ("see much"-and consider how often the audience and characters are called upon to see and witness to what is too unbearable to behold); endurance ("live long"); and a language that tries to be true to the heart's response to what is seen and endured since language fails repeatedly to present a more "objective" or rationally verifiable description of the reality of the world and neither silence nor cries of animal pain are answerable human responses (Lear lapses into human speech after his "Howl, howl, howl" and his first words are to excoriate the silence of the "men of stone.") I think of Kurosawa's definition of the artist as "one who does not avert his eyes." Look upon the unbearable and bear human witness to it. I suppose that all tragedies that escape narrow critical formulas demand that of their characters and audiences. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 08:25:05 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0706 Re: *Lear* >While there is a great amount of "Christianity" in the play, in many >ways it seems to depict a world a chaos and randomness, that is almost >anti-Christian. Many people see in Gloucester's famous line: > "As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods. They kill > us for their sport." >a summation of the entire philosophy of the play. And it is >particularly noticeable that Albany says of Cordelia, "The gods defend >her" just before: "*Enter Lear with Cordelia in his arms.*" >This most unacceptable thing in the play - the death of Cordelia - is >the one thing that most enforces this feeling that all is random and >*the gods don't care.* This, of course, is Shakespeare's own addition >to his source, and is so unacceptable that the ending was usually >changed by editors until fairly recently. I agree that there's a strong sense of alienation from God (or, 'the gods'), but don't think that makes the play anti-Christian. Leaving aside the fact that 'the gods' aren't God, and it may only be the pagan gods who are alien, there's a good possibility of reconciling alienation with salvation within Christianity. To Luther, the difference between the Deus absconditus and the Deus revelatus lies largely in its appropriation by the sinner/redeemed. To the faithful, suffering is the means by which God shows himself, though 'hidden.' To the sinner, it is a function of God's mere absence. But to Luther, in his more exististential moments, one must experience a sense of alienation in order to be saved. I'm just finishing a book on Luther, so am concentrating on him, but the point is made even more explicitly by Karl Barth in his commentary on *Romans*, and at least analogous ideas appear, I believe, in a number of the mystics, particularly those of the 'via negativa'. Cheers, Sean [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John E. Perry Date: Wednesday, 25 Jun 1997 01:31:21 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0706 Re: *Lear* > While there is a great amount of "Christianity" in the play, in many > ways it seems to depict a world a chaos and randomness, that is almost > anti-Christian. Many people see in Gloucester's famous line: > > "As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods. They kill > us for their sport." > > a summation of the entire philosophy of the play. I'm completely unable to see how Mr. Fortunato arrives at such an opinion. Even if we didn't have Edmund's contemptuous dismissal of this idea (I.2., "This is the excellent foppery..."), every bad thing in the entire play happens as the result of the deliberate action of a particular person. This is in stark contrast to events in other plays, where often some completely supernatural, or even random, aberration completely changes the direction of events. I think this why we are particularly apt to cringe in horror as this play unfolds. Far from being a philosophy of "the gods kill us for their sport," the play denies all external influences, plainly exposing people's deliberate cruelty and disregard for one another, and the susceptibility of those around them to powerful sinners' selfishness. This is certainly an overwhelmingly Christian point of view! john perry jperry@norfolk.infi.net [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Wasserman Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 13:46:11 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0535 Re: Leir > From: David J. Kathman > Date: Sunday, 4 May 1997 00:34:00 +0100 > Subject: Re: SHK 8.0529 Re: Cordelia; Leontes; Riverside > > Patrick Gillespie writes: > > >> >And on a related subject: Are the older King Lear > > > >> You mean *Leir*? [or do you mean Q1?] > > > >I mean Leir. Is it seriously being touted as Shakespeare's? > > Not by anybody I know of, except possibly Eric Sams, who believes that > much of the anonymous drama of the 1580s and 1590s is by Shakespeare. "MUCH of the anonymous drama"? Eric Sams doesn't believe in collaborations, so he can only believe that it is ALL by Shakespeare (which [I think] he in fact does believe {still? I'm not sure} ), or NOT by Shakespeare. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:46:47 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0709 Re: Final Scene of *The Changeling* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0709. Wednesday, 25 June 1997. [1] From: Richard A Burt Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 10:16:30 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0704 Q: Final Scene of *The Changeling* [2] From: Richard Bovard Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 10:06:29 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0704 Q: Final Scene of *The Changeling* [3] From: Chris Clark Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 14:29:35 -0400 Subj: Final Scene of *The Changeling* [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A Burt Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 10:16:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0704 Q: Final Scene of *The Changeling* > I . . . am interested in how B-J dies. . . . is > it possible that B-J also stabs herself in this scene at line 180? > Could the "token" that D-F gives B-J (176) be the knife he uses on > himself? Or could the "token" be his willingness to commit suicide? > And does she then follow suit? I'm no expert in the textual matters of this play, but your reading seems plausible enough to me. The play (at least the main plot) is very much _Sid and Nancy_. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Bovard Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 10:06:29 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0704 Q: Final Scene of *The Changeling* Students in my Renaissance Drama course this spring were also puzzled about what happened in the closet. Some argued for DeFlores's wounding Beatrice-Joanna; some argued for her suicide. Our textual editor assumed the wounding. While most decided that the wounding was more consistent with DeFlores's character than the suicide with Beatrice-Joanna's character, all were willing to recognize yet one more "secret" in the play . . . or at least one more instance of the limits of human knowledge. They were a tad uncomfortable with experiencing the same thing that the characters experienced, however. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Clark Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 14:29:35 -0400 Subject: Final Scene of *The Changeling* I am 17 from the UK and have just done an exam on The Changeling, so I know it pretty well... I'll view your question, and give you my personal response... Could I see what you've written so far please? Here's my twopennorth: In my opinion, we must consider Beatrice's death symbolically... her subconscious attraction to De Flores is fatal, and the danger he presents is reflected Platonically in his corrupt appearance. Considering that he is clearly a violent, Machiavellian villain [murders Alonzo and Diaphanta], it is fair to say that he is dangerous, and that it is he that causes her trouble (even if it is through her fatal flaw, which is not knowing herself, or to term it crudely being 'mad') - it is therefore logical that as he condemned her, he should also be the one to kill her, even if it is just for the symmetry of the play.. also, the text I use (New Mermaids, ed Daalder, 1990), quotes the entry of B & DF as 'Enter DE FLORES bringing in BEATRICE [wounded]' When Beatrice says on line 158, 'my honour fell with him, and now my life' that to me implies that she already knows that she is going to die, and is not talking intention, because the possibility would [if she had not already been stabbed] still exist that she could be kept alive. I accept the possibility that the 'token' is the penknife, and that she is to kill herself too, but I consider it more likely that this is 1) just another sexual ambiguity, 2) a sign of his 'love' for her, 3) expression of his willingness to die for her. Regardless of whether it happens in the cupboard, the knife is suggestive of the phallus, which has destroyed Beatrice [he says 'I am so stout yet' - this allusion is obvious, but perhaps it also refers to the knife, ready for one final use?] and himself. I don't think you can really argue that what De Flores and Beatrice feel for each other is 'doomed love.' Beatrice says she loves De Flores, but she is by definition as according to the subplot insane like De Flores, and driven by lust.. neither of them love each other, they are driven by animal passion and selfishness. The theme of the tale is madness, which is shown by the madhouse scenes, which mirror the subplot... so, no, love is a form of insanity [change of the wind for Alsemero, failure to see with the eye of judgement for Alonzo..], as is the lack of awareness of her own feelings that Beatrice has, and the cynical and evil concentration of De Flores upon pleasure. I hope my suggestions are of some value, please feel free to contact me if you so desire... What other texts are you studying by the way? Cheers, Chris ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:22:08 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0710 Re: Various Questions Related to *Ham.* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0710. Wednesday, 25 June 1997. [1] From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 08:18:00 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0705 Various Questions Related to *Ham.* [2] From: Scott Crozier Date: Wednesday, 25 Jun 1997 10:02:01 +1100 Subj: Polonius / Laertes [3] From: Louis Marder Date: Tuesday, 1 Jul 1997 12:59:33 PST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0705 Various Questions Related to *Ham.* [4] From: Stuart Manger Date: Wednesday, 25 Jun 1997 00:15:36 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0705 Various Questions Related to *Ham.* [5] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 19:32:56 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Hamlet's Melancholy [6] From: John Lee Date: Wednesday, 25 Jun 1997 09:40:39 +0900 (JST) Subj: Hamlet and Madness [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 08:18:00 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0705 Various Questions Related to *Ham.* >Is there an online bibliography of books/journals dealing with criticism >of Shakespeare? It isn't online, but most libraries have the series "Shakespeare Criticism" from Gale. It's a bit dated, but then again, the question of Hamlet's madness seems to have enjoyed its zenith some time ago as well. I seem to recall my grandfather saying that his professor at Trinity (a man named Macauley, I think) was always going on about the issue. One of the classical resolutions is A. C. Bradley's description of Hamlet as "melancholic" (in _Shakespearean Tragedy_). Cheers, and good luck with your essay, Sean [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Wednesday, 25 Jun 1997 10:02:01 +1100 Subject: Polonius / Laertes Chris Clarke asks why Renaldo is sent to check on Laertes. There is a hint that Laertes enjoys a little dalliance in Ophelia's farewell to him. Maybe he does know the "primrose path" and is a "puffed and reckless libertine" Regards, Scott Crozier [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Marder Date: Tuesday, 1 Jul 1997 12:59:33 PST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0705 Various Questions Related to *Ham.* Dear Chris: You are apparently a young student. Don't drive yourself mad on the madness of Hamlet. Hamlet is snots mad. He doesn't hallucinate, he does not rave, he is not even irrational considering the circumstances. To believe in the Ghost is part of the play. Had he lived after the final duel he would have been rational, not mad. You may have fun playing with the subject, but regardless of your analysis you will never be able to reach a conclusion. The will always be a mad scholar to argue with you. All you can do is make a list of opinions and count them up like a poll, so many pros, so many cons, so many can't make up their minds. Making your annotated bibliography will keep you busy for years. I have about 75 books on Hamlet. I would be daunted to even cull them for quotations on the subject. Bernard Grebanier's The Heart of Hamlet has a chapter on Hamlet and the Critics - about 85 pages. See also: K. R. Eissler's Discourse on Hamlet and _Hamlet_: A Psychoanalytic Inquiry. Also C. H. Williamson, Readings on the Character of Hamlet, compiled from over 300 sources. Enjoy yourself. When you finish your compilation, you can send it to the Shakespeare Data Bank at my address for use of the students of the world. [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Manger Date: Wednesday, 25 Jun 1997 00:15:36 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0705 Various Questions Related to *Ham.* Or, Chris, that he's not mad at all? Having him mad simply does not work on stage IMHO [In My Humble Opinion]. If the assessment of the role of right reason, the quest for nobility, for honour is uppermost in Hamlet, then how he deploys his intellect in circumventing patronising triviality, unsubtle casuistry, blatant stupidity, and downright machiaveliian manipulations, not to mention dealing with the appalling weight of the ghost's demands, seems essential. so, we must see that reason as subtle to shift its operational mode as the challenges it faces. I can't go with Hamlet as mad at all, and his own words - those you quote - sure cinch it/ he knows perfectly well what he's at, and I for one am simply unconvinced. As for the disgraceful Polonius / Reynaldo snooping mission, what's strange? This is a man so steeped in the habit of surveillance, that he is prepared to use the manifest distress and delicate young love doubts of his own daughter in the service of the state, and spy on the queen in private conversation with her son to probe for the king's sake - the good of the realm, and HE is the one who suggested it too - no reluctance, or very little. So the son of the Prime Minister / Chief minister / Chief of Police goes abroad to university - are you telling me that when the sons of the King of England go to university there are no surveillance officers in the vicinity? Think what scams a young blade might get up to in naughty Paris? I think there's quite a lot of likelihood in Pol sending Reynaldo. Now if you are asking for textual support...... don't think I can help. But the temper of the times was for secret spying, paid informers - and who better than an actor in Shakespeare's day to know that, given what we now know about Marlowe, and perhaps Kyd and Greene? Stuart Manger [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 19:32:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Hamlet's Melancholy If you look up certain scholarly editions of the play, you will find several passages concerning the disease Melancholy appended to the script. It seems to me that a fruitful study of Hamlet's madness should always begin with an attempt to understand it as his contemporaries did. After that, of course, you're free to speculate more deeply, but IMHO many attempts to analyze Hamlet fall flat because they don't take the nature of his disease into account. The "Mad north by northwest" line is a case in point. Melancholy (a disease of the blood, as they saw it, involving shifts in mood we might call clinical depression) was thought to be cured by, among other things, a trip to a southern clime. Hamlet's saying that, like all good melancholics, he's especially vulnerable when the weather is cold. "When the wind is southerly", i.e., when it's warmer and sunnier, his symptoms abate. This also explains one of Claudius' rationales for sending Hamlet off to England-he is allegedly hopeful that the warmer weather to the south (what, was he thinking of Brighton?) will cure the Prince of his ills. Laertes, in his dismissal of Hamlet's love for Ophelia, refers to "the flash and outbreak of a fiery mind", which can be taken to imply that Hamlet is not exactly a calm presence in the court. His speeches are a jumble of seemingly conflicting and unconnected thoughts, "Too, too solid flesh" being an example. One minute he's begging God to understand why he just wants to disappear, the next he's flipping the bird at the entire court ("Fie" is from the French "Fi, donc!", the 'fig' being the Renaissance equivalent of the middle finger). As for his love of his father being extreme, I beg to differ. It seems to me that there is a tendency among modern theorists (and especially among the likes of Michael Pennington, whose "User's Manual" was written entirely from the Claudian perspective) to cut the Prince down, and remove almost any trace of reason, honesty and responsibility from him. There is a line that has been crossed many times this century, from that of Hamlet being an anti-hero, to that of Hamlet being a non-hero. If you say that there's no reason for Hamlet to prefer his natural father to his uncle, you're starting down that very slippery slope of making Hamlet an utterly useless human being, and not worth the 3 hours' watching. Recently, Milosevich's Serbian National Theatre performed a Hamlet in which the Claudian point of view was so thorough in its influence, the Prince's death was cause for celebration-in the Serb's eyes, of course, Hamlet is a counterrevolutionary, a traitor to the race. So, tread softly on the Dane. He's been rather viciously bashed about of late. Andy White Arlington, VA [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Lee Date: Wednesday, 25 Jun 1997 09:40:39 +0900 (JST) Subject: Hamlet and Madness Oscar Wilde saw Hamlet's discussion of playing as holding the mirror up to nature as the indisputable evidence of the Prince's madness. John Lee ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:30:15 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0711 Re: Ben Iden Payne MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0711. Wednesday, 25 June 1997. From: Bruce Coggin Date: Tuesday, 24 Jun 1997 11:14:34 U Subject: Re: SHK 8.0700 Q: Ben Iden Payne Mr. Gelber, there are still many people in Austin who remember Mr. Payne quite vividly. Most of them are a bit up in years, but you can find them if you dig around. Cheers and good hunting. Bruce W. Coggin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 06:27:45 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0712 It's Time to Play -- NAME THAT SSE TOUR MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0712. Thursday, 26 June 1997. From: The Shenandoah Shakespeare Express Date: Wednesday, 25 Jun 1997 12:02:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Name the SSE '99 Tours- get a free t-shirt The Shenandoah Shakespeare Express announces its 1999 tours and requests your assistance in naming them. Each tour will require its own title, and each winner will receive a free T-shirt. Please send your suggestions to SShakespea@aol.com. Thank you. Twelve Month Tour Macbeth Merchant of Venice Merry Wives Four Month Tour Hamlet Much Ado about Nothing Examples of tour names include: '97 Sweet Smoke of Rhetoric Tour Love's Labor's Lost Henry IV, part 1 A Midsummer Night's Dream '97 Rough Magic Tour Macbeth A Midsummer Night's Dream '98 Tenth Anniversary Over the Hump Tour Richard III The Taming of the Shrew Measure for Measure '98 Tough Love Tour Romeo and Juliet The Taming of the Shrew ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 06:35:19 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0713 Re: Changling; H5's French; Lear MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0713. Thursday, 26 June 1997. [1] From: Rosalind C. King Date: Wednesday, 25 Jun 1997 14:44:49 GMT0BST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0704 Q: Final Scene of *The Changeling* [2] From: Bill Kemp Date: Wednesday, 25 Jun 1997 11:45:36 -0400 Subj: Henry V and French [3] From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Wednesday, 25 Jun 1997 09:30:04 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0695 Re: Cordelia and Lear [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rosalind C. King Date: Wednesday, 25 Jun 1997 14:44:49 GMT0BST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0704 Q: Final Scene of *The Changeling* It may be a critical commonplace that DF stabs B at oh, oh, but since it happens off-stage and Middleton takes pains not to tell us, its up to each one of us to imagine it for ourselves. Since he later urges her to make haste and she says its time to die, I see no reason why, in production, she should not take his pen-knife and finish herself off and several reasons why she might. I don't think its 'gushy' or 'kinder' to suggest, as I do, that the only genuinely loving, consummated, passionate, human relationship in the entire play is the criminal adulterous one between DF and B - in fact I think that's quite a difficult thing for people to come to terms with. The exchange of her 'ring' and the two lines 'forget your parentage to me' and 'made you one with me' 3.4.137-41 together all suggest marriage - in all but the formality of law. The formal legal marriage between Alsemero and Beatrice is ironically presented in dumbshow in the next scene and of course remains unconsummated except by proxy. Yours Rosalind King School of English and Drama Queen Mary and Westfield College University of London [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Kemp Date: Wednesday, 25 Jun 1997 11:45:36 -0400 Subject: Henry V and French Wes Folkerth asks whether or not the real Henry V spoke French-a question which piqued my curiosity a couple of years ago. His father, Henry IV clearly did speak French. At least one letter to his English advisors survives which is written in French. The content is small stuff, and he doesn't explain why he chose to write in French, but he did. In contrast, years later in negotiating with the French some time after Harfleur, Henry V insisted on having translators present and (my memory tells me) required drafts of the agreement in both English and French. All this comes from biographies of the two kings which I can't check right now because they're at one place and I'm in another. But I did (casually) conclude that Henry V wasn't fluent in French, so the author of the anonymous Famous Victories didn't make that feature of his character up out of whole cloth (or he guessed right). Bill Kemp Mary Washington College Fredericksburg, Va. wkemp@fls.infi.net [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Wednesday, 25 Jun 1997 09:30:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0695 Re: Cordelia and Lear As antidotes to the Christian readings of *Lear* which have recently been discussed on this list, may I humbly suggest two once-groundbreaking, now-classic articles for list members' perusal? Boose, Lynda E. "The Father and the Bride in Shakespeare." *PMLA* 97 (1982): 325-47 (esp. 332-35). [a historicist/ anthropological/feminist reading] Kahn, Coppelia. "The Absent Mother in *King Lear*." In *Rewriting the Renaissance: The Discourses of Sexual Difference in Early Modern Europe*. Ed. Margaret W. Ferguson, Maureen Quilligan, and Nancy J. Vickers. U Chicago P, 1986. 33-49. [a psychoanalytic/feminist reading] Regards, Evelyn Gajowski ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 06:37:38 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0714 Q: "prince palatine" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0714. Thursday, 26 June 1997. From: Greg Ballinger Date: Wednesday, 25 Jun 1997 18:39:18 +0100 Subject: query Does anyone know who the historical "prince palatine" was mentioned by Portia in "The Merchant of Venice" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 06:44:45 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0715 Re: Various Questions Related to *Ham.* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0715. Thursday, 26 June 1997. [1] From: Chris Clark Date: Wednesday, 25 Jun 1997 16:15:31 -0400 Subj: Hamlet's madness [2] From: Chris Clark Date: Wednesday, 25 Jun 1997 16:15:41 -0400 Subj: Various Questions Related to *Ham.* [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Clark Date: Wednesday, 25 Jun 1997 16:15:31 -0400 Subject: Hamlet's madness In John Dover Wilson's book on Hamlet, he seems to suggest that Hamlet's madness is involuntary, the result of his fierce emotional reaction to seeing the ghost, and aware of this he claims it is all pretense so that he can use it to gain himself extra freedom of expression. Is this a plausible point of view? I suppose it reconciles with his 'north-north-west' comment to Rosencrantz & Guildenstern... What do you people think? Chris [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Clark Date: Wednesday, 25 Jun 1997 16:15:41 -0400 Subject: Various Questions Related to *Ham.* Thank you to everyone who replied to my questions about Hamlet. I am, as will become clear, of the opinion that Hamlet is sane. I would argue that his fatal flaw is passion, both in excess and in insufficiency. Is there sufficient controversy over Hamlet's madness for me to write about this issue, or is there some other facet of the play that people consider unrepresented and that I should investigate instead? Here are my comments as regards your help... [1] Sean Lawrence [online bibliography] I have got Bradley's criticism, and in the process and am in the process of reading it and analysing the text in detail to strengthen my own convictions. As far as the bibliography is concerned, I suspect it could be really useful, so I may start researching with a view to at least producing something of that kind.. [2] Scott Crozier [Polonius/Laertes] > Maybe he does know the "primrose path" and is a "puffed and > reckless libertine" OK - I suspected it could be something of that sort, but I had to inquire, because it has to be said that there was a distinct lack of evidence in the text. [3] Louis Marder [Madness] > Hamlet is snots mad. I thought as much - I was pretty much searching for people who think he is, because the evidence for it being a masquerade seems too strong to me. > All you can do is make a list of opinions and count them up like a > poll, so many pros, so many cons, so many can't make up their minds. It has to be said that he does do and say some pretty strange things, but on the other hand someone pretending to be mad WOULD do so. I personally disagree with both Bradley and Dover Wilson, and subscribe to the too thoughtful, sane interpretation of the prince. > Making your annotated bibliography will keep you busy for years. It will be a good project to put on my university application form though. And it will be really interesting to get a decent list and categorise the criticism. Thanks for the book recommendations and as and when I get something done towards compiling this bibliography-type thingy, I will let you know. [4] Stuart Manger [Madness] > Having him mad simply does not work on stage I agree that he is not mad, but it does have to be made pretty clear that it's a facade - and luckily that's what Ophelia is there for. > how he deploys his intellect in circumventing Although he gets his revenge, he surely shows himself as a potentially not very good King, no? Surely, Fortinbras is there to show that action must be taken and one must not ponder too long, and Laertes is there to show the danger of being corrupted. It has to be said that Hamlet does show himself to have some major weaknesses. He gets revenge, as requested by the ghost... > the temper of the times was for secret spying, paid informers It's nice to have some background knowledge, even if there is no textual evidence. I really dislike Polonius, he's a greasy creep - I suspect he only tells Ophelia to reject Hamlet's advances not through concern for her, but in the hope that he will ask to marry her, thus elevating his own social status... and I think that is a LOW way to be acting. Sycophant. [5] Andrew Walker White [Madness] > "When the wind is southerly", i.e., when it's warmer and sunnier, his > symptoms abate. So Hamlet, by that definition, is definitely sane just before the duel with Laertes? That makes that part even more of an enigma! > As for his love of his father being extreme, I beg to differ. Hehe, you're welcome to do so. I'm new to this play, and on many things I am certain to be incorrect, even if I can come out with some valid points. > remove almost any trace of reason, honesty and responsibility from him I credit him with reason. He is a bit deceiving, but clearly one has to be in his situation. Responsible I can't call him, otherwise would he not have challenged Claudius openly, or killed him earlier? And what about his treatment of Ophelia? He doesn't display much compassion there. > If you say that there's no reason for Hamlet to prefer his natural > father to his uncle Oh no, don't get me wrong. I really like Hamlet, the person.. and clearly there is reason for him to like his father a lot more than his uncle, who seems to have been a contemptible, evil and incestuous little sneak. On the other hand, surely it is fair to say that Hamlet takes his grief too far? He says he wants to die, which is natural grief.. and wanting revenge is fine... but his father went to Hell, he can't have been the God (literally, he calls him Jove, no?) that he seems to think he was! Hamlet's lack of action against Claudius, mistreatment of Ophelia, out of hand execution of Rosencrantz & Guildenstern (though I consider they were supposed to be viewed as mercenaries, out for reward, getting what they deserve) and murder of Polonius do count against Hamlet, it must be said. The arguments against his sanity lie more in his dialogue than with his actions. And yet he is caught in a truly terrible situation and it is almost impossible but to sympathise. True, there are mirrors for Hamlet to show how he should have acted and he does seem to be frightfully self-indulgent, but at the same time he's a nice guy. [6] John Lee [Madness] > Oscar Wilde saw Hamlet's discussion of playing as holding the mirror up > to nature as the indisputable evidence of the Prince's madness. Thanks for that. I may use that as a counter-argument in my case that he is a sane man, caught in a tide of emotion and unable to cope with so many crises at once, dulled into inaction, while still planning his action. Could you be a bit more specific as to how Wilde makes his case please? Thank you to everyone again! Chris ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 06:39:52 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0716 Re: Henry V's French MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0716. Friday, 27 June 1997. [1] From: Sean Lawrence Date: Thursday, 26 Jun 1997 08:57:51 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0713 Re: H5's French [2] From: A.E.B. Coldiron" Date: Thursday, 26 Jun 1997 18:53:31 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Henry V's French [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Thursday, 26 Jun 1997 08:57:51 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0713 Re: H5's French >But I did (casually) conclude that Henry V wasn't fluent in >French, so the author of the anonymous Famous Victories >didn't make that feature of his character up out of whole >cloth (or he guessed right). Maybe, but one of my middle-English profs once told us that English was promoted for political reasons during the wars with France; hence, almost all our Chaucer manuscripts come from the reign of Henry V, not that of Richard II, under whom Chaucer actually lived. Henry's insistence on translators may have been no more than a political gesture, rather like Jacques Chirac insisting that every Secretary-General of the United Nations must be fluent in French, whether it will be necessary to his job or not. Cheers, Sean [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: A.E.B. Coldiron" Date: Thursday, 26 Jun 1997 18:53:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Henry V's French Christopher Allmand's _Henry V_ (Berkeley: U of California Press, 1992) makes it clear that Henry was a comfortable and frequent speaker and writer of French (see pp 420-422 especially). He was also however an encourager of English-it was his decree that first made English the langiuge of official govt business, and he, like Humphrey (Duke of GLoucester) encouraged translations into English (from Fr and Lat of course). See, for examples of Henry's letters in French, _Anglo Norman letters_, ed. M.D. Legge (Oxford 1941). Derek Pearsall writes convincingly about the relative status of the two languages; in his work on late-medieval poets-I am not recalling this well but I think it's in his book on Lydgate, or perhaps in an intro to a collection of early poetry. The chroniclers are good sources for further info too-Le Fevre de St Remy is one of my faves-well, that's enough. Yes. Henry V knew French. A. E. B. Coldiron Visiting Scholar, Johns Hopkins University Assistant Professor, Towson University ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 06:45:29 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0717 Re: "prince palatine" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0717. Friday, 27 June 1997. [1] From: Anthony Haigh Date: Thursday, 26 Jun 1997 11:46:04 -400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0714 Q: "prince palatine" [2] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 26 Jun 1997 22:06:33 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0714 Q: "prince palatine" [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anthony Haigh Date: Thursday, 26 Jun 1997 11:46:04 -400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0714 Q: "prince palatine" >Does anyone know who the historical "prince palatine" was mentioned by >Portia in "The Merchant of Venice" There is a suggestion that this could be a reference to a part of Bavaria, although it could simply mean "a prince with a palace." As a boy growing up in Manchester U.K. I seem to remember references to Lancashire as being a "County Palatine." Can any fellow Mancunians back me up on this? Cheers Tony Haigh [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 26 Jun 1997 22:06:33 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0714 Q: "prince palatine" Shakespeare calls him "County Palentine" and "Count Palentine" in Q and F. I'm picking this out of John Russell Brown's Arden edition. Brown suggests no historical parallels, but notes that Steevens suspected a joke and compared Jonson's *Alchemist* 2.3.331: "A *Count*, nay, a *Count-palatine*." But could "Count Palentine" be a veiled reference to Count Mumpellgart who visited England in 1592, and became Duke of Wurtemberg in 1593, or so H. C. Hart tells me? Some editors suspect that Mumpellgart is alluded to in *The Merry Wives of Windsor*. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 06:57:45 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0718 Re: Various Questions Related to *Ham.* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0718. Friday, 27 June 1997. [1] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Thursday, 26 Jun 1997 07:32:40 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Hamlet's "madness" [2] From: Syd Kasten Date: Thursday, 26 Jun 1997 16:15:11 +0200 (IST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0705 Various Questions Related to *Ham.* [3] From: J. Kenneth Campbell Date: Friday, 27 Jun 1997 03:44:52 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0705 Various Questions Related to *Ham.* [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Thursday, 26 Jun 1997 07:32:40 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Hamlet's "madness" If Hamlet is really mad, the character is reduced from a tragic to a pathetic figure somewhat like Ophelia, an irrational "storm" that may figure in another's tragedy, but who can no longer be held responsible for rational choices (and the dignity associated with that responsibility) and who therefore falls out of the tragic "loop." Only those who are willing to accept Hamlet as no more than another Ophelia and who see the essential play as the story of some other character in it should entertain the idea that Hamlet is really mad. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Syd Kasten Date: Thursday, 26 Jun 1997 16:15:11 +0200 (IST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0705 Various Questions Related to *Ham.* The theme of pretended madness is an element of the story from which the play was made. Betty Bealey, the editor of The Falcon Shakespeare *Hamlet* (Longmans Canada Ltd 1963), tells us that the 12th century history of the Danes by Saxo Grammaticus has Hamlet feigning idiocy as a cloak under which to plan vengeance. His foster-sister is placed in his way by his enemies to test his sanity but his foster brother warns him. Other elements of the story like the ostracism to England, its purpose and its result are also there, but the ending is different: "Amleth retutns, slays his uncle, and is named successor to the throne" and "After many deeds of craft and daring ...is killed in battle." [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: J. Kenneth Campbell Date: Friday, 27 Jun 1997 03:44:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0705 Various Questions Related to *Ham.* Chris It has long been my theory that Hamlet is drinking heavily after the death of his father and the marriage of his mother to Claudius. I like to go to the end of a play and work backwards. Richard III for instance has no deformity on a horse with the reigns in one hand and a mace in the other. Beginning the play in the saddle and dismounting to illustrate his deformities works well to begin the circle of his life. To begin at the end. What does Claudius offer Hamlet, just in case Laertes can't get the job done? A drink. What are Hamlet problems? Indecision, distrust of what he sees and hears, depression, thoughts of suicide, scorn for other peoples drinking and merriment and impetuous actions like stabbing someone for ease-dropping. These can all be symptoms of someone under the influence. I'm not advocating a vaudevillian parody of intoxication but something organic to the progression of the scenes. It seems to me that Hamlet comes back from England in a different and more reasonable state then when he left, (sober) he even claims to be working out daily. It certainly makes dramatic sense to make him an alcoholic and I think many on this list know a few tippling scholars who fit very well into Hamlet's mold. Who doffs off the fatal wine? Gertrude. Her behavior really fills the flagon, the genetic link to his weakness. Just another way to go towards resolving Hamlet's too too sullied flesh in a "dew". "We'll teach you to drink deep ere you depart" ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 07:00:46 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0719 Re: Lear and Cordelia MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0719. Friday, 27 June 1997. From: Ben Schneider Date: Thursday, 26 Jun 1997 15:29:57 +0000 Subject: Lear I'm on Cordelia's side. It's the older sisters who are misusing the word "love." The idea that a person's love can spread all over the universe is romantic, as in Wordsworth, and its time has not yet come. Cordelia is not "calculating" in any selfish sense of the word. When she wonders how she can give her husband all her love and still give it all to her father, she is simply telling him the plain truth. The early modern definition of "love" has a much stronger element of "obligation" in it than ours does. Thanking Kent for tripping Oswald, Lear says he will "love" him for the deed. What he means is simply that he's much obliged and owes Kent a favor. When Antonio (MV) tells Bassanio to give Portia's ring to the lawyer, he says (approx), "Let my love be your reason." He's simply reminding Bassanio that here's a good chance to pay back the huge favor he owes the man who has just finished risking his life for him. There is a calculus, of course, but it's not selfish. Antonio wants to give the ring to the lawyer, not salt it away. And he is actually helping Bassanio get rid of a monster debt. That's why Bassanio instantly complies with Antonio's request. Antonio's request also lets Bassanio off the hook for giving the ring away (note that later Antonio freely takes the blame.) It's a calculus of balancing out favors with favors returned. See Seneca's De Beneficiis for a full discussion of the consequences. Going back to Cordelia: she is just telling her father the plain truth. When a father "gives" a bride away, he gives away her whole obligation to him and transfers it to her husband. Having once given away Goneril and Regan, how can Lear now ask to have them back? It's beyond belief. But apparently abstract love was already current in early modern times. Lear thought that love was just an attitude, and so did Goneril and Regan. They thought of themselves as truly caring persons really concerned for the old man's welfare, living so dangerously with his riotous knights. There's abstract love for you. BEN SCHNEIDER ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:29:01 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0720 Re: "prince palatine" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0720. Saturday, 28 June 1997. [1] From: Richard Dutton Date: Friday, 27 Jun 1997 11:56:00 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0717 Re: "county palatine" [2] From: Stuart Manger Date: Saturday, 28 Jun 1997 00:53:04 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0717 Re: "prince palatine" [3] From: Stuart Manger Date: Saturday, 28 Jun 1997 00:48:40 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0714 Q: "prince palatine" [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Dutton Date: Friday, 27 Jun 1997 11:56:00 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0717 Re: "county palatine" Writing as an adoptive Lancastrian, I can confirm Tony Haigh's recollection that the old Lancashire (before the new counties of Merseyside and Greater Manchester chopped bits off it) was a County Palatine. The only other Counties Palatine in England were Cheshire, under the Earls of Chester, and Durham, under the Prince Bishops: in those instances the monarchs devolved quasi-regal powers to those figures as defenders of the realm against respectively the Welsh and the Scots. In the case of Lancashire it was one of the privileges accorded to John of Gaunt as Duke of Lancaster (though not to be confused with the Duchy of Lancaster itself, which was a very different matter). Richard Dutton, Lancaster University [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Manger Date: Saturday, 28 Jun 1997 00:53:04 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0717 Re: "prince palatine" >As a boy growing up in Manchester U.K. I seem to remember references to >Lancashire as being a "County Palatine." Can any fellow Mancunians back >me up on this? > >Cheers >Tony Haigh True about Manchester. And here's some real trivia: British Rail used to run an express from Euston to Manchester Piccadilly at noon or thereabouts I think called 'The County Palatine'. I knew it would come in useful some day. Stuart Manger [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Manger Date: Saturday, 28 Jun 1997 00:48:40 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0714 Q: "prince palatine" >Does anyone know who the historical "prince palatine" was mentioned by >Portia in "The Merchant of Venice" Probably from Germany: the Elector Palatine was a major figure in the Holy Roman Empire, and based in Germany. Parts of the Rhineland are still to this day, I think, called the Palatinate? Stuart Manger ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:39:35 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0721 Re: *Lear* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0721. Saturday, 28 June 1997. [1] From: Carl Fortunato Date: Friday, 27 Jun 97 09:19:00 -0400 Subj: Re: *Lear* [2] From: Carl Fortunato Date: Friday, 27 Jun 97 09:19:00 -0400 Subj: Re: *Lear* [3] From: Carl Fortunato Date: Friday, 27 Jun 97 09:19:00 -0400 Subj: Re: *Lear* [4] From: Carl Fortunato Date: Friday, 27 Jun 97 09:19:00 -0400 Subj: Re: *Lear* [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carl Fortunato Date: Friday, 27 Jun 97 09:19:00 -0400 Subject: Re: *Lear* > "MUCH of the anonymous drama"? Eric Sams doesn't believe in > collaborations, so he can only believe that it is ALL by Shakespeare > (which [I think] he in fact does believe {still? I'm not sure} ), or > NOT by Shakespeare. Interesting. Bill averaged two plays a year, and some folks think he wasn't prolific enough? [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carl Fortunato Date: Friday, 27 Jun 97 09:19:00 -0400 Subject: Re: *Lear* > I agree that there's a strong sense of alienation from God (or, 'the > gods'), but don't think that makes the play anti-Christian. "Anti-Christian" was me struggling for a word. I don't think it is *genuinely* anti-Christian, but I think it raises the possibility, maybe to the great discomfort of the original audience. >Leaving aside the fact that 'the gods' aren't God, and it may only be >the pagan gods who are alien, there's a good possibility of reconciling >alienation with salvation within Christianity. I think in this play "the gods" function as God, and are being used to set a fine Druid mood (only half-successfully). Your point is a *very* good one. Sort of "weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning." This idea seems very strong during the storm ("you houseless poverty"), but it is certainly not made explicit, and one would think that it would be. In fact, the Storm scene and Lear's poverty speech is the one place where a *very* religious message seems to break through the degradation. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carl Fortunato Date: Friday, 27 Jun 97 09:19:00 -0400 Subject: Re: *Lear* > (1) Elton's KING LEAR AND THE GODS is still very good in showing why > it is quesionable to characterize LEAR as doctrinally "Christian" in a > sense that would be recognizable to its contemporaries. Elton's view > is consistent with Carl Fortunato's point on the question. > (2) On Fortunato's question of whether or not Lear thinks Cordelia > still lives as he himself dies, Rosenberg's THE MASKS OF KING LEAR > provides interesting history of the varieties acting choices that have > been made in response to this open question (along with much else, of > course). > (3) If forced to pick one passage that would "summarize the > philosophy" of the play, I don't think I'd take the "wanton flies" one. Sometimes choosing a single phrase actually works ("Man is a giddy thing, and this is my conclusion"), but usually not. I did not say that *I* thought it summarized the philosophy of the play, but that "many" did. I don't necessarily agree (I halfway agree), but I can easily see why some would feel that way. Sorry if that caused some confusion, but I was sort of speculating on the question out loud. > How about, instead, the concluding lines, variously attributed to > Albany or Edgar (I prefer Edgar for interpretative, not > textual-critical reasons): "The weight of this sad time we must obey, > / Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say. / The oldest have borne > most. We that are young / Shall never see so much, nor live so long." I prefer Albany, because it would be his place to speak the last words, as the new ruler. I don't know. I find this rather uninspiring, myself, as though it was just the expected closing speech. It seems as though he's just saying, "Boy, our folks have been through a lot. Hope it doesn't happen to me." Not exactly one of the more stirring closing speeches. > If the play affirms anything, it is honesty of vision ("see much"-and > consider how often the audience and characters are called upon to see > and witness to what is too unbearable to behold); I see the idea that "you gotta crawl to be tall." I know this isn't a very original take on it, but Lear's reclamation comes by descending to the lowest places, and Gloster sees only after he becomes blind. That is what I meant about there also being a great amount of Christianity in the play ("He who humbles himself will be exalted"). But the tension in the play comes from the fact that the opposite view *also* thrums like a dissenting voice throughout. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carl Fortunato Date: Friday, 27 Jun 97 09:19:00 -0400 Subject: Re: *Lear* >> While there is a great amount of "Christianity" in the play, in many >> ways it seems to depict a world a chaos and randomness, that is almost >> anti-Christian. Many people see in Gloucester's famous line: >> >> "As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods. They kill >> us for their sport." >> >> a summation of the entire philosophy of the play. > I'm completely unable to see how Mr. Fortunato arrives at such an > opinion. Oh, dear. *Completely*? > Even if we didn't have Edmund's contemptuous dismissal of > this idea (I.2., "This is the excellent foppery..."), every bad thing > in the entire play happens as the result of the deliberate action of a > particular person. With all due respect, I think you may be making the mistake of confusing a good speech with a philosophy. Edmund is hardly a spokesman, however stirring his speech is. And any "religious" message from Edmund would seem to be negated by what must have seemed near blasphemous at the time: Thou Nature art my Goddesse, to thy Law My seruices are bound Nonetheless, I believe you are correct that "randomness" is not what is seen. However, see below. >This is in stark contrast to events in other >plays, where often some completely supernatural, or even random, >aberration completely changes the direction of events. I think this why >we are particularly apt to cringe in horror as this play unfolds. >Far from being a philosophy of "the gods kill us for their sport," the >play denies all external influences, plainly exposing people's >deliberate cruelty and disregard for one another, and the >susceptibility of those around them to powerful sinners' selfishness. >This is certainly an overwhelmingly Christian point of view! But how is "den[ying] all external influences" a Christian point of view? I'm afraid that what you wrote above seems to reinforce my point that "the gods don't care." As you point out, this is not a romance, where a supernatural force directly intervenes to bring about justice. Rather what happens is the result of deliberate action. Cornwall (as evil a character as any Shakespeare ever made) intentionally purposes pulling out Gloster eyes, and that is exactly what he does. His fate? The same as Cordelia's it seems. And there is no hint of reward or punishment, either here or in an afterlife. And once again, the death of Cordelia - a truly monstrous and horrible injustice - is Shakespeare's very intentional addition to the plot, as it does not appear in *Leir* or any other previous version of the story. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:45:51 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0722 Terror and Magnificence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0722. Saturday, 28 June 1997. From: Jung Jimmy Date: Friday, 27 Jun 1997 10:44 -0500 Subject: Terror and Magnificence I've been piling up SHAKSPER e-mails since early May, so maybe I missed it; but has anyone heard John Harle's new album Terror & Magnificence? "Elvis Costello sings three Shakespeare songs set to music by Jazz Saxophonist John Harle" I think the songs are from 12th Night and I was wondering how it sounded, especially after having to sing "Come away, death," once myself. jimmy ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:48:44 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0723 EB Shakespeare Web Site MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0723. Saturday, 28 June 1997. From: Ron Moyer Date: Friday, 27 Jun 1997 10:52:38 -0500 (CDT) Subject: EB Shakespeare Web Site Encyclopaedia Brittanica has developed a web site titled "Shakespeare and the Globe: Then and Now"; probably pulling together Shakespeare-related articles from the encyclopedia, the site includes biographies, articles on Eliz theatre and culture, maps, etc.; it also includes .au and .wav files from Pearl's "Great Shakespeareans" CD (Edwin Booth fr 1890, Ben Greet, etc., J Barrymore, Gielgud fr the '30s, etc.) and Quicktime video clips from several films from silent era to McKellan's R3). The address is: . Useful. My apologies for taking bandwidth if this site was noted to the group while I was away from my computer. Best, Ron Moyer, Univ. of South Dakota ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:50:52 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0724 Q: Recent Editions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0724. Saturday, 28 June 1997. From: Barrett Fisher Date: Friday, 27 Jun 1997 08:31:31 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Recent Editions SHAKSPEReans: The primary Shakespeare material in my school's library is embarrassingly outdated (though we have done a fair job staying current with secondary works). Because I do not have a large budget to work with (like other small schools, we do not have an acquisitions librarian, so those of us in the English Department are exclusively responsible for ordering books), I need to choose wisely. In addition to putting the new Riverside (2d ed.) and Bevington (4th ed.) complete Shakespeares on the shelf, which of the many editions of individual plays would folks recommend? I am very impressed by both the New Cambridge and the New Arden, but would like to hear some pros and cons from others. Also, if someone could recommend a good review essay or two on these editions, I would appreciate the direction. If this is not considered of general interest, please reply to me off list. Thanks for your help. Barrett Fisher Bethel College (MN) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:54:53 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0725 Re: Hamlet's Madness; MM "Glassy" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0725. Saturday, 28 June 1997. [1] From: E. H. Pearlman Date: Friday, 27 Jun 1997 07:07:31 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0718 Re: Various Questions Related to *Ham.* [2] From: Alan Pierpoint Date: Saturday, 28 Jun 1997 00:05:20 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0684 Re: MM "Glass" [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. H. Pearlman Date: Friday, 27 Jun 1997 07:07:31 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0718 Re: Various Questions Related to *Ham.* On the subject of Hamlet's madness, the definitive statement was offered by Willima Schwenk Gilbert, who said, if I remember correctly, that Hamlet was "idiotically sane with lucid intervals of lunacy." E. Pearlman [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Pierpoint Date: Saturday, 28 Jun 1997 00:05:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0684 Re: MM "Glass" The Folger Library Edition I teach from sees glassy essence as the "fragile soul; the soul's proneness to error." (33) Could it be that simple? For those in the LA area, I recommend the MM at the Gaston (Helms Building in Culver City), an all-female production that ends with two performances Sunday (3 and 8). It lives up to its billing as "sexually charged," with many liberties taken, but with the themes of moral hypocrisy, and Christian suffering and redemption, very much intact. Alan Pierpoint ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:57:41 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0726 Plays Shakespeare Didn't Publish MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0726. Saturday, 28 June 1997. From: Gwenette Gaddis Date: Friday, 27 Jun 1997 13:30:36 -0500 Subject: Plays Shakespeare Didn't Publish (fwd) Have a laugh, folks. From: Erik Yocum[SMTP:ecy@umich.edu] Sent: Friday, June 27, 1997 1:16 PM To: humorlist@umich.edu Subject: Top5 - 6/25/97 - Plays Shakespeare Didn't Publish (fwd) June 25, 1997 The Top 16 Plays Shakespeare Chose Not to Publish 16> Christopher Marlowe Can Kiss My Elizabethan Ass 15> Henry VIII, I Am, I Am 14> Fast Times at Verona High 13> A Midsummer Night's Nocturnal Emission 12> Om'let 11> Love's Fing'r Pulled 10> Romeo & Steve 9> Twelfth Night, Children Stay Free 8> Felines 7> Henry VIII was a Big Fat Idiot 6> Six Degrees of Francis Bacon 5> Stratford-upon-Avon 90210 4> Hamlet II - Where the hell is everybody? 3> Romeo & Michelle's High School Reunion 2> King Gump And the Number 1 Play Shakespeare Chose Not to Publish... 1> Booty Calleth [ This list copyright 1997 by Chris White and Ziff Davis, Inc. ]========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:21:30 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0727 Accommodation in London MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0727. Monday, 30 June 1997. From: Karen Bamford Date: Sunday, 29 Jun 1997 17:36:48 -0300 Subject: Accommodation in London Fully furnished London flat available Sept. 15-March 15; in Twickenham (west end of Greater London), five minutes from British Rail station (frequent service to Waterloo); 2 bedrooms, electric shower, automatic washing machine; 495 pounds per month. Karen Bamford Dept. of English Mount Allison University Sackville, NB CANADA E0A 3C0 (506) 364-2543; kbamford@mta.ca ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:25:38 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0728 Re: Terror and Magnificence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0728. Monday, 30 June 1997. [1] From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Sunday, 29 Jun 1997 15:08:04 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0722 Terror and Magnificence [2] From: Carl Fortunato Date: Sunday, 29 Jun 97 15:39:00 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0722 Terror and Ma [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Sunday, 29 Jun 1997 15:08:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0722 Terror and Magnificence In reply to Jimmy Jung's query about John Harle's Terror and Magnificence: I have heard it, and it is rather pleasant, though not particularly memorable. Elvis Costello's singing is, IMHO, the best reason to give it a try; it's not particularly illuminating in its setting of the Shakespeare texts. Cheers, Douglas Lanier [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carl Fortunato Date: Sunday, 29 Jun 97 15:39:00 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0722 Terror and Ma > I've been piling up SHAKSPER e-mails since early May, so maybe I > missed it; but has anyone heard John Harle's new album Terror & > Magnificence? > "Elvis Costello sings three Shakespeare songs set to music by Jazz > Saxophonist John Harle" > I think the songs are from 12th Night and I was wondering how it > sounded, especially after having to sing "Come away, death," once > myself. Why just that one song? Feste sings *all* the songs. I'm playing Feste this autumn, and I have to write the music to the songs myself. I'm not sure I want to get an album, since I'd like the music to be as original as possible, and I don't think jazz is what I have in mind. Right now, I'm gravitating toward the blues for "Come away, death" and country for "Oh, mistress mine." I'm not sure *what* to do with "The rain it raineth every day" but I think that one may have to be traditional minstrel style. I want 12th Night to seem like an actual musical, if possible. When you sang it, where did you get the music, and what kind of music was it? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:31:44 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0729 Re: Recent Editions: *Lear*; Hamlet's Madness MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0729. Monday, 30 June 1997. [1] From: Louis Marder Date: Sunday, 6 Jul 1997 21:13:42 PST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0724 Q: Recent Editions [2] From: Sean Lawrence Date: Sunday, 29 Jun 1997 13:42:50 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0721 Re: *Lear* [3] From: Carl Fortunato Date: Sunday, 29 Jun 97 15:39:00 -0400 Subj: Re: Hamlet's Madness [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Marder Date: Sunday, 6 Jul 1997 21:13:42 PST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0724 Q: Recent Editions Dear Barrett: I can't place my hand on my copy at this moment, but there was a book published a few years ago called Which Shakespeare. It lists the current issues, describes their virtues and shortcomings, and makes recommendations. The book costs $99!!! There are many good editions not mentioned there. Your choice should depend on the level of your students. There are those with great glossaries or great notes. Some give a lot of textual emendation. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Sunday, 29 Jun 1997 13:42:50 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0721 Re: *Lear* >I think in this play "the gods" function as God, and are being used to >set a fine Druid mood (only half-successfully). Your point is a *very* >good one. Sort of "weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in >the morning." This idea seems very strong during the storm ("you >houseless poverty"), but it is certainly not made explicit, and one >would think that it would be. Thanks for your kudos. I actually think that the joy which cometh in the morning never comes in _Lear_, for the simple reason that it's set in pre-Christian times. Degradation, then, does not point towards redemption in the world of the play, though it may very well imply redemption to the Elizabethan audience. They, after all, are Christian, and can see the Deus Absconditus as implying a Deus Revelatus. That this insight is not expressed by any of the pre-Christian characters of the play is only to be expected. Cheers, Sean. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carl Fortunato Date: Sunday, 29 Jun 97 15:39:00 -0400 Subject: Re: Hamlet's Madness > From: E. H. Pearlman > On the subject of Hamlet's madness, the definitive statement was > offered by Willima Schwenk Gilbert, who said, if I remember correctly, > that Hamlet was "idiotically sane with lucid intervals of lunacy." E. > Pearlman I think it was Oscar Wilde (if I'm wrong, correct me) who said, "The question of Hamlet is, are the critics mad or only pretending to be?" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:34:34 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0730 Shakespeare and Astrology MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0730. Monday, 30 June 1997. From: Peter Nockolds Date: Monday, 30 Jun 1997 14:32:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: Shakespeare and Astrology May I announce my web-site, EGMA, to SHAKSPERians. It's now widely recognised that Chaucer constructed his narratives taking account of the movements and positions of heavenly bodies on certain dates. My research shows that Shakespeare did the same. You don't have to believe in astrology to accept that Shakespeare may have had an interest in this subject. Once this is recognised it opens all sorts of possibilities. In the current posting I give a general introduction to the topic. Further articles show how The Winter's Tale was inspired by an event in Bohemia, how it is possible to date Titus Andronicus from astrological imagery, and how two words usually amended by editors were not misprints. The URL is http://www.sonnet.co.uk/egma/ Best wishes, Peter Nockolds========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 07:43:03 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0731 Q: Riverside Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0731. Wednesday, 2 July 1997. From: Bill Mcrae Date: Monday, 30 Jun 1997 13:03:05 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Riverside Shakespeare I have been told by my campus bookstore that the New Riverside Shakespeare has been printed with several printer's errors. Does anyone know of any errata or other typographic problems with the text? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 07:50:30 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0732 Re: Recent Editions; Feste's Songs; Hamlet's Madness MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0732. Wednesday, 2 July 1997. [1] From: Susan Brock Date: Tuesday, 1 Jul 1997 13:13:39 +0100 Subj: SHK 8.0724 Recent Editions [2] From: Jimmy Jung Date: Monday, 30 Jun 1997 12:03 -0500 Subj: RE, Re: Terror and Magnificence [3] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Monday, 30 Jun 1997 20:49:37 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Hamlet's Madness [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Brock Date: Tuesday, 1 Jul 1997 13:13:39 +0100 Subject: SHK 8.0724 Recent Editions Dr Marder is thinking of Which Shakespeare: A User's Guide to Editions, edited by Ann Thompson and others (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1992) Larry Champion's Essential Shakespeare: An Annotated Bibliography of Major Modern Studies, 2nd ed. (Boston MA: G.K.Hall, 1993) also lists and assesses editions. Susan Brock Shakespeare Birthplace Trust [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jimmy Jung Date: Monday, 30 Jun 1997 12:03 -0500 Subject: RE, Re: Terror and Magnificence Carl Fortunato, who asked "Why just that one song? Feste sings *all* the songs." We only had to do one scene for a class (thank god). As I recall, I tried using the melody from "In the still of the night" (Five Satins 1956?). It was close enough for class, but I still have my day job. jimmy [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Monday, 30 Jun 1997 20:49:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Hamlet's Madness The responses to the question on Hamlet's mental state have been a bit too much in the either/or category. Couldn't it be the case, instead, that Shakespeare wanted Hamlet to be afflicted with melancholy, but that he didn't classify this as pure madness? The Earl of Essex, himself quite friendly with the company, is a prime example of an admirable character who was nevertheless afflicted with melancholy. It was not regarded as a crippling disease, some even considered it to be a virtue, driving men to thoughts and feats beyond those they would have otherwise been capable of. Hamlet's pretended madness is, indeed, central to the original Danish legend. Shakespeare's innovation is to add the contemporary detail of melancholy, to render the Dane more recognizable to his audience. And it is this melancholy which forces him to be cautious in dealing with Claudius. Any civilized person would prefer to see 'ocular proof' of a man's guilt before executing him. And Hamlet only has the testimony of a ghost. It makes perfect sense, then, for the Prince to demand "grounds more relative than this" before he finally resolves to kill Claudius. Knowing he is prone to emotional outbursts and hence mentally vulnerable to suggestion, he knows himself well enough to demand proof positive of his father's murder. His pretended madness is completely apart from his melancholy, and is a way of keeping Claudius unaware of Hamlet's suspicions that he is a regicide. Shakespeare deliberately works on multiple levels in this script, and our attempts to simplify the question of Hamlet's character are unwittingly condescending. We assume that the Elizabethan mind was incapable of dealing with complexities of character, in spite of the evidence that it was one of the very things that drew audiences to the Globe in the first place. As for why Ophelia gets such rotten treatment from Hamlet, keep in mind that he knows she is there to spy on him, and she refuses to admit that she's working for Polonius and Claudius. Moreover, in her speech to Hamlet she accuses him of dropping her, which is clearly a lie-she has refused him for well on two months. Hamlet's rage is perfectly understandable, just as it is understandable when he corners his mother later on. Ophelia has betrayed him in deepest trust, and refuses to be truthful with him. As Maximilian Schell pointed out, all she has to say in response to "where's your father?" is "behind the arras-I'll explain everything later", and the scene would turn out completely differently. Andy White Arlington, VA ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 06:47:15 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0733 Qs: Riverside Shakespeare; The Birth of Hercules MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0733. Thursday, 3 July 1997. [1] From: John McWilliams Date: Wednesday, 02 Jul 1997 14:45:52 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0731 Q: Riverside Shakespeare [2] From: John Robinson Date: Wednesday, 2 Jul 1997 13:44:21 -0400 (EDT) Subj: The Birth of Hercules? [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John McWilliams Date: Wednesday, 02 Jul 1997 14:45:52 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0731 Q: Riverside Shakespeare Does anyone know when the New Riverside is due out in the UK? If I'm buying just one complete edition of Shakespeare, would the New Riverside be a better bet than the new Greenblatt/Norton edition (which looks very tempting)? John McWilliams [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Robinson Date: Wednesday, 2 Jul 1997 13:44:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The Birth of Hercules? I have recently heard mention of a supposed lost Shakespeare play called "The Birth of Hercules" does anyone know anything about it? For example I know there are 15th and 16th century references to "Loves Labor's Won" and "Cardenio" but I have never heard of any references to "Hercules." I am not interested in the authorship question, only references to the play itself. "Just the facts ma'am" Many thanks, John V Robinson ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 10:25:51 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0734 Re: Ophelia MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0734. Thursday, 3 July 1997. From: Stuart Manger Date: Wednesday, 2 Jul 1997 18:18:01 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0732 Re: Hamlet's Madness >As for why Ophelia gets such rotten treatment from Hamlet, keep in mind >that he knows she is there to spy on him, and she refuses to admit that >she's working for Polonius and Claudius. Moreover, in her speech to >Hamlet she accuses him of dropping her, which is clearly a lie-she has >refused him for well on two months. Hamlet's rage is perfectly >understandable, just as it is understandable when he corners his mother >later on. Ophelia has betrayed him in deepest trust, and refuses to be >truthful with him. > >As Maximilian Schell pointed out, all she has to say in response to >"where's your father?" is "behind the arras-I'll explain everything >later", and the scene would turn out completely differently. In a nice, reflective Hamlet posting, Andy White makes some pertinent points, but may I reply to a few things about Ophelia? Theatrical practice usually has it that at the end of the 'Get thee to a nunnery' speech, Hamlet THEN becomes aware of the surveillance, and not before. In fact, before the letters are returned he is a model of gallantry, politeness, and reserve, as indeed so is she. I accept that the return of the letters is accompanied by 'so sweet breath' that Hamlet quite correctly smells a rat, OR is deeply bewildered, then angered, then driven as many young people are into affecting nonchalant or icy denial when their deepest feelings are traduced, particularly by one they have apparently committed themselves too - what Andy quite rightly calls, a sense of deep betrayal, here overlaid by baffled incomprehension of her motives. I mean, if she has been cooling for 'two months', then why return the letters at THIS point? If skin has filmed over the ulcer a little in the two months, then H is quite right to wonder if this is not a deliberate ploy to humiliate, or hurt him quite gratuitously? I think Ophelia's nervous retreat into rather stilted, if pretty, courtly language at the start, is from one who knows that this is a deeply distasteful office, and one she knows (from his earlier behaviour to her) could produce scarily unpredictable effects. If she also knows that her king and father are listening, that affairs of state are in question, and if she also knows that she is the bait - the goat tethered to the tree syndrome - then I think her jumpiness is entirely understandable. She hardly manages to get a word in edgeways, and in fact, she DOES signal to Hamlet that she is still in love: 'perfume', 'sweet breath', 'rich gifts' and the plea to him sub-textually not to be 'unkind' (in the 16th century sense - v. important caveat I suspect?) - this language is coded, isn't it? As if to say: 'I return the letters, but read my lips / heart?' I think it is also significant and tragic that at this stage she is already describing relationships / love in images of ephemerality, a passing scent that whispers away into the breeze? The bewildering impermanence of things is already part of her language print here - as we see in the bawdy mad songs , and the flower ritual with Claudius and Gertrude? And, Andy, with respect, young ladies, daughters of the Prime Minister / Chief of Police etc., did NOT in those days disobey father / king in so spectacular fashion as to actually tell him explicitly that she'd explain later! As I try to say above, I think that she is already doing that in the kind of sophisticated poetic language they have already exchanged what she feels, and she hopes he will read things. Her bewildered distress stems from H's apparent wild, tempestuous brushing of her aside, and a total refusal by him to acknowledge any other bond between them than that of breeding and villains crawling. No wonder she exclaims aloud how much of him is 'o'erthrown'? Stuart Manger ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 13:47:32 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0735 Re: Riverside Shakespeare (Norton Shakespeare) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0735. Saturday, 5 July 1997. [1] From: Mike Field Date: Thursday, 3 Jul 1997 09:14:19 -0400 Subj: Riverside [2] From: Tad Davis Date: Thursday, 03 Jul 1997 09:49:29 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0733 Qs: Riverside Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Field Date: Thursday, 3 Jul 1997 09:14:19 -0400 Subject: Riverside I am glad someone brought up the issue of the Riverside Shakespeare, which I recently received as a 40th birthday gift. I sat down with the book in eager anticipation, rifled through the index and then turned to the introduction. What I found were two or three pages of erratum then a page beginning with the Latin numeral II and an opening sentence that begins something like "What is know about his life is..." Confused, I began to wonder if I am missing part I-I'm still wondering, in fact. I thought to go by the college book store and look at their copy, but apparently it's been purchased. No other bookstore I've been to has one in stock. Am I in possession of a misbound volume, or is the new Riverside particularly awkward, ungainly and ill-designed? [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Davis Date: Thursday, 03 Jul 1997 09:49:29 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0733 Qs: Riverside Shakespeare John McWilliams asked about the new Riverside, and said the new Norton edition looks "tempting." I'm an amateur, not a professional scholar, so my criteria may differ. For my purposes, the Norton edition is just about perfect: the notes are clear, concise, and well-arranged, and the general introduction is a goldmine of useful information. The text is that of the Oxford Shakespeare, but with some student-oriented changes: Oldcastle has gone back to being Falstaff, the editorial changes to stage directions are marked with brackets, the Quarto passages in "Hamlet" are added back (indented, and in a different typeface), and THREE versions of Lear are offered: the Quarto and Folio versions on facing pages followed by a new conflated version, all with the same set of notes. It is not a place to go for a discussion of "Pollacks" vs. "pole-axe," but for a handy, readable, one-volume edition, I think it's a wonderful piece of work. Tad Davis voice 215-898-7864 davist@isc.upenn.edu fax 215-898-0386 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 13:55:10 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0736 Re: The Birth of Hercules MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0736. Saturday, 5 July 1997. [1] From: Louis Marder Date: Thursday, 3 Jul 1997 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0733 Qs: The Birth of Hercules [2] From: Alison Findlay Date: Friday, 4 Jul 1997 11:00:00 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0733 Qs: The Birth of Hercules [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Marder Date: Thursday, 3 Jul 1997 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0733 Qs: The Birth of Hercules Dear John Robinson from Louis Marder, avon4@juno.com July 3, 1997. I have a fat folder on The Birth of Hercules. It includes a clipping from Dec. 18, 1972, announcing "German discovers a new Shakespeare play." Although it had been edited before in the early 20th century, the "discoverer" now says it is by W.S. and it is written in his hand. I wrote a review of the whole business in The Shakespeare Newsletter. Alexander Anikst wrote a review and said their was no validity to the arguments. I sent the review to Dieter Schamp, a German dramaturge, the discoverer, who sent me a rejoinder. I have letters, materials in German and Schamp's book William Shakespeare, Die Geburt des Hercules, a German translation of the play, published by Felix Bloch Erben in early 1973, [1 Berlin 12, Hardenbergstrasse 6] It is 87 pages long with a supplementary twenty-one pages of commentary. Schamp also sent me a copy of the magazine Die Deutsche Buhne (Feb.1973) with a one page article featured on the front cover with the blurb, Neuen Shakespeare entdeckt. Schamp's home address in 1974, may lasts note from him was404 Neusss, Annostrasse 29, Germany. This was one of the rockets that light up the Shakespearean sky every so often - like Shall I die, Cardenio, the Elegy. What would Shakespeare scholars do without them? If you send postage, John, I'll send the folder. [1217 Ashland Avenue, Evanston, IL 60202. ] If I had my way, it would already be in the Shakespeare Data Bank which everyone wants but hardly anyone wants to cooperate in doing. Volunteers welcome - always, all subjects. RSVP [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alison Findlay Date: Friday, 4 Jul 1997 11:00:00 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0733 Qs: The Birth of Hercules Dear John Robinson, The Malone Society produced a reprint edition of *The Birth of Hercules* (1604) in 1911, edited by R. Warwick Bond. It makes links between Hercules and Christ - with close references to Luke's account of the angel and the shepherds and Matthew's description of Joseph receiving assurances from God about Mary's chastity. There are also parallels with Heywood's *The Silver Age* My own interest in the play is in its presentation of illegitimacy (Hercules being a figure commonly cited as a heroic model for bastards in the Renaissance). There is a section on this topic, though nothing detailed about the play, in my book *Illegitimate Power: Bastards in Renaissance Drama* (Manchester / St Martins Press, 1994). From what I remember it is quite a lively text - with some interesting cameo roles and comic business involving the servant characters alongside the mythological story line. I hope this is of some help. Best wishes, Alison Findlay Lancaster University ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 14:05:02 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0737 Re: Ophelia; Hamlet; Astrology MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0737. Saturday, 5 July 1997. [1] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 3 Jul 1997 17:33:29 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0734 Re: Ophelia [2] From: Louis Marder Date: Wednesday, 2 Jul 1997 Subj: Re: Hamlet's Madness [3] From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Friday, 4 Jul 1997 15:22:17 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0730 Shakespeare and Astrology [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 3 Jul 1997 17:33:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0734 Re: Ophelia Many thanks, Stuart, for your points. I've frankly held my cards close to my chest, on the Nunnery scene in particular, because I wasn't sure how much was assumed on this list. Apparently, I'll need to go back further in the script to explain my interpretation: When it is says "Hamlet has been sent for", I take it to mean that someone has been sent to tell the Prince that there is someone waiting for him in the lobby. The meeting is not by chance, but "as if by chance". Who does Hamlet expect when he arrives? Certainly not Ophelia. Claudius, Polonius, perhaps, more estranged friends from Wittenburg, but definitely not her. As for the chronology, I go by Ophelia's remark in the play scene that it has been "twice two months" since the King's death, which puts it at least 2 months after the events in Act I. Hamlet's wordless confrontation comes the day before the Nunnery scene, so far as I can tell; so that means Hamlet has been playing madness, and by coincidence been cut off from Ophelia for at least that long. A good director's question for Ophelia is this: are her lines to Hamlet her own, or entirely from the pen of her father? You rightly point out that Ophelia would never disobey her father-that is, in my opinion, her tragic flaw, her love and trust for her father even when none is warranted. My personal take is that none of those words are hers; "rich gifts wax poor" sounding to me too much like a Polonian one-liner, along the lines of his advice to Laertes. In conclusion: After two months of returning his letters, denying access to her person, and refusing to even speak to him when he breaks into her sewing room, suddenly Hamlet finds Ophelia not only available to his presence, but telling him that he has been "unkind" to her. No matter how flowery this speech of Ophelia's is interpretee, she is accusing him of unkindness when clearly it is the other way around. At least Hamlet is smart enough to know that her father is behind all this, hence his reference to him as a "fishmonger"-i.e., pimp, before. He says "Soft you now"-correct me if I'm wrong, but I take this to mean that he's stopped in his train of thought, and says 'wait a minute, Ophelia?'. And his "well, well, well", registers supreme surprise that she is suddenly so solicitous of his health and well-being. The response to her gift of old letters is short and telling-"ha". He is laughing, in the sort of shocked, nervous way one does when something completely astounding has occurred. I've already gone on too long, here. my apologies to the list, but this has clearly been an obsession of mine for a while. Cheers, Andy White (trying to type with inquisitive 4-month-old in lap) [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Marder Date: Wednesday, 2 Jul 1997 Subject: Re: Hamlet's Madness Hamlet's needed proof: If what follows here has been written anywhere, I either haven't seen it or have forgotten it. But I don't think I would have forgotten such an unusual statement: So much is made of Ophelia and Hamlet's realizing that she is in on the plot against him: Hamlet appears in the background and overhears the plotting of Polonius and Claudius. It occurs to me that a director of the play at 4.3.33 might have Hamlet come in as Claudius is confessing his sins and thus have the auditory truth of his father's murder. In any case, Shakespeare almost always let's the audience in on the true state of affairs before the protagonist knows. While writing about unusual ideas in Hamlet, let me say that in my classes when discussing Hamlet's hesitation I would give a couple of dozen possibilities and then after a lot of discussion as to which is right I would say that none of them are. The only reason Hamlet doesn't act after the Ghost gives him the evidence is that if Hamlet killed him shortly thereafter, the play would be over in the middle of the third act which would have transferred the tragedy to the box office - the audience expected a five act play, not three and a half acts. But then I would throw out the final possibility - Hamlet know of his mother's apparent infidelity. How long has it been going on? Can Hamlet be thinking that Claudius might be his true father? Hamlet might be hesitating because he was thinking that he could be killing his true father, There are ironies which I will not discuss such as the damnable Ghost getting his revenge in an unusual manner. Y'all can put this in your pipe, but you don't have to smoke it - or me. I'd use any idea in class if I could generate a closer reading of the play. Louis Marder, avon4@juno.com [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Friday, 4 Jul 1997 15:22:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0730 Shakespeare and Astrology Re: the posting on the influence of astrology upon Shakespeare: The fault, dear Brutus... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 14:12:04 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0738 Ado in Minneapolis; Spanish Tragedy; Satellites MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0738. Saturday, 5 July 1997. [1] From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Thursday, 3 Jul 1997 11:27:26 CST6CDT Subj: Much Ado in Minneapolis [2] From: Steve Neville Date: Thursday, 3 Jul 1997 15:15:59 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Kyd's _The Spanish Tragedy_ at The Swan Theatre [3] From: Michiko Suematsu Date: Friday, 4 Jul 1997 10:46:15 +0900 Subj: Satellites with Names from Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Thursday, 3 Jul 1997 11:27:26 CST6CDT Subject: Much Ado in Minneapolis Dear fellow Shakespeareans: Anyone visiting the Twin Cities of Minneapolis-St. Paul between now and August 2 is invited to the Shakespeare in the Park production of _Much Ado About Nothing_. I am making my debut as a dramaturg on this show, and it has been a great deal of fun. The show opens this weekend and plays in various Minneapolis parks over the next five weeks. For more information, please e-mail me at gordo003@maroon.tc.umn.edu. --Chris Gordon [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Neville Date: Thursday, 3 Jul 1997 15:15:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Kyd's _The Spanish Tragedy_ at The Swan Theatre I have just returned from seeing the RSC production of Thomas Kyd's _The Spanish Tragedy_ at The Swan Theatre, Stratford-on-Avon. It's a bloodbath. It is also, I think. one of the most engrossing plays that I have ever seen. I heartily recommend it. Regards Steve Neville sjnevil@aol.com [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michiko Suematsu Date: Friday, 4 Jul 1997 10:46:15 +0900 Subject: Satellites with Names from Shakespeare By coincidence, I've recently found out that the satellites of Uranus are named after Shakespeare's characters and become curious. The oldest of them were named Oberon and Titania by a British astronomer Sir William Herschel in 1787, and even in this century, names like Cordelia and Ophelia have been added to the list. Does anyone know how they came to be named after Shakespeare's characters? I will appreciate any information. Michiko Suematsu Faculty of Social &Information Studies Gunma University sue@si.gunma-u.ac.jp ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 06:42:53 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0739 Stratford, Ont. Season MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0739. Monday, 7 July 1997. From: David Evett Date: Sunday, 6 July 1997 1:27pm ET Subject: Stratford, Ont. Season A brief report on this year's work at the Stratford Festival. The Festival Theater has been renovated. Inside the house the work is welcome-new and extremely comfortable seats with increased leg-room. Women in particular will applaud much enhanced restrooms. But the decor of the reconstructed lobby area would suit a suburban office building better than one of the world's great theaters. The season is one of the best in years, I think. I urge everybody who can get there to see the electrifying *Coriolanus* directed by Richard Rose, which kept me and the rest of the audience on the edge of our seats from beginning to end. Tom McCamus, slim and quick as a cavalry saber, tears into Volscians and plebeians with the same wolfish pleasure, and the scene with Martha Henry as a superbly elegant Volumnia is worth the trip all by itself. Rose also directs a witty, warm *Shrew,* set in the Little Italy of New Padua (New York, that is) around 1960; everybody has a slight Italian accent and a hot temper. In such a setting, patriarchal machismo goes without saying, and the decision to cast Peter Donaldson, a capable comic actor without a lot of presence, as Petruchio, makes it relatively easy for Lucy Peacock's Katherina to hang onto her sense of self-worth. John Wood directs Steven Ouimette as Richard III striving to humanize the warped usurper; the text won't support the enterprise, but it's interesting, and the women are all terrific. A straightforward, heavily cut *Romeo and Juliet* is the weakest of this year's Shakespeares. Henry pairs with Al Waxman as Willy in a production of *Death of a Salesman* that gripped and moved me as no others I have seen; we wondered if Canadian distance from the Great American Tragedy freed them from the reverential treatment of play and protagonist that so often muffles the play's anger and flair. And there's wonderful pace and ensemble playing in a deeply moving revival of *Juno and the Paycock.* On a more popular note that anygood musical *Camelot* gets a very good production; emphasis on character and music over dancing makes it more suitable for the Festival Theatre thrust than most of the things they've tried there. The Old Prune remains our favorite place to eat in this part of the world, and the swans still cruise the lake. Get there if you can. Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 06:53:25 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0740 World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0740. Monday, 7 July 1997. From: Jim Harner Date: Sunday, 6 Jul 1997 20:39:28 -0500 (CDT) Subject: World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM I'm pleased to report that the World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM has been awarded the Besterman Medal, given by the Library Association (UK) for the year's outstanding bibliography. Mark Fisher, the new minister for the arts, presented the medal at a reception in London on 17 June. More than 100 works were nominated for the Medal, the first time it has been awarded to an electronic publication. Full details are available at the World Shakespeare Bibliography website: http://www-english.tamu.edu/wsb Jim Harner ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 06:57:49 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0741 Musical Question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0741. Monday, 7 July 1997. From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Sunday, 6 Jul 1997 19:57:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Musical Question Unrelated to Shakespeare but depending upon readership's inevitable musical literacy: does anyone know the actual opus key other identifying info of Beethoven's Quarten in the Lydian Mode? Thanks in advance, hr greenberg========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 07:17:42 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0742 SHAKSPER Delay MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0742. Monday, 9 July 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, July 9, 1997 Subject: SHAKSPER Delay Dear SHAKSPEReans, I have had some minor technical problems that have completely occupied me for the past two days. I will be catching up on the recently submitted messages tomorrow. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 13:14:26 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0743 Re: Musical Question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0743. Thursday, 10 July 1997. [1] From: David Lucking Date: Monday, 07 Jul 1997 17:03:27 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0741 Musical Question [2] From: Margaret H. Dupuis Date: Monday, 07 Jul 1997 14:36:06 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0741 Musical Question [3] From: Stephan B. Paragon Date: Tuesday, 8 Jul 1997 01:00:42 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0741 Musical Question [4] From: Hiroyuki Todokoro Date: Tuesday, 08 Jul 1997 14:50:47 +0900 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0741 Musical Question [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lucking Date: Monday, 07 Jul 1997 17:03:27 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0741 Musical Question I presume you refer to Beethoven's Opus 132 in A minor, the third movement of which (entitled "thanksgiving on recovery from illness") is written in the Lydian tonality (F major without B flat). The quartet has a certain relevance to literature, since it almost certainly influenced T. S. Eliot (who mentions it in a letter to Stephen Spender), while if I remember correctly the third movement provides the musical accompaniment to Spandrell's death in Huxley's "Point Counter Point". [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret H. Dupuis Date: Monday, 07 Jul 1997 14:36:06 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0741 Musical Question To H.R. Greenberg, You are looking for Beethoven's String Quartet in A minor, op. 132 ("Song of Praise to God in the Lydian Mode"). Actually, it is only the slow movement that is written in Lydian Mode. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephan B. Paragon Date: Tuesday, 8 Jul 1997 01:00:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0741 Musical Question E flat Major. [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hiroyuki Todokoro Date: Tuesday, 08 Jul 1997 14:50:47 +0900 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0741 Musical Question 3rd Movement of Beethoven's Quartet No15 in A minor, Opus 132, is composed in the Lydian mode. Is this what you wanted to know? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 13:46:52 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0744 Re: Riverside and Norton Shakespeares MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0744. Thursday, 10 July 1997. [1] From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, 10 Jul 1997 13:47:33 +0900 Subj: Norton Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, 10 Jul 1997 13:47:33 +0900 Subject: Norton Shakespeare Dear members, I want to order a copy of Norton Shakespeare. Please let me know the editor's name and the full title. Thank you. Best wishes, Todok. [Editor's Note: Greenblatt, Stephen, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, and Katherine Eisaman Maus, eds. *The Norton Shakespeare: Based on the Oxford Edition. With an essay on the Shakespearean stage by Andrew Gurr.* New York: Norton, 1997.] ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 13:51:37 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0745 Re: WSB on CD-ROM; Stratford Season MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0745. Thursday, 10 July 1997. [1] From: Tom Clayton Date: Monday, 7 Jul 1997 14:28:57 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0740 World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM [2] From: Laura Fargas Date: Monday, 7 Jul 1997 15:07:30 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0739 Stratford, Ont. Season [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Clayton Date: Monday, 7 Jul 1997 14:28:57 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0740 World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM Heartiest congratulations, Jim. *Well* earned, and richly deserved. Tom [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laura Fargas Date: Monday, 7 Jul 1997 15:07:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0739 Stratford, Ont. Season Does anyone have a souvenir program from the 1994 Stratford season that he or she could part with or at least xerox? The Theater Store says it has sold out. Please let me know by private e-mail. Laura Fargas LF@cais.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 14:02:47 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0746 Various Re: Hamlet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0746. Thursday, 10 July 1997. [1] From: Chris Clark Date: Wednesday, 9 Jul 1997 17:00:43 -0400 Subj: Madness of Hamlet [2] From: Chris Clark Date: Wednesday, 9 Jul 1997 17:00:47 -0400 Subj: To Be Or Not To Be? Let Be [3] From: Chris Clark Date: Wednesday, 9 Jul 1997 17:00:51 -0400 Subj: Ophelia's 'Pregnancy?' [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Clark Date: Wednesday, 9 Jul 1997 17:00:43 -0400 Subject: Madness of Hamlet > As for why Ophelia gets such rotten treatment from Hamlet, keep in mind > that he knows she is there to spy on him, and she refuses to admit that > she's working for Polonius and Claudius. This is conjecture surely? I know that Dover Wilson reckons that there's an Enter Hamlet during the planning of the loosing of Ophelia, but we can't really be sure that that's what was intended (can we?), though I agree that it probably WAS the case... if there's some proof for this argument beyond Dover Wilson, then it would be tres useful for the argument I'm taking. Also, if, as I believe, Hamlet is sane and suffering from melancholy separately from his antic disposition, then what is Hamlet doing blaming the murder of Polonius on 'madness' in the confrontation with Laertes? Is he lying through necessity [and having been corrupted by all the evil around him], or being polite? I suspect it's more just keeping up the claim of madness, and to show that he has finally realised that to make his way he cannot just take the path of virtue all the time... Chris [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Clark Date: Wednesday, 9 Jul 1997 17:00:47 -0400 Subject: To Be Or Not To Be? Let Be In my edition of Hamlet (Arden, based on Q2), Jenkins writes in the notes that 'Let be' in Hamlet's dialogue with Horatio just before the beginning of the duel has been 'wrongly' viewed as a continuation of the observations about 'readiness is all' and that it is *not* the answer to 'To be or not to be.' The thing is, that this theory does seem compellingly likely to me. The more I consider it, the more it makes sense, because it ties in with his character and the delay, showing that it is this whole point of view that is the fatal flaw (I like this) or alternatively that fate rules and there is no point in resisting (but this is possible)... What do you guys think of this interpretation? Chris [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Clark Date: Wednesday, 9 Jul 1997 17:00:51 -0400 Subject: Ophelia's 'Pregnancy?' I have in many places seen the theory that Ophelia is pregnant. The *idea* that she and Hamlet might have had relations of that kind does not strike me as particularly feasible... surely all the stuff about whores and fishmongers etc is aimed at Polonius and women in general because of the actions of Gertrude which have tainted Hamlet's mind, rather than any basis in fact? The graphic depiction of at least some form of intimacy that I saw in Branagh's Hamlet disappointed me, because the relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia is one thing that I interpret as something pure and beautiful, wrecked by the actions of the older generation... [which links in nicely with the view of the old that was expressed in Lear, no? Surely this shows that if the old did not act so irresponsibly, the young would have no problems] the view that the whore-images have any basis in fact disgusts me... yes, I'm quite willing to accept the language is there - loosing, horse and carters, remove the violet... set a blister, conceive, nunnery, etc - and yet why speak of 'honourable fashion' etc if it were not so? [okay, to get away with it, obviously...] I'm interested in seeing views on both sides of this, as I really do want to see how people can back this up... Some might argue that in religious drama (as which Hamlet can easily be interpreted) only the guilty are punished, leaving Ophelia open to some crime [the implication of which would be obvious], but I view this play as a tragedy, and am intrigued by the parallels between Hamlet, Laertes & Fortinbras [Holy Trinity to bring religion in again?] and Hamlet and Ophelia [the madness contrast, the dispriz'd love, etc...] Just a few theories I felt the need to expound. Thanks very much. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 11:46:41 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0747 Re: New Riverside Edition MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0747. Friday, 11 July 1997. From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Thursday, 10 Jul 97 18:00:00 PDT Subject: Riverside Edition A further update on the Riverside mis-printings that I thought might be of interest. Yankee Book Pedlar, one of the largest vendors of modern books to libraries in this country, reports that after our alert, they checked part of their current stock of the Riversides and all the ones they checked were defective! They say, further, "It sounds like the book had a second print run that went awry, and the publisher may need to recall all the copies shipped against that second print run. . . I would hope they would at least provide some kind of errata sheet, if they don't reprint." But just think of the irony, SHAKSPERIANS! Many of us spend weeks tracking down printing variations in 16th century editions when we can have our very own in 1997! Georgianna Ziegler Folger Library ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 11:57:54 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0748 CFP: South Central Renaissance Conference MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0748. Friday, 11 July 1997. From: John Ford Date: Thursday, 10 Jul 1997 13:58:24 -0500 (CDT) Subject: South Central Renaissance Conference (April 2-4, 1998) Call for papers: South Central Renaissance Conference (SCRC) in Waco, Texas April 2-4, 1998. Keynote Speaker: David Bergeron Papers are invited in any area of Renaissance studies: art history, music, literature, language, philosophy, science, theology, history, etc. Interdisciplinary studies are also welcome. Papers are also invited for any of the following special sessions: Text and Tone: Reading Renaissance Music The Renaissance in the New World Renaissance Apocalypses Images of the Artist in Renaissance Art and Literature 1598: A Wonderful Year What is an Emblem? Dante's Illustrations for *The Divine Comedy* When Art Becomes Science, Science Art: Leonardo and Others Attitudes towards Music and Musicians Albrecht Durer Patronage Systems in Renaissance Italy Mannerism European Influences on Other Cultures in Music and Art Program participants will be expected to join the SCRC; participants will also be encouraged to submit publication-length versions of their papers to *Explorations in Renaissance Culture*, a scholarly journal sponsored by the SCRC. DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSIONS: DECEMBER 31, 1997 Completed conference papers must be submitted in triplicate and must include SASE and 100-word abstract. Submitted papers are limited to 20 minutes reading time (8-10 pages). Please mail submissions to: John R. Ford SCRC Program Chair Division of Languages and Literature Delta State University Cleveland, MS 38733 Inquiries can be made by phone (work: 601-846-4108; home: 601-843-1461) or e-mail (jford@dsu.deltast.edu). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 12:03:41 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0749 A Marketing Slogan for Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0749. Friday, 11 July 1997. From: Tad Davis Date: Thursday, 10 Jul 1997 16:02:28 -0400 Subject: A Marketing Slogan for Shakespeare My kids and I recently saw both the "Hamlet" and "Twelfth Night" films, and Shakespeare was a topic of dinner-table conversation. We decided that Will needs a marketing slogan, the kind of zinger that instantly answers the question "Why?". Our suggestion: "SHAKESPEARE: because he's a better writer than you are." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 12:06:20 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0750 Re: Various Re: Hamlet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0750. Friday, 11 July 1997. From: Ron Ward Date: Friday, 11 Jul 1997 15:21:22 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0746 Various Re: Hamlet In the various discussions on Hamlet's feigned or real madness no one has attempted to classify it as legal or clinical madness. Not terribly relevant to S, to whom such a distinction would probably be meaningless; the McNaughton rules being some centuries away. However, Macbeth defined it in a way that one eminent psychologist (Eysenik I think) thought was helpful. Perhaps some one could quote the exact reference but it went something like "Madness! why tis nothing but to be mad" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 14:00:26 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0751 Re: Various Re: Hamlet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0751. Monday, 14 July 1997. [1] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Friday, 11 Jul 1997 13:21:31 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0746 Various Re: Hamlet [2] From: Nick Clary Date: Monday, 14 Jul 1997 11:31:46 -0400 Subj: SHK 8.0750 Re: Various Re: Hamlet [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Friday, 11 Jul 1997 13:21:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0746 Various Re: Hamlet As for the question of how Hamlet knows Polonius has been keeping Ophelia from him, the evidence is not direct but is implied pretty strongly. Hamlet knows Ophelia well enough to know that she is not refusing his letters/presence of her own volition. Her father would be by far the most natural culprit. Referring to him as a "fishmonger", i.e. pimp, may simply refer to the fact that Polonius is keeping the door to his household shut, and is taking charge of Ophelia as if he were her pimp. He doesn't have to know about the plot until he comes into the Lobby and, instead of Claudius or Gertrude, finds Ophelia just walking around as if nothing were unusual about her free and open presence in the castle. The very fact that she's suddenly there to be seen and spoken with, is evidence enough of a plot. Hence his "soft you now", which indicates surprise at seeing her-"soft" meaning "wait a minute", in this context. As for the "madness" that Hamlet pleads in his apology to Laertes, I would agree with those who say that S. didn't make too many fine distinctions. The madness here referred to is his impulse, under the stress of stalking his father's killer and finding yet another spy in his midst. One more Director's question: does Hamlet really think Claudius is in Gertrude's room, behind the arras? He's just left him behind in the chapel (which, at Elsinore, is near a spiral staircase leading to the Queen's chambers, I believe) and I've always wondered whether this meant his remarks after stabbing Polonius were meant as sarcasm. Any takers on that one? Andy White Arlington, VA [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Clary Date: Monday, 14 Jul 1997 11:31:46 -0400 Subject: SHK 8.0750 Re: Various Re: Hamlet With regard to Hamlet's madness, I thought I'd share a little something I came across recently. In 1824, George Farren published a pair of articles for The London Magazine (April and May) on the madness of Hamlet and the madness of Ophelia, respectively. A third article "On the Soliloquy To Be or Not to Be'" appeared in June; it's emphasis on Hamlet's state of mind. In his analysis of Hamlet, Farren refers to "Dr. Mason Good's "The Study of Medicine," treating of "Ecphronia Melancholia" (vol.iii. p.81), which, as Farren points out, was Johnson's acknowledged authority for his remarks on "Melancholia Attonita." In general, Farren's studies set out the differences between Hamlet's mental state and Ophelia's: the former suffering a disorder in which an unstable condition of mind vacillates between reason and the irrational, and the latter suffering "a trauma after which her speech and behaviour betray characteristics of legal insanity." Farren subsequently published condensed versions of these essays in a book entitled Observations on the Laws of Mortality, and on the Principles of Life Insurance with an Appendix, containing illustrations of the Progress of Mania, Melancholia, Craziness, and Demonomania, as displayed in Shakespeare's Characters of Lear, Hamlet, Ophelia, and Edgar. London: Dean and Munday, Threadneedle-Street, 1829. Cheers, Nick Clary ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 14:03:12 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0752 Re: A Marketing Slogan for Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0752. Monday, 14 July 1997. From: Ben Schneider Date: Friday, 11 Jul 1997 11:56:14 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0749 A Marketing Slogan for Shakespeare Perfect, Tad. "And no senior should leave college without him." I refer to the fact that Shakespeare is now not required for English major in 70% of the most prestigious universities in the US. Yours ever BEN ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 14:10:46 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0753 Various Announcements MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0753. Monday, 14 July 1997. [1] From: Edward J. Esche Date: Saturday, 12 Jul 1997 14:03:08 +0100 Subj: Scaena: Shakespeare and his Contemporaries in Performance Conference [2] From: Greg Crane Date: Friday, 11 Jul 1997 12:18:16 -0400 Subj: First Release of a Marlowe Site [3] From: Ramapo Summer Shakespeare Date: Saturday, 12 Jul 1997 01:09:14 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Ramapo College Summer Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward J. Esche Date: Saturday, 12 Jul 1997 14:03:08 +0100 Subject: Scaena: Shakespeare and his Contemporaries in Performance Conference 'SCAENA: Shakespeare and his Contemporaries in Performance' international conference at St. John's College, Cambridge, 13-15 August 1997. Speakers include Dennis Kennedy, Peter Holland, Stephen Orgel, Andrew Gurr, Kate McLuskie, H.R. Coursen, Dominique Goy-Blanquet and Ralph Berry. The full fee for the three day conference is 300 pounds (including full room and board at St. John's). The non-resident fee (excluding room and board) is 120 pounds. The single day fee is 100 pounds. There are concessions available for postgraduate students: 150 pounds for the full fee. Our Web site address is http://bridge.anglia.ac.uk/hums/scaena/ Please address all correspondence to Edward J. Esche at eesche@bridge.anglia.ac.uk [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Greg Crane Date: Friday, 11 Jul 1997 12:18:16 -0400 Subject: First Release of a Marlowe Site The Perseus Project at Tufts University is pleased to announce the first release of the electronic version of Christopher Marlowe's Complete Works on the World-Wide Web at: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Texts/Marlowe.html In addition to increasing readership of Marlowe's plays, poetry and translations, our aim here has been to explore the potential electronic publication can provide for sophisticated scholarly research. We have begun by working with Doctor Faustus largely because of its complex textual history. This site provides multiple options for viewing both Doctor Faustus and its primary source, the 1592 version of The English Faust Book. In the next few weeks, we will be releasing Marlowe's other works as part of this Marlowe website. This site provides users with the capacity to view the original 1604 text, known as the A text, as well as the original 1616 text, the B text, alongside modernized versions of each. In addition, the site displays the links between the A and B texts side by side for comparison. The source text, The English Faust Book, is entered in its entirety and can be viewed as such, or it can be viewed alongside the A or B text where similar portions of each have been linked to one another. You will also find scholarly notes and glosses in the form of hypertextual links in the English Faust Book. Eventually, a modernized version of the source text will be entered as well. In addition, the textual variants for Doctor Faustus and for all of Marlowe's other works will be entered, allowing users to select which variant version of either the A or B text or of the various historical collations they would like to read from. We would love to hear what you think about our first release. Please send questions and comments to webmaster@perseus.tufts.edu. Visit the main Perseus Project page at: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/ [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ramapo Summer Shakespeare Date: Saturday, 12 Jul 1997 01:09:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Ramapo College Summer Shakespeare Ramapo College Summer Shakespeare presents "The Merry Wives of Windsor." Performance Dates: July 12-13, 18-20, 25-27; 6:00 PM. On the Mansoin Lawn. Admission is FREE. Ramapo Summer Shakespeare ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 14:16:09 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0754 Qs: Stewart as Othello; Yale Collected Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0754. Monday, 14 July 1997. [1] From: Selena Thomason Date: Saturday, 12 Jul 1997 12:00:33 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Patrick Stewart as Othello [2] From: Jason Goldsmith Date: Monday, 14 Jul 1997 13:28:04 -0400 Subj: The Yale Collected Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Selena Thomason Date: Saturday, 12 Jul 1997 12:00:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Patrick Stewart as Othello The Shakespeare Theatre in Washington DC recently announced their 1997-98 season. Among the shows is an unusual production of Othello starring Patrick Stewart in the title role. (For those who don't know PS, he was a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company for many years before gaining fame and fortune as Star Trek's Captain Jean-Luc Picard. He's an unusual choice for the role of Othello because he is white. Othello is scripted as a Moor and his "blackness" is often referred to in the text.) The concept of the production is to explore the theme of "otherness" by casting all the remaining roles with African-American actors. This preserves Othello's status as "other." I'm soliciting opinions on this. As a proponent of non-traditional casting, I'm find the concept fascinating, but fraught with both problems and possibilities. What do you think? Do you think it'll work? Is it true to Shakespeare's vision? (Does that matter?) Is it a bold re-imagining of the text or just a gimmick? Is it a victory for non-traditional casting or just a way to give Stewart a chance to play a role he wouldn't normally have access to? Any and all opinions are welcome. Also, does anyone know of other unusual castings of Othello? I look forward to your comments. Selena PS - for more info on the Shakespeare Theatre, check out the web page at ShakespeareDC.org. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jason Goldsmith Date: Monday, 14 Jul 1997 13:28:04 -0400 Subject: The Yale Collected Shakespeare I was just wondering what the consensus is concerning the Yale collected works of Shakespeare . . . I know there has been some discussion regarding other editions, but I want to know how the Yale stacks up [no pun intended] What are its strong and weak points? Best Regards, Jason Goldsmith========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 06:22:55 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0755 Re: Patrick Stewart as Othello MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0755. Tuesday, 15 July 1997. [1] From: Amy S. Green Date: Monday, 14 Jul 97 15:32:33 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0754 Qs: Stewart as Othello [2] From: Milla Riggio Date: Monday, 14 Jul 1997 16:57:19 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0754 Q: Stewart as Othello [3] From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Monday, 14 Jul 1997 16:39:16 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0754 Qs: Stewart as Othello [4] From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Tuesday, 15 Jul 1997 00:58:40 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0754 Q: Stewart as Othello [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amy S. Green Date: Monday, 14 Jul 97 15:32:33 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0754 Qs: Stewart as Othello Re Patrick Stewart as Othello: I agree that it's an interesting choice, and I imagine it's major motive is indeed to find a way to let this fine actor have a crack at the role without offending the rest of Western Civilization. Whether or not it works as more than a gimmick is to be seen. The best conceptualizations rely almost entirely on the care, quality, and creativity of the execution rather than the original bright idea. Will audiences be confused by the many references to Othello's "blackness" or will the convention supersede the literal are questions that are impossible to answer in advance. That's why it's so important for such experiments to find their way to production. I'll be watching . . . Meanwhile, The Acting Company toured an Othello a couple of years ago with a black Iago and Emilia, which was extremely successful. Black-on-black racism became a very contemporary and potent sub-theme. I saw the production with my students at a Brooklyn Community College, and they were wholly taken with the choice. Black self-hatred, the idiocy of skin-tone as defining characteristic, etc., became topics for discussion and written responses. I'm pretty sure the rest of the cast was white, although I may be forgetting a more generally mixed group. Either way, the acting was superb and the production values quite beautiful. I recall jewel-toned costumes in Venice and a Cyprus of nearly blinding whites and blues. Best from sweltering NYC, Amy S. Green [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Monday, 14 Jul 1997 16:57:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0754 Q: Stewart as Othello One note about Patrick Stewart as Othello; it's probably true that it would be difficult for Stewart to play this role now, but the implication that Othello has historically been played primarily by African-descended actors is, of course, not true: Olivier, Orson Welles, Anthony Hopkins....[you fill in the rest]. Just for historical clarity. Milla Riggio [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Monday, 14 Jul 1997 16:39:16 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0754 Qs: Stewart as Othello I must say that I find the whole idea of the "Othello" reversal quite interesting, and am looking forward to both hearing the reaction as well as seeing it for myself. I TA'd with someone whose Masters project was to do exactly what you're referring to, and needless to say, he was very disappointed to find out that he didn't think of it first. Has anyone read author Dympna Callaghan's "Othello was a white man: Properties of race on Shakespeare's stage," in Terence Hawks, "Alternative Shakespeares vol 2?" What did you think? JoAnna [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Tuesday, 15 Jul 1997 00:58:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0754 Q: Stewart as Othello As I recall, Stewart has done an excellent Iago, see no reason why he couldn't be at least a serviceable Othello. Why all the fuss about a white actor playing the part, or am I missing some politically correct point here? Olivier played the Moor in blackface, and was, as I recall, more than a bit over the top. Think Stewart should be fine, although not great. hr greenberg md ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 06:26:25 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0756 Re: First Release of a Marlowe Site MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0756. Tuesday, 15 July 1997. From: Karen Krebser Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 11:54:12 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0753 Various Announcements > [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Greg Crane > Date: Friday, 11 Jul 1997 12:18:16 -0400 > Subject: First Release of a Marlowe Site > > The Perseus Project at Tufts University is pleased to announce the first > release of the electronic version of Christopher Marlowe's Complete > Works on the World-Wide Web at: > > http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Texts/Marlowe.html Oh, THANK GOD! I've been waiting for something like this since I was a web-ling and Mosaic was the browser of choice.... Bless you, Perseus Project at Tufts University!!! Karen Krebser PS. I'm also a long-time fan of the Perseus Art and Archaeology page athttp://www.perseus.tufts.edu/art&arch.html . Sublime. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 06:30:47 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0757 Re: Various Hamlet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0757. Tuesday, 15 July 1997. [1] From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Tuesday, 15 Jul 1997 00:55:02 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0750 Re: Various Re: Hamlet [2] From: Melissa Aaron Date: Monday, 14 Jul 1997 23:47:00 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0751 Re: Various Re: Hamlet [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Tuesday, 15 Jul 1997 00:55:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0750 Re: Various Re: Hamlet Actually, a fair amount has been written from a clinical viewpoint about Hamlet's "Diagnosis". Predictably, he has been said to suffer from every ailment from bipolar (manic depressive) disorder to multiple personality disorder. I don't have references at hand, but the work for the most part is of negligible lit/crit value. Harvey Roy Greenberg md [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Monday, 14 Jul 1997 23:47:00 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0751 Re: Various Re: Hamlet >One more Director's question: does Hamlet really think Claudius is in >Gertrude's room, behind the arras? He's just left him behind in the >chapel (which, at Elsinore, is near a spiral staircase leading to the >Queen's chambers, I believe) and I've always wondered whether this meant >his remarks after stabbing Polonius were meant as sarcasm. > >Any takers on that one? >Andy White >Arlington, V Yes. Hamlet says of Polonius "I took thee for thy better" and I don't think that's sarcastic. Melissa Aaron Madison WI ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 08:52:10 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0758 Re: Patrick Stewart as Othello MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0758. Wednesday, 16 July 1997. [1] From: Kate Maurer Date: Tuesday, 15 Jul 1997 09:45:38 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0755 Re: Patrick Stewart as Othello [2] From: Lars Engle Date: Tuesday, 15 Jul 1997 12:03:26 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Patrick Stewart's Othello [3] From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 15 Jul 1997 10:25:27 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0754 Qs: Stewart as Othello [4] From: Eric Salehi Date: Tuesday, 15 Jul 1997 22:15:51 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Patrick Stewart as Othello [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kate Maurer Date: Tuesday, 15 Jul 1997 09:45:38 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0755 Re: Patrick Stewart as Othello On the subject of Patrick Stewart as Othello-if Lorne Greene (of Bonanza fame) can do it (CBC Production, 1952), certainly Patrick Stewart can! Kate [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lars Engle Date: Tuesday, 15 Jul 1997 12:03:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Patrick Stewart's Othello Does anyone besides me think Patrick Stewart strikingly resembles Michael Jordan? [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 15 Jul 1997 10:25:27 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0754 Qs: Stewart as Othello Thanks, Selena, for letting us all know about the upcoming Patrick Stewart Othello. I literally trembled with excitement reading about it! For months now, I've been boring friends with how such a race-reversed casting could be worthwhile. For one thing, I think it makes those of us in the audience who are white a bit more aware of the racial issues. It certainly defamiliarizes them, and if we have an easier time sympathizing with a white hero, it provides an insight into living as a minority member in a racist world. Cheers, Sean. [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Salehi Date: Tuesday, 15 Jul 1997 22:15:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Patrick Stewart as Othello Like Selena Thomason I am intrigued by the notion of a white Othello in a black Venice. I saw Stewart in George Wolfe's NYPT production of _The Tempest_ two years ago, and while I was initially skeptical about Wolfe's bluntly post-colonial spin, I came away feeling that the whole thing really worked. However, _Othello_ may be a different matter. I've always felt that it's important to allow the possibility (now largely considered passe) that Othello is North African, and therefore not "black" in a conventional sense. Certainly the Elizabethans used the term much more broadly than we do, and several actors, including Olivier and Welles, have been criticized for preoccupying themselves with the task of capturing the character's complexion. In this respect the casting of Stewart as a "white" Othello might work very well. But I also agree that the textual references to the character's "blackness" might sound strange coming from actors whose complexion is generally darker than Stewart's. Maybe one way to preserve and enhance Othello's "otherness" is to change all of the black references to metrically equivalent pejoratives of whiteness: "pale," "bleach'd," etc. Who's tupping whose ewe? -- Eric Salehi ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 09:18:29 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0759 Re: Various Hamlet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0759. Wednesday, 16 July 1997. [1] From: Peter T. Hadorn Date: Tuesday, 15 Jul 1997 10:37:52 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0757 Re: Various Hamlet [2] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 15 Jul 1997 12:11:08 -0400 Subj: SHK 8.0757 Re: Various Hamlet [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter T. Hadorn Date: Tuesday, 15 Jul 1997 10:37:52 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0757 Re: Various Hamlet Regarding Andy White's question (following): >>One more Director's question: does Hamlet really think Claudius is in >>Gertrude's room, behind the arras? He's just left him behind in the >>chapel (which, at Elsinore, is near a spiral staircase leading to the >>Queen's chambers, I believe) and I've always wondered whether this meant >>his remarks after stabbing Polonius were meant as sarcasm. >> >>Any takers on that one? For me this has been one of the critical moments in the play. Throughout, Hamlet's problem has been that he over thinks everything. This is the one moment in the play that he doesn't think: he acts impulsively. When Gertrude asks him what he has done he replies, "Nay, I know not. Is it the king?" I think this is devastating. Further, it is this moment that sets the rest of the tragedy in motion (along with NOT killing Claudius in the previous scene). It also recalls the earlier scene when he admires Horatio for not being passion's slave. For Hamlet, to be human is to rationalize (Hamlet as Humanist). This moment casts a shadow on that notion. Peter T. Hadorn U of Wisconsin-Platteville [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 15 Jul 1997 12:11:08 -0400 Subject: SHK 8.0757 Re: Various Hamlet People think. Hamlet doesn't. It's called art. T. Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 09:28:17 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0760 The Can of Worms: Characters MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0760. Wednesday, 16 July 1997. From: Milla Riggio Date: Tuesday, 15 Jul 1997 09:04:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0757 Re: Various Hamlet Oh well: Let's open up the can of worms. I would like to ask for a list of comments made in Shakespearean plays by characters which are deceptive, when the audience does not know about the deception and the ONLY way to determine such deception is an otherwise unsignified internal motivation (such as the "sarcasm" assumed here). One can play lines any way one chooses, of course; these plays are now "owned" by actors, directors, readers, - US and all our kin. We can make of them what we will. But a reading like the one below presumes some "textual" foundation for the assumption that Hamlet intentionally killed Polonius; that "textual" authority is in this case the application of a modern concept of continuity (Hamlet has just left Claudius; this cannot be Claudius. WHY NOT?) Milla Riggio > The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0757. Tuesday, 15 July 1997. > [2]------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Melissa Aaron > Date: Monday, 14 Jul 1997 23:47:00 -0600 > Subject: Re: SHK 8.0751 Re: Various Re: Hamlet > > >One more Director's question: does Hamlet really think Claudius is in > >Gertrude's room, behind the arras? He's just left him behind in the > >chapel (which, at Elsinore, is near a spiral staircase leading to the > >Queen's chambers, I believe) and I've always wondered whether this meant > >his remarks after stabbing Polonius were meant as sarcasm. > > > >Any takers on that one? > > >Andy White > >Arlington, V > > Yes. Hamlet says of Polonius "I took thee for thy better" and I don't > think that's sarcastic. > > Melissa Aaron > Madison WI ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 09:32:09 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0761 MSND on the West Bank, Shylock as Dracula? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0761. Wednesday, 16 July 1997. From: Jerry Bangham Date: Tuesday, 15 Jul 1997 10:10:23 -0400 Subject: MSND on the West Bank, Shylock as Dracula? I'm just back from Mexico. I attended the meeting of the International Federation for Theatre Research in Puebla and then spent some time in Mexico City on my own. Dr. Valerie Lucas gave an interesting paper at the IFTR meeting on her experiences in touring a production of _Midsummer Night's Dream_ on the West Bank. Among the problems encountered were the expected one of an audience who had trouble accepting the premise of a show dealing with a woman's refusal to accept an arranged marriage. Another problem, not expected, was the audience's dislike of the character of Puck, because of his disrespect of authority. I will check to see if Dr. Lucas would be willing to post a copy of the paper in the archives. A Mexico City troupe presented an interesting production of _Hamlet_ which built up the character of Osric as a minion of Claudius. Once I got to Mexico City, I noticed that there was a production of _El Mercader de Venecia_ in the suburb of San Angel. I didn't get to see the show, but I did happen to stop by the theatre in the San Angel Cultural Center during the day and saw a poster with photographs. A couple of the photos show a man with very prominent fangs. I suppose that this could just be an actor with severe dental problems, but it strikes me as more likely that the actor was in makeup. Could it be that Shylock was presented as a Dracula figure? Is there anyone on list who has seen, or could see this production. I'd really like to know more about it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 09:34:26 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0762 The Arroyo Grande Eagle Theatre *Hamlet* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0762. Wednesday, 16 July 1997. From: Billy Houck Date: Tuesday, 15 Jul 1997 13:58:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Hamlet The Arroyo Grande Eagle Theatre will present THE TRAGEDY OF HAMLET, THE PRINCE OF DENMARK by William Shakespeare July 31 and August 1 & 2 at 7:30. Arroyo Grande is located on California's Central Coast near Pismo Beach, half way between Los Angeles and San Francisco on Highway 101. For information call (805)473-4250 or e-mail Billy Houck at BHouck123@aol.com. Surf's up! The rest is silence. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 09:37:10 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0763 Help with Thesis MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0763. Wednesday, 16 July 1997. From: Karen Azzie Dempsey Date: Tuesday, 15 Jul 1997 15:41:37 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Help with Thesis -Please Help- I am looking for videotaped (VCR, Beta, Laser Disc) performances (both amateur and professional) of Shakespeare's Hamlet, Macbeth, and Othello in either the US or Great Britain in the past century for my thesis on Shakespeare's women in performance. I am especially interested in early productions of this century (prior to the late 1950's). If you can supply information, loan/rent tapes, or make copies please contact me by email at kadempse@students.uiuc.edu or at my home address: 1001 W.Clark St. Apt. B1 Urbana IL 61801 or by phone at (217) 337-1084. Thank you for your time. Sincerely Yours, Karen Dempsey ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 07:16:39 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0764 Re: Characters and Hamlet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0764. Thursday, 17 July 1997. [1] From: Rick Jones Date: Wednesday, 16 Jul 1997 09:51:40 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0760 The Can of Worms: Characters [2] From: Sean Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 16 Jul 1997 07:52:13 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0760 The Can of Worms: Characters [3] From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 16 Jul 1997 10:32:51 CST6CDT Subj: Hamlet questions [4] From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 16 Jul 1997 14:55:17 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0759 Re: Various Hamlet [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Wednesday, 16 Jul 1997 09:51:40 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0760 The Can of Worms: Characters Milla Riggio is of course correct that 1) the number of scenes of deception *of the audience* in Shakespeare for which there is absolute textual authority for the "sarcasm" or other performance-based tip-off to the deception is zero, 2) any line can be read ironically, 3) it is a truism of Shakespearean acting that, except in the cases of pre-confessed manipulators (Iago, Richard III), characters say what they mean and mean what they say. On the other hand, there are accretions in the form of production traditions: it is still considered "innovative," for example, to play Shylock's introduction of the "merry bond" as if it were indeed "merry." Continuity is, indeed, a modern concept, and the "real" architecture of Elsinore is irrelevant to the fictive world of the play. Hell, I can't remember where the staircases are in the university library, and I've been there a few hundred more times than the average London theatre-goer had been to Elsinore. But _Hamlet_ becomes a different kind of play *to a modern audience* if plausibility is breached. Not lesser, but different: in the way that Aeschylus' _Choephoroi_, with its a-logical recognition scene, is different from Euripides' _Electra_, which deftly satirizes the Aeschylean version. To be honest, it never occurred to me that Hamlet might believe the person behind the arras to be other than Claudius-but Andy White's musings that Hamlet must believe Claudius to have teleported into Gertrude's chamber (my phrasing, not his) have merit... if, of course, we accept the notion that fictional characters "think." Actually, I have a better solution. What are Hamlet's words? "How now? A rat?". Given the fact that Shakespeare's characters always mean what they say, it must be that Hamlet thought he was killing a rat. The scene in which he was appointed Royal Exterminator was inexplicably cut from Quarto and Folio alike... Rick Jones rjones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 16 Jul 1997 07:52:13 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0760 The Can of Worms: Characters >But a reading like the one below presumes >some "textual" foundation for the assumption that Hamlet intentionally >killed Polonius; that "textual" authority is in this case the >application of a modern concept of continuity (Hamlet has just left >Claudius; this cannot be Claudius. WHY NOT?) Besides an assumption of continuity, doesn't it also assume one or two things about Wittenberg's architecture? I mean, what's to keep Claudius from getting to the confessional to the queen's bedchamber more quickly than Hamlet, by an alternate route? Cheers, Sean. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 16 Jul 1997 10:32:51 CST6CDT Subject: Hamlet questions Hamlet's murder of Polonius is one of the more intriguing scenes of the play: if we assume that Hamlet just dashed to Gertrude's room after leaving Claudius at prayer, it does seem odd that he thinks it was Claudius behind the arras. Since we don't know either the logistics of the castle, or whether Hamlet made any other stops enroute, however, we can certainly allow for the possibility that Claudius could have made it there before Hamlet (Branagh's recent film, with all the secret passages, made this seem very feasible). The most persuasive argument for me, in terms of believing Hamlet's suspicion/hope that it is Claudius he has slain, has more to do with his state of mind. He is coming to Gertrude following the moments of exhilaration after the play, then the crucial decision not to kill Claudius at his prayers; he has, he thinks, succeeded in catching Claudius out and is probably more ready to act than he has been until this point: his impulse is allowed to play itself out, and the final movement of the tragedy begins. Chris Gordon [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 16 Jul 1997 14:55:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0759 Re: Various Hamlet Terence Hawkes' sometimes justifiable-depending-on-the-discussion insistence on the non-reality of characters reminds me of the way beginning actors struggle with S's texts: "Just tell me how you want me to say it. Why do I have to figure out why the character says it?" Why, indeed? Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 07:25:23 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0765 Lost Quarto of HAMLET MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0765. Thursday, 17 July 1997. From: Paul Silverman Date: Wednesday, 16 Jul 1997 06:47:46 -0700 Subject: Lost Quarto of HAMLET This recently discovered quarto edition of "Hamlet" follows other known versions closely until Act V, Scene II, where it begins to diverge at line 232, as will be seen: KING ...`Now the king drinks to Hamlet.' Come, begin, And you the judges, bear a wary eye Trumpets sound. HAMLET and LAERTES take their stations HAMLET: Come on, sir. LAERTES: Come, my lord. Enter FRED, DAPHNE, VELMA, SHAGGY, AND SCOOBY DAPHNE: Wait! SHAGGY: Stop the fight! HAMLET and LAERTES put up their foils KING: I like this not. Say wherefore you do speak? FRED: Good lord, I pray thee, let thy anger wait. For we, in seeking clues, have found the truth Behind the strange events of latter days. VELMA: The first clue came from Elsinore's high walls, Where, so said Hamlet, Hamlet's ghost did walk. Yet though the elder Hamlet met his death, And perforce hath been buried in the ground, 'Tis yet true one would not expect a ghost To carry mud upon his spectral boots. Yet mud didst Shaggy and his faithful hound Espy, with footprints leading to a drop. This might, at first, indeed bespeak a ghost... Until, when I did seek for other answers, I found a great, wide cloth of deepest black Discarded in the moat of Elsinore. 'Tis clear, the "ghost" used this to slow his fall While darkness rendered him invisible. FRED: The second clue we found, my lord, was this. KING: It seems to me a portrait of my brother In staine'd glass, that sunlight may shine through. FRED: But see, my lord, when placed before a lantern-- KING: My brother's ghost! HAMLET: My father! VELMA: Nay, his image. FRED: In sooth, that image caught the Prince's eye When he went to confront his lady mother. Nor did his sword pierce poor Polonius. For Hamlet's blade did mark the castle wall Behind the rent made in the tapestry. Polonius was murdered by another. The knife which killed him entered from behind. LAERTES: But who? FRED: Indeed my lords, that you shall see. HAMLET: And if this ghost was naught but light and air, Then what of that which I did touch and speak to? The GHOST enters. GHOST: Indeed, my son. SHAGGY: Zoinks! DAPHNE: Jenkies! GHOST: Mark them not. Thou hast neglected duty far too long. Shall this, my murderer, live on unharmed? Must I remain forever unavenged? SCOOBY and SHAGGY run away from the GHOST. SCOOBY, looking backward, runs into a tapestry, tearing it down. As a result, tapestries around the walls collapse, one surrounding the GHOST. GHOST: What? FRED: Good Osric, pray restrain that "ghost", That we may reach the bottom of the matter. Now let us see who truly walked tonight. FRED removes the helm and the disguise from the GHOST'S face. ALL: Tis Fortinbras! FRED: The valiant prince of Norway! FORTINBRAS: Indeed it is, and curses on you all! This Hamlet's father brought my own to death, And cost me all my rightful heritage. And so I killed this king, and hoped his son Would prove no obstacle to Norway's crown. Then Claudius bethought himself the killer (As if one might be poisoned through the ear!) The brother, not the son, took Denmark's throne, And held to Norway with a tighter grip. I swore an end to Denmark's royal house. I spoke to Hamlet of his uncle's crimes. Then killed Polonius to spark Laertes. This day, with poison's aid, all might have died, And Denmark might have come to me as well As my beloved Norway and revenge. My scheme blinded them all, as if by fog But for these medd'ling kids and this their dog. KING: The villain stands confessed. Now let us go. For much remains to us to be discussed. And suitable reward must needs be found For these, our young detectives and their hound. EXEUNT OMNES. Copyright 1993, Michael S. Schiffer. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 07:31:43 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0766 Re: Patrick Stewart as Othello MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0766. Thursday, 17 July 1997. [1] From: Hiroyuki Todokoro Date: Wednesday, 16 Jul 1997 22:55:37 +0900 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0758 Re: Patrick Stewart as Othello [2] From: James P. Lusardi Date: Wednesday, 16 Jul 1997 14:30:19 -0500 (CDT) Subj: RE: SHK 8.0758 Re: Patrick Stewart as Othello [3] From: James Marino Date: Wednesday, 16 Jul 1997 14:57:30 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0758 Re: Patrick Stewart as Othello [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hiroyuki Todokoro Date: Wednesday, 16 Jul 1997 22:55:37 +0900 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0758 Re: Patrick Stewart as Othello >Does anyone besides me think Patrick Stewart strikingly resembles >Michael Jordan? That's what I always think! Cheers, Todok. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: James P. Lusardi Date: Wednesday, 16 Jul 1997 14:30:19 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: SHK 8.0758 Re: Patrick Stewart as Othello On the suggestion that Othello may be North African, see not only the references to Othello's blackness in the text of his own play but also the exchange between Lorenzo and Lancelot G. in Merchant 3.5.35-41, where the terms Negro and Moor are used synonymously (notwithstanding wordplay). Jim Lusardi, Shakespeare Bulletin [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Marino Date: Wednesday, 16 Jul 1997 14:57:30 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0758 Re: Patrick Stewart as Othello Audience reaction aside, the race-reversal production may put the emphasis back on Othello and at least slow the modern actors preference for Iago which seems to arise not from an interpretation but simply because there are more white actors than black in Anglo-American theatre. What often seems to be overlooked in favor of the attention to Othello's blackness is his age. After all, it is the first thing mentioned by Iago "An OLD,black ram" and surely the tradition of May-January cuckoldry must play some part in Othello's suspicions. His "for I am declined/ into the vale of years-yet that's not much-" seems an anxious turning away from an upsetting thought. Brabantio list of conditions that make Othello unsuitable and arouse his fears of witchcraft include that of age, "inspite of nature, of years..." This raises the question of just how old Othello is. Isn't he at least as old as her father? It also raises an interesting question as to why Othello is so seldom played old. I think it not unlikely that he feels, as one long-forgotten punster put it, the old Kraft Ebbing. Regards, James ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 07:34:25 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0767 Fake/Real Identities, SHREW-inspired MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0767. Thursday, 17 July 1997. From: Paul Silverman Date: Wednesday, 16 Jul 1997 06:59:37 -0700 Subject: Fake/Real Identities, SHREW-inspired I'm doing a production of SHREW at the moment, and we've come upon a curiosity in IV, 4 when Tranio is coaching the Pedant to disguise himself as Vincentio. The Arden edition reads: TRA: Sir, this is the house. Please it you that I call? PED: Ay, what else? And but I be deveiv'd Signor Baptista may remember me Near twenty years ago in Genoa Where we were lodgers at the Pegasus. TRA: 'Tis well, and hold your own, in any case, With such austerity as 'longeth to a father. but notes that the Folio attributes the "When we were lodgers" line to Tranio, suggesting that Tranio is supplying the Pedant with more imaginary details (assuming no error of printing). Despite the obvious problem that it's entirely conceivable Baptista has never been to Genoa, leaving a huge danger of discovery (as I was quick to point out, as I'm playing Baptista), we've remarked how modern a concept this strategy of "Character Improvisation" is, in which a character has to create a different person out of thin air AND supply a new bogus history for that imagined identity. The question then arose: examples of characters assuming imagined identities abound, but it's almost always a masquerade as a non-existent person. When else in Shakespeare does a character pretend to be someone who actually exists, as the Pedant disguises himself as Vincentio? And how does this change the approach to the subterfuge? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 07:38:48 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0768 Re: Merchant and Dracula; Thesis MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0768. Thursday, 17 July 1997. [1] From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Thursday, 17 Jul 97 09:42:00 0BS Subj: Merchant and Dracula [2] From: Richard Dutton Date: Thursday, 17 Jul 1997 08:13:00 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0763 Help with Thesis [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Thursday, 17 Jul 97 09:42:00 0BS Subject: Merchant and Dracula I know nothing about the production to which Jerry Bangham refers, but I've just been reading Judith Halberstam's 'Technologies of Monstrosity: Bram Stoker's _Dracula_', in _Cultural Politics at the Fin de Siecle_, edited by Sally Ledger and Scott McCracken (Cambridge University Press, 1995). She argues that Stoker drew on stereotypical images of the Jew in creating Dracula - and since he was Henry Irving's stage manager at the Lyceum, he was very familiar with Shakespeare - so maybe this production is suggesting a similar association. Lisa Hopkins Sheffield Hallam University L.M.Hopkins@shu.ac.uk [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Dutton Date: Thursday, 17 Jul 1997 08:13:00 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0763 Help with Thesis As far as *Hamlet* is concerned, Karen Dempsey should know about Bernice Kliman's *Hamlet: Film, Television and Audio Performance* (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1988), which is very good about early film and TV versions of the play, and often lists where copies are available - though it is clear that many of them are not in general distribution. Richard Dutton ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 08:35:46 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0769 Re: Patrick Stewart as Othello MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0769. Friday, 18 July 1997. [1] From: G. L. Horton Date: Thursday, 17 Jul 1997 09:05:56 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0754 Qs: Stewart as Othello [2] From: David Levine Date: Thursday, 17 Jul 1997 23:14:21 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0766 Re: Patrick Stewart as Othello [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: G. L. Horton Date: Thursday, 17 Jul 1997 09:05:56 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0754 Qs: Stewart as Othello >just a gimmick? >Is it a victory for non-traditional casting or just a way to give >Stewart a chance to play a role he wouldn't normally have access to? >Any and all opinions are welcome. I would hazard that, given his army of adoring fans, Stewart could easily "have access" to the role of Othello in other venues. The interesting thing about the project is the rest of the cast. If one is committed to multi-ethnic casting as a way to break down bigotry and extend collegial status to groups that have been excluded from the mainstream performing arts-as the creators of "Star Trek" were, and as one of Stewart's fans assured me the actor is, both artistically and morally-then "Othello" becomes a stumbling block, a play that explores the perceptual boundary in depth but has only one part that a non-white may perform. If the play works "in reverse", great: a fresh source of insight and empathy. If Stewart's celebrity makes the experiment possible, we owe him our thanks whether or not he proves a brilliant Othello. His Prospero was type-casting, though the context of the production certainly fit in with a multi-ethnic commitment. Othello will be a bit of a stretch. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Levine Date: Thursday, 17 Jul 1997 23:14:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0766 Re: Patrick Stewart as Othello As for a critic who covers the question of the May/December aspect of the marriage between Othello and Desdemona, Tom McFarland has an entire essay built around the point in his *Tragic Meanings in Shakespeare*, which came out, I believe, in the late '60's or so. It's hardly fair to say that Othello is seldom played old. He used to be considered a middle aged character (remember, Olivier wouldn't touch the part until he was well into his fifties). I always figured his age to be around forty-five or so, since he is still an active military leader (remember, Iago is only twenty eight). I suppose you could make the case that since he and Brabantio were friends before Desdemona came into the picture, they are around the same age as Brabantio, but since Brabantio behaves as very much the senex of the piece, I don't much see the point of the casting.... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 08:42:39 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0770 Re: Hamlet and Characters MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0770. Friday, 18 July 1997. [1] From: Michael Mcclintock Date: Thursday, 17 Jul 1997 10:33:42 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0764 Re: Characters and Hamlet [2] From: C. David Frankel Date: Thursday, 17 Jul 1997 11:01:10 -0400 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0764 Re: Characters and Hamlet [3] From: Freddie Rokem Date: Friday 18 Jul 1997 07:23:48 +0300 (IDT) Subj: e: SHK 8.0764 Re: Characters and Hamlet [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Mcclintock Date: Thursday, 17 Jul 1997 10:33:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0764 Re: Characters and Hamlet > Actually, I have a better solution. What are Hamlet's words? "How > now? A rat?". Given the fact that Shakespeare's characters always mean > what they say, it must be that Hamlet thought he was killing a rat. The > scene in which he was appointed Royal Exterminator was inexplicably cut > from Quarto and Folio alike... > > Rick Jones Traces of Hamlet's secret occupation do remain in the Q2 version of the play. Consider Hamlet's first soliloquy: O that this too too sallied flesh would melt, Thaw and resolve it selfe into a dewe, Or that the euerlasting had not fixt His cannon gainst seale slaughter Here we have the key to all of Hamlet's problems: he would far rather be out with the sledded Polacks on the ice clubbing seals than locked up in Elsinore exterminating rats. Michael McClintock University of Toronto [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: C. David Frankel Date: Thursday, 17 Jul 1997 11:01:10 -0400 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0764 Re: Characters and Hamlet Rick Jones said: >Milla Riggio is of course correct that 1) the number of scenes of >deception *of the audience* in Shakespeare for which there is absolute >textual authority for the "sarcasm" or other performance-based tip-off >to the deception is zero, 2) any line can be read ironically, 3) it is a >truism of Shakespearean acting that, except in the cases of >pre-confessed manipulators (Iago, Richard III), characters say what they >mean and mean what they say. So I have a question. In _Richard II_ both Bolingbroke and Mowbry swear that they are telling the truth. Is one of them lying? If so, is there any evidence *in the play* that one is lying? In other words, does the play, as a whole, suggest that Richard (and Mowbry) did do in the Duke of Gloucester? And now for an unrelated, and probably really dumb, question: Does anyone know of an interpretation of _Othello_ that posits the play as an allegory about Queen Elizabeth (with Othello "standing in" for the Queen?) cdf [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Freddie Rokem Date: Friday 18 Jul 1997 07:23:48 +0300 (IDT) Subject: e: SHK 8.0764 Re: Characters and Hamlet The discussions about the person or the thing hiding behind the arras in Gertrude's bedroom are interesting indeed. My view is that Hamlet thinks he is now killing that which he most fears, the ghost. Hamlet thinks that it is the ghost who is situated behind the screen - this is the mouse, mole, rat gnawing on his mind. And that is why the Mousetrap is so interesting. The consequences of this interpretation are very interesting. I have had the opportunity to work on these as dramaturg for a production of Hamlet which I have described briefly in "Western European Stages" 9,2 1997, 57-60. This publication is published by the Center for Advanced study in Theatre Arts, at CUNY. This production will be renewed this fall, again in Sweden. The central idea realized there is that Polonius is playing the ghost, cheating Hamlet to believe Claudius killed his father. There is in fact no real 'ghost', and Hamlet kills the Polonius-ghost in his mother's bedroom. The question who plays the ghost after Polonius is killed is solved but I will not go into that now. With warm greetings Freddie Rokem Theatre Studies Tel Aviv University ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 08:48:23 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0771 Re: Identities; Thesis; Plagiarism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0771. Friday, 18 July 1997. [1] From: Richard Regan Date: Thursday, 17 Jul 1997 21:44:46 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0767 Fake/Real Identities, SHREW-inspired [2] From: Tanya Gough Date: Thursday, 17 Jul 1997 12:57:36 -0400 Subj: SHK 8.0763 Help with Thesis [3] From: John Velz Date: Thursday, 17 Jul 1997 10:07:16 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Plagiarism [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Regan Date: Thursday, 17 Jul 1997 21:44:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0767 Fake/Real Identities, SHREW-inspired Presumably, there is a real Sir Topas (Feste) in Twelfth Night. Walter Blunt learns, along with "many marching in his coats," that it's not always good to be the king in 1 Henry IV. Masked balls provide effective situations for disguise for the ladies in Love's Labor's Lost, and an unhappy one for Benedick, who is abused "past the endurance of a block" in Much Ado. The Merry Wives is full of impersonation, as is The Taming of the Shrew (Tranio for Lucentio, besides your own example.) Richard Regan Fairfield University [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tanya Gough Date: Thursday, 17 Jul 1997 12:57:36 -0400 Subject: SHK 8.0763 Help with Thesis > I am looking for videotaped (VCR, Beta, Laser Disc) performances (both > amateur and professional) of Shakespeare's Hamlet, Macbeth, and Othello > in either the US or Great Britain in the past century for my thesis on > Shakespeare's women in performance. I am especially interested in early > productions of this century (prior to the late 1950's). I own a CD & Video Shop in Stratford, Ontario, adjacent to the Stratford Festival's Avon Theatre. We carry an extensive (although not yet complete) catalog of Shakespeare multimedia titles - I believe the current list includes approximately 50 titles. I'd be happy to e-mail you our current list, if that will help. You might be interested in the following titles, which I do have in stock at the moment: Midsummer's Night Dream - 1960's BBC (with Benny Hill as Bottom!) As You Like It - 1936 (Elisabeth Bergner and Laurence Olivier) Taming of the Shrew - 1950 (modern dress, w/ Charleton Heston and Lisa Kirk) I also usually have the 1913 Italian Antony and Cleopatra (silent, b&w), and the 1928 Tempest with John Barrymore. I'm out of stock at the moment, but I can try to get them in again. I've also got most of the major studio productions, and I'd like to point out that many of the Olivier and Welles productions fall into your time frame. You can contact me through the list or directly: Tanya Gough Poor Yorick - CD & Video Emporium 89A Downie Street, Stratford, Ontario, Canada N5A 1W8 voice: (519) 272-1999 fax: (519) 272-0979 yorick@cyg.net [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Thursday, 17 Jul 1997 10:07:16 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Plagiarism About plagiarism of scholarship & crit. on Shak. What I used to do if I did not recognize the source was to give the student a pop quiz on the vocabulary of the doubtful passage(s); "Give a short definition of each of the following words, and use each of them in a sentence that does not appear in the paper, but which reveals the meaning of the word." They always failed it, sometimes cried. I failed them in the course but did not get them expelled from Uni. John Velz Quondam Prof. of English U of Texas, Austin ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 08:51:50 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0772 Toronto Two Noble Kinsmen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0772. Friday, 18 July 1997. From: Eric Armstrong Date: Thursday, 17 Jul 1997 11:50:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Toronto Two Noble Kinsmen Dear SHAKSPERians I am writing to invite any and all of those in the Toronto area over a weekend this summer to Withrow Park, just south of the Danforth between Logan and Carlaw, for Shakespeare in the Rough's Fourth Annual production. We will be performing ***THE TWO NOBLE KINSMEN*** Directed by Dawn Mari McCaugherty. The Show features some fabulous combat sequences - the battle between Creon's Thebans and Theseus' Athenians as well as some remarkable fights between Arcite and Palamon - along with the challenging language of Fletcher and Shakespeare. Our Pastoral setting, Pay What You Can prices and good acting make Shakespeare in the Rough a fabulous afternoon for the whole family. Previews: July 25 & 26 Opening: July 27 Running: until Labour Day When: Fri, Sat and Sun * matinees only* 2 p.m. with Monday shows on long weekends (Aug 4 and Labour Day) Hope to see you out! (I'll be playing Theseus until mid August when I move to Brandeis outside Boston) Regards, Eric Armstrong ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 09:14:57 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0773 Re: Hamlet and Characters MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0773. Saturday, 19 July 1997. [1] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Friday, 18 Jul 1997 13:35:43 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0764 Re: Characters and Hamlet [2] From: John Robinson Date: Friday, 18 Jul 1997 14:57:54 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0770 Re: Hamlet and Characters [3] From: Rick Jones Date: Friday, 18 Jul 1997 14:50:43 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0770 Re: Hamlet and Characters [4] From: Chris Kendall Date: Friday, 18 Jul 1997 15:40:02 -0600 Subj: Elsinore [5] From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Friday, 18 Jul 1997 21:31:08 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0764 Re: Characters and Hamlet [6] From: Gilad Shapira Date: Saturday, 19 Jul 97 14:16:37 PDT Subj: RE: SHK 8.0757 Re: Various Hamlet [7] From: Gilad Shapira Date: Saturday, 19 Jul 97 14:29:43 PDT Subj: RE: SHK 8.0757 Re: Various Hamlet [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Friday, 18 Jul 1997 13:35:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0764 Re: Characters and Hamlet Christine Mack Gordon seems to have come up with the best solution to my question, by positing that Hamlet has hopes of Claudius being behind the arras. It seems more likely to me that, in his 'brainsick frame of mind', he hopes he has caught Claudius in just the sort of act he needs to find him in (i.e., 'drunk, asleep, or in his rage ...'), so as to really send him to hell. This, in spite of the fact that it isn't really plausible-that wouldn't stop him from wishing it to be so. And sending Claudius to hell, after all, is what it's really about. Not simply executing him. King Hamlet's ghost proves that there is an afterlife, and souls can be made to suffer; and so Hamlet's revenge must be more than merely physical, it must be one which ensures Claudius eternal damnation. Which is what makes his final kill so satisfying, at least from my point of view. As for "A rat, a rat!" this is borrowed from the original legend, in which the Prince tramples the queen's bundle of hay (where the courtier/Polonius is lying in hiding, there were no arrassas in those days). That Hamlet is referring to a spy, preferably a King/spy, makes this bit of borrowing work so well. What Shakespeare mercifully left out, but perhaps Webster might have considered leaving in, is the next scene in which the Dane chops up Polonius' remains and dumps them down the castle toilet, to be devoured by the pigs at the basement trough, piece by piece. Hope nobody's having dinner over this last bit ... Andy White Arlington, VA [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Robinson Date: Friday, 18 Jul 1997 14:57:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0770 Re: Hamlet and Characters << Traces of Hamlet's secret occupation do remain in the Q2 version of the play. Consider Hamlet's first soliloquy: O that this too too sallied flesh would melt, Thaw and resolve it selfe into a dewe, Or that the euerlasting had not fixt His cannon gainst seale slaughter Here we have the key to all of Hamlet's problems: he would far rather be out with the sledded Polacks on the ice clubbing seals than locked up in Elsinore exterminating rats. >> What does this quote have to do with "sledded Polacks and "rats"? Regards John V Robinson [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Friday, 18 Jul 1997 14:50:43 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0770 Re: Hamlet and Characters C. David Frankel wrote: > Rick Jones said: > > >Milla Riggio is of course correct that 1) the number of scenes of > >deception *of the audience* in Shakespeare for which there is absolute > >textual authority for the "sarcasm" or other performance-based tip-off > >to the deception is zero, 2) any line can be read ironically, 3) it is a > >truism of Shakespearean acting that, except in the cases of > >pre-confessed manipulators (Iago, Richard III), characters say what they > >mean and mean what they say. > > So I have a question. In _Richard II_ both Bolingbroke and Mowbry swear > that they are telling the truth. Is one of them lying? If so, is there > any evidence *in the play* that one is lying? In other words, does the > play, as a whole, suggest that Richard (and Mowbry) did do in the Duke > of Gloucester? This is a good question, one I can't answer at least until such time as I have time to do a closer reading of the play. Certainly it has *seemed* so in both productions I have seen, but that's the whole point of the question, isn't it? I should also call attention to the fact that (for once) I was careful with my words in the earlier post: I would suggest that there is (or can be) a distinction to be made between "it is a truism that..." and "it is true that...". Rick Jones rjones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Kendall Date: Friday, 18 Jul 1997 15:40:02 -0600 Subject: Elsinore Andy White writes: >One more Director's question: does Hamlet really think Claudius is in >Gertrude's room, behind the arras? He's just left him behind in the >chapel (which, at Elsinore, is near a spiral staircase leading to the >Queen's chambers, I believe) and I've always wondered whether this meant >his remarks after stabbing Polonius were meant as sarcasm. Whether or not the floor plan at Elsinore was known to Shakespeare, I doubt that he would have let it be a sticking point in his plot. In any case, it seems to me that Claudius would have had ample time to insinuate himself after Hamlet's entrance, and this is just the kind of subterfuge Hamlet would expect, especially after being summoned to his mother's chamber. He might reasonably conjecture that Claudius planted himself conspicuously in the chapel to throw him off the scent. That is, if only he could think, poor shade of art. [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Friday, 18 Jul 1997 21:31:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0764 Re: Characters and Hamlet Vis a vis Claudius' use or nonuse of transporter technology: If one posits the usual plethora of hidden stairways, secret entrances, so forth, with which castles and such did really abound in those bad old days, alternate and quick means for Claudius to get to the bedchamber could be hypothecated. The more likely explanation resides in Hamlet's febrile "wild and whirling" psychological state immediately following Polonius' murder, the deed as it were being father to the wish. To paraphrase Mr Faulty -- anyone care for a rat? HR Greenberg [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gilad Shapira Date: Saturday, 19 Jul 97 14:16:37 PDT Subject: RE: SHK 8.0757 Re: Various Hamlet >Actually, a fair amount has been written from a clinical viewpoint about >Hamlet's "Diagnosis". Predictably, he has been said to suffer from every >ailment from bipolar (manic depressive) disorder to multiple personality >disorder. I don't have references at hand, but the work for the most >part is of negligible lit/crit value. Hello Harvey, In my point of view, all the clinic efforts concerning literature are problematic. We should remember that Hamlet is a character built not from flesh and blood but from words. We can say that some materials of manic depressive are shown in the play, but not more. In order to explain the process of the plot or the character motivation we have to go back to the wonderful world of words. I myself made a psychoanalytic research on the Odyssey, and I feel, that we should always go back to the text and analyze the correlation between the two disciplines. Gilad Shapira [7]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gilad Shapira Date: Saturday, 19 Jul 97 14:29:43 PDT Subject: RE: SHK 8.0757 Re: Various Hamlet >>One more Director's question: does Hamlet really think Claudius is in >>Gertrude's room, behind the arras? He's just left him behind in the >>chapel (which, at Elsinore, is near a spiral staircase leading to the >>Queen's chambers, I believe) and I've always wondered whether this meant >>his remarks after stabbing Polonius were meant as sarcasm. >>Any takers on that one? >>Andy White >Yes. Hamlet says of Polonius "I took thee for thy better" and I don't >think that's sarcastic. Hello Melissa, Your question is very interesting and point of course on the complexity of that amazing play. As I see it Hamlet is busy in his revenge emotion mixed with the desire to find any truth in this chaotic world. More of that, his play (the Gonzago play) is now a trap not to the king but to Hamlet. Therefore The question about Claudius is not in his mind at this moment and as a man in a trap he act with his madness and not with his mind. Gilad Shapira ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 09:18:09 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0774 Re: Patrick Stewart as Othello MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0774. Saturday, 19 July 1997. From: Cary M. Mazer Date: Friday, 18 Jul 1997 09:37:58 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0769 Re: Patrick Stewart as Othello Oh, how times change: I have a vivid mental image of Patrick Stewart "blacked up" as a *very* deep-complexioned Aaron the Moor in *Titus* in Trevor Nunn's Roman season at the RSC in '72-'73; he also played Cassius, Enobarbus (recorded on video), and a beplumed Aufidius. I'm glad to see that they've found a way for him to play Othello *not* blacked up. Times have, thank God, changed. Cary ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 09:21:48 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0775 Ramapo College Summer Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0775. Saturday, 19 July 1997. From: Ramapo Summer Shakespeare Date: Saturday, 19 Jul 1997 01:35:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Ramapo College Summer Shakespeare Ramapo College Summer Shakespeare presents "The Merry Wives of Windsor" by William Shakespeare. Performance Dates: July 18-20, 25-27. 6:00PM on the Mansoin Lawn. Admission is FREE. Ramapo Summer Shakespeare For Info. E-Mail PoWilliam@aol.com or call (201) 529-7596 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 09:28:27 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0776 My Annual Vacation in Harrisonburg with the SSE MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0776. Saturday, 19 July 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Saturday, July 19, 1997 Subject: My Annual Vacation in Harrisonburg with the SSE Dear SHAKSPEReans: It's time for my family and me to get a way for a few days to Harrisonburg, Virginia, to attend the Valley Season of the Shenandoah Shakespeare Express. I am not sure if I will have Internet access or not, so if there is an interruption is SHAKSPER mailing, everyone will understand. Keep sending your postings to SHAKSPER@ws.bowiestate.edu, and I will catch up when I have the chance. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 08:26:17 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0777 *Tromeo & Juliet* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0777. Sunday, 20 July 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Sunday, July 20, 1997 Subject: *Tromeo & Juliet* Last night I rented *Tromeo & Juliet*. Ed Wood LIVES! ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 08:34:14 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0778 New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: LEAR QUARTO1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0778. Sunday, 20 July 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Sunday, July 20, 1997 Subject: New on the SHAKSPER Fileserver: LEAR QUARTO1 As of today, SHAKSPEReans may retrieve Thomas Dale Keever's text of the 1608 "Pied Bull" Quarto of *King Lear* (LEAR QUARTO1) from the SHAKSPER fileserver. To retrieve "LEAR QUARTO1", send a one-line mail message (without a subject line) to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu, reading "GET LEAR QUARTO1". Should you have difficulty receiving this or any of the files on the SHAKSPER file server, please contact the editor at or . ************************************************************************ The Historie of King Lear Quarto Version, 1608 Etext Editor's note: This is an electronic text transcription of the 1608 First Quarto, or "Pied Bull Quarto," of KING LEAR. It reproduces the text of the "corrected" formes, that is the text as it appeared on the invariant formes or formes that were corrected during the printing process. No extant version contains only invariant and corrected formes so this is not a recreation of any one existing text. I have consulted several of the published photo facsimiles of the First Quarto, but must confess I have never had the opportunity to examine any of the twelve extant specimens of the First Quarto. I am particularly indebted to Michael Warren's _The Complete King Lear: 1608-1623_ and urge anyone whose interest is aroused by this transcription to consult his remarkable edition, an outstanding achievement in Shakespeare textual studies. I have sought to recreate all spelling, lineation, stage directions, and line assignments just as they appear in the Quarto. The forme signatures that were printed in the Quarto are preserved along with the key words that indicate the first word of the next page. Alert readers will note that one of the key words is misspelled, as it is in the original. My only additions to the text appear at the end of each quarto page. There I have inserted the forme number in brackets, act, scene, and line numbers from the Riverside Shakespeare in parentheses and three dashes, " - - - ", to indicate the page division. At the top of each page I have repeated the Quarto's page heading: "The Historie of King Lear. " just as it appears in the original. The conversion to ASCII necessitated some sacrifices. I could not indicate the text that was set in italic in the Quarto. I considered using some sort of identification as I did in my etext transcription of Colly Cibber's RICHARD III, but decided that the page would be too cluttered. I intend to convert this text, and my Collly Cibber transcription, to HTML and will then be able to restore the italics. The HTML edition will also contain links to the uncorrected versions of variant lines. These uncorrected lines are listed at the end of the text. The diacritical marks that usually indicate an omitted "n" or "m" created another problem. I could not enter a tilde (~) over any vowel but "o" so where that is used in the original to indicate an "m" or "n" after an "a", "e", or "u" it is indicated by a circumflex (^). The three instances where the circumflex appears over an "o" it indicates a stressed "o" and appears as a circumflex in the original. This project grew out of my work on my Masters Essay at Columbia University under the supervision of Professor David Scott Kastan. I gratefully acknowledge his encouragement to closely examine original printed texts and his exacting academic standards and absolve him of any blame for my own errors and misjudgments. I invite any suggestions or corrections from SHAKESPERians. Please email me at: tdk3@columbia.edu. - - - M. William Shak-speare: HIS True Chronicle Historie of the Life and death of King LEAR and his three Daughters. With the unfortunate life of Edgar, sonne and heire to the Earle of Gloster, and his sullen and assumed humor of TOM of Bedlam: As it was played before the Kings Maiestie at Whitehall upon S. Stephans night in Christmas Hollidayes. By his Maiesties seruants playing vsually at the Gloabe on the Bancke-side. LONDON Printed for Nathaniel Butter, and are to be sold at his shop in Pauls Church-yard at the signe of the Pide Bull neere St. Austins Gate. 1608 [A2r] - - - M. William Shak-speare HIS Historie, of King Lear. Enter Kent, Gloster, and Bastard. Kent. I thought the King had more affected the Duke of Al- bany then Cornwell. Glost. It did allwaies seeme so to vs, but now in the diuision of the kingdomes, it appeares not which of the Dukes he values most, for equalities are so weighed, that cu- riositie in neither, can make choice of eithers moytie. Kent. Isn t this your sonne my Lord? Glost. His breeding sir hath beene at my charge, I haue so of- ten blusht to acknowledge him, that now I am braz'd to it. Kent. I cannot conceiue you. Glost. Sir, this young fellowes mother Could, wherupon she grew round wombed, and had indeed Sir a sonne for her cradle, ere she had a husband for her bed, doe you smell a fault? Kent. I cannot wish the fault vndone, the issue of it being so proper. Glost. But I have sir a sonne by order of Law, some yeare el- der then this, who yet is no deerer in my account , though this knaue came something sawcely into the world before hee was sent for, yet was his mother faire, there was good sport at his makeing &the whoreson must be acknowledged,do you know this noble gentleman Edmund? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 08:37:40 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0779 Poor Yorick Videos MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0779. Sunday, 20 July 1997. From: Tanya Gough Date: Saturday, 19 Jul 1997 09:12:48 -0400 Subject: Poor Yorick Videos I have been, as many of you expected, inundated with requests for catalogs, and we're all scrambling now to respond to everyone as quickly as possible. Please bear with me. I'm currently reformatting the catalog into an ascii file in rich text format to send out as an attachment. Please let me know if your browser has any limitations or if you require another version (Word 7.0, Wordperfect 6.0). Many thanks to Mike Jensen for drawing my attention to the 1928 Barrymore Tempest, and to the fact that it is not based on Shakespeare, as I had supposed. My distributor assured me it was, and in the chaos of getting set up (we are a new store, in our 14th week), I failed to investigate the title properly. So much for university's Lesson Number One carrying over into real life. My most sincere apologies to you all for getting you excited about nothing. If it's any consolation, I do have the 1922 German Othello, with Emil Jannings. Thanks again to you all for your encouragement and for helping me to validate my work. We are primarily a contemporary music and art-house video specialty store, but you have given me hope that this project, which began as a hobby sideline to help me remain connected to my academic past, has the potential to grow and contribute substantially to the discipline which governs my heart. Tanya Gough Poor Yorick - CD & Video Emporium 89A Downie Street, Stratford, Ontario, Canada N5A 1W8 voice: (519) 272-1999 fax: (519) 272-0979 yorick@cyg.net ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 08:43:37 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0780 Re: Hamlet and Characters; Patrick Stewart MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0780. Sunday, 20 July 1997. [1] From: Dale Lyles Date: Saturday, 19 Jul 1997 15:11:17 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0770 Re: Hamlet and Characters [2] From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Saturday, 19 Jul 1997 16:15:07 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0774 Re: Patrick Stewart as Othello [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Saturday, 19 Jul 1997 15:11:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0770 Re: Hamlet and Characters Rats, pollacks, and baby seals... Now *there's* art, if not artifice. Now at least I see the error of my ways in thinking we could/should give inner life to what is obviously just text. I'm itching to do Hamlet now, if only I could figure out whether the moon doth shine that night. Love, Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Saturday, 19 Jul 1997 16:15:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0774 Re: Patrick Stewart as Othello Stewart also played Sejanus in the I CLAUDIUS series, and an alien-possessed psychiatrist in Tobe Hooper's LIFEFORCE (interalia).========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 07:22:34 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0781 Re: *Tromeo & Juliet* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0781. Tuesday, 22 July 1997. [1] From: Tanya Gough Date: Sunday, 20 Jul 1997 09:36:20 -0400 Subj: TROMEO AND JULIET [2] From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Sunday, 20 Jul 1997 16:06:38 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0777 *Tromeo & Juliet* [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tanya Gough Date: Sunday, 20 Jul 1997 09:36:20 -0400 Subject: TROMEO AND JULIET >Last night I rented *Tromeo & Juliet*. >Ed Wood LIVES! As the box states, "Body-piercing, kinky sex, dismemberment. The things that made Shakespeare great." More like Ed Wood on crack, Shakespeare a la Chainsaw massacre. I highly recommend it, too. Rent it today...but don't watch it right after dinner. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Sunday, 20 Jul 1997 16:06:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0777 *Tromeo & Juliet* As a teacher of Shakespeare who constantly encourages her students to watch everything possible by him. I was appalled not only at the atrocious film but of its explicitness and its availability. When I suggested to our local Blockbusters that this could be a problem they couldn't believe it had got through with an R rating...believe me I'm not a prude...but didn't you think this was a disgusting film? The nurse sleeping with Juliet? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 07:39:10 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0782 Re: Hamlet and Characters MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0782. Tuesday, 22 July 1997. [1] From: John Boni Date: Monday, 21 Jul 1997 08:30:21 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0773 Re: Hamlet and Characters [2] From: Simon Malloch Date: Monday, 21 Jul 1997 20:04:11 +0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0759 Re: Various Hamlet [3] From: Ron Ward Date: Tuesday, 22 Jul 1997 16:10:48 +1200 (NZST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0773 Re: Deception [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Boni Date: Monday, 21 Jul 1997 08:30:21 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0773 Re: Hamlet and Characters Andrew White says, "And sending Claudius' soul to hell...is what it's really about" for Hamlet. Isn't that part of the overall pattern of change for Hamlet? He who was reluctant to act and had been told by the ghost to protect his mother and his soul, in becoming disposed to action, to bloodiness, must-and does-change his values. Stabbing Polonius, Hamlet has acted on impulse, by instinct, rather than after thinking it out. His almost relieved response to Gertrude's, "What have you done?"-"I know, not, is it the king?" expresses a hopefulness: Perhaps it is all over and I didn't have to think about it, and motivates his treatment of Polonius' corpse, the angry and contemptuous, "I took thee for thy better." When he sees Claudius apparently praying, Hamlet falls prey to the destructive element of revenge; Old Hamlet was killed with his sins still on him, should Claudius be allowed better? So, Hamlet plays god, dealing with an antagonist's soul as well as his body. He chooses NOT to kill Claudius for the wrong reasons (from one point of view), then, assuming Claudius in Gertrude's room may have undone his prayers' effects, Hamlet strikes quickly-and in error. We are often so caught up with the sensitive, troubled Hamlet, that we ignore the (necessarily) bloody Hamlet he becomes. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Malloch Date: Monday, 21 Jul 1997 20:04:11 +0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0759 Re: Various Hamlet > People think. Hamlet doesn't. It's called art. > > T. Hawkes This is such a cold and discouraging view of art, and one I feel which is contrary to the human response to that medium. When one reads Hamlet, or any other piece of literature, one conceptualises the characters. The scenery and other details of composition are also constructed in the mind's eye. The next step usually involves conceptualising the characters' movements, speeches, and, often, facial expressions, tone of voice and other details. It is only natural therefore to wonder at a character, such as Hamlet, thinking. He is conceived of as a human, and therefore we assume that he contains all of man's attributes. Much of the play involves Hamlet "thinking," and this aspect has invited much literary debate, such as his over-thinking, or thinking-too-well. Clearly he does think, in order to arrive at numerous decisions within the play, such as that involving his "antic disposition." Several of the soliloquies in the play may be read as Hamlet's thoughts spoken-out-loud, mainly for the audience to hear, if one wishes to look at it on a practical level. To the reader, they may as well be thoughts unspoken. To suggest that Hamlet does not think appears to me to go against much of what the play is about; not to mention the natural human curiosity for detail. It also goes against the "drowning" or engrossing effect that art has on the individual, namely its capacity to draw one into the world of the novel, play or poem, to feel what is happening and to expand on the visual, spritual, emotional, and intellectual (etc.) components which the author provides. To be thus absorbed by a piece of literature is one of the joys of reading. Simon Malloch. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Ward Date: Tuesday, 22 Jul 1997 16:10:48 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0773 Re: Deception I have only been deceived by S in the Winters Tale. The death of Hermione is presumed by the audience. Of course you could say she was dead and brought to life again but it is still an expectation of the audience that she will not appear again. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 07:48:53 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0783 Re: Poems; Stewart; Othello's Age MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0783. Tuesday, 22 July 1997. [1] From: Skip Nicholson Date: Sunday, 20 Jul 1997 10:35:15 -0700 Subj: Re: The Poems [2] From: Chuck G. Peeren Date: Monday, 21 Jul 1997 08:30:32 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0758 RE: PATRICK STEWART AS OTHELLO [3] From: Ed Peschko Date: Monday, 21 Jul 1997 11:19:18 -0600 (MDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0780 Re: Patrick Stewart [4] From: Syd Kasten Date: Monday, 21 Jul 1997 23:07:42 +0300 (IDT) Subj: SHK 8.0758 Re: Othello's Age [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Nicholson Date: Sunday, 20 Jul 1997 10:35:15 -0700 Subject: Re: The Poems The site Stephen Windle wisely gives for Shakespeare's poems has an extra "e" in the address. The URL should read http://www.ludweb.com/poetry . Mr. Windle's standards seem awfully high if he gives this site a rating of "fairly decent." I think most of us would go much higher. Take a look and decide. It includes not only the sonnets but all the poetry, and the sonnets are searchable. The enigmatic crest of the "ludweb" is worth exploring as well. Skip Nicholson Just north of Escondido, California [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chuck G. Peeren Date: Monday, 21 Jul 1997 08:30:32 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0758 RE: PATRICK STEWART AS OTHELLO Further to the conversation of Patrick Stewart as Othello I personally would love to see it. I admire Mr Stewart as one of our great contemporary actors. Having said that I do think that the role reversal convention which would allow him to assume the role of Othello was indeed contrived for that purpose. Given that race being quite the charged issue it is in the U.S. I have a couple of concerns with the execution of this convention: The first, please excuse the pun, would not the racial aspects of the production easily over shadow the other, what I feel are, the more intriguing psychological aspects of the production? Second what do you do about Iago? Portrayed by a black man to a white man's Othello would that not play to the stereo typical view of the U.S. black and be as a consequence a bit of a turn off? chuck [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Peschko Date: Monday, 21 Jul 1997 11:19:18 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0780 Re: Patrick Stewart > Stewart also played Sejanus in the I CLAUDIUS series, and an > alien-possessed psychiatrist in Tobe Hooper's LIFEFORCE (interalia). And a nasty Sejanus he was too! Next to Livia, probably the nastiest character in the whole series ( and there were plenty of them in that series...) I seem to remember him being Claudius in the BBC production of Hamlet, as well. Ed [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Syd Kasten Date: Monday, 21 Jul 1997 23:07:42 +0300 (IDT) Subject: SHK 8.0758 Re: Othello's Age On Wednesday, 16 Jul 1997 (SHK 8.0758) James Marino speculated on Othello's age, implying that Othello was "at least as old as her father" and that this was one of the reasons for his proneness to suspicion. This is an interesting idea, but on the other hand, when Brabantio comes to arrest Othello the latter tries to mollify him with "Good signior, you shall more command with *years*, than with your weapons." Marino invokes Brabantio's "...in spite of nature, of years..." to support the idea of Othello's advanced age. My understanding of these lines in the trial is that they refer to Desdemona's qualities and that "years" refers to her youth rather than to Othello's age. One need not rely only on Othello's seniority to see a disparity in age between Othello and Desdemona. To my ear Desdemona is a faithful rendition of an unfinished product, more girl than woman. Her inability to see in advance the effects that her words and actions will have on others is as absolute as it is innocent. Her banter is witty but not particularly sophisticated. She fell in love with Othello because of his scary stories. Her cajoling of Othello to see Cassio is like asking for another candy: Who could refuse her "pretty please?". But her question of Emilia - Are there women who actually do what Othello has accused her of? - implies an innocence of life that is consistent with her being either "intellectually challenged" or very young. Fourteen year old Juliet seems the height of sophistication in comparison. In Jewish canon law a girl attains majority with respect to the right to choose or refuse a marital partner at the age of 12 years and a day. I wonder what the situation was in that respect in Shakespeare's England and in his Venice. Can a case be made that Desdemona was at the time of her elopment younger then the local age of majority,(Otherwise Brabantio would not have had a case to put before the duke), that B. could have insisted on her return home but chose not to out of anger or out of inability to refuse his daughter anything she wanted (or both), and that during the bulk of the play the relationship beween Othello and Desdemona, though termed "marriage", was actually the state of betrothal. Emilia, at the outset of the unpinning scene, expresses surprise (my edition has an exclamation mark) to hear that Othello left orders for her to be dismissed. The ritual dressing of Desdemona suggests to me the preparation of a bride. We have no prior scene or statement to hint that consummation has ever taken place. Could Desdemona's solemnity be due, not to a foreboding of death but to a consciousness of her impending change of state to womanhood? Is the tragedy not merely that she died violently and young but that she died a virgin and that the consummation of the love between Othello and Desdemona was death? Best wishes, Syd Kasten Jerusalem ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 07:52:42 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0784 Call for Papers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0784. Tuesday, 22 July 1997. From: D K Manley Date: Tuesday, 22 Jul 1997 10:38:47 +0100 Subject: Call for Papers I thought those of you producing Shakespearean Drama in practical form may like to contribute? CALL FOR PAPERS Submissions are invited for Issues 3 and 4 of 'Performance Practice', a peer-reviewed journal, which deals with the processes of making creative practical work for and with students. Papers concerned with interdisciplinary investigations, mixed-media presentations and/or installations are as appropriate to the philosophical 'brief' of 'Performance Practice' as are more ostensibly conventional productions. The policy of 'Performance Practice' Is to recognise diverse forms of documentation in much the same way that one would seek to encourage a variety of directorial methodologies. The concern of the recently appointed Editorial Board is that the journal foregrounds a concentration on performance as an event which is always distinct from the 'dramatic text' of literary discourse. 'Performance Practice' Is perhaps most usefully described as one aspect of the production-process; an aspect that always strives to be more provocative than prescriptive and which allows the creative event a resonance beyond its immediate, original audience. Authors submitting material for Inclusion retain copyright of their work. Submitted articles are sent 'blind' to appropriate members of the board for approval and/or comments. Authors of accepted articles will be invited to submit a brief synopsis of their careers and research Interests to date. 'Performance Practice' has a commitment to the retainment of the author's voice; as such, only those sections of text which are considered to impede the reader's understanding will be subject to editorial alteration. The editorial team will endeavour to check any amendments with authors prior to publication. wherever possible, articles should be submitted in Word 6, on HD PC disks and printed version to John Freeman, 'Performance Practice', University College Chester, Cheyney Rd, Chester CHI 4BJ UK. Alternatively. material can be faxed on 01244 373379 or e-mailed to jfreeman@chester.ac.uk Numbers 1 and; 2, alongside all future Issues of 'Performance Practice', are available at http://chandra.chester.ac.uk/~dmanley/perform.htm, or http://homepages.enterprise.net/davemanley/perform.htm Copies In magazine format are available by subscription. Editor: John Freeman University College Chester) Review Board: Gerry Harris (Lancaster University), Barry Edwards (Reader, Brunel University),Dr. Sue Purdie (University of Plymouth), Marsha Meskimmon (Staffordshire University), Prof. Robert Germay (University of Liege), Prof. James De Paul (University of Wisconsin). D K Manley davemanley@enterprise.net or dmanley@chester.ac.uk ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 08:48:10 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0785 Re: Hamlet and Characters MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0785. Saturday, 26 July 1997. [1] From: John Drakakis Date: Tuesday, 22 Jul 1997 13:40:09 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0782 Re: Hamlet and Characters [2] From: Gilad Shapira Date: Tuesday, 22 Jul 97 22:22:34 PDT Subj: Re: Various Hamlet [3] From: Ed Pixley Date: Thursday, 24 Jul 1997 12:30:54 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0751 Re: Various Re: Hamlet [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Tuesday, 22 Jul 1997 13:40:09 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0782 Re: Hamlet and Characters Obviously, Simon Malloch has missed Terry Hawkes's point entirely. Hamlet is neither a naturalistic play nor is it a soap opera. Characters in Elizabethan plays don't "think", nor are they "human" in the kind of transhistorical sense that Malloch seems to be suggesting. Cheers John Drakakis [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gilad Shapira Date: Tuesday, 22 Jul 97 22:22:34 PDT Subject: Re: Various Hamlet I want to emphasize the role of the artistic power of the playwright building his characters. Instead of asking why Hamlet is doing something, I rather ask why Shakespeare made him act in such a way and what is the meaning of this artistic decision. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pixley Date: Thursday, 24 Jul 1997 12:30:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0751 Re: Various Re: Hamlet > One more Director's question: does Hamlet really think Claudius is in > Gertrude's room, behind the arras? He's just left him behind in the > chapel (which, at Elsinore, is near a spiral staircase leading to the > Queen's chambers, I believe) and I've always wondered whether this meant > his remarks after stabbing Polonius were meant as sarcasm. Andy: As you will note from the date, I am over a week behind in my messages, so your question may already have been talked to death, but I'll throw in my 2 cents anyway. I like to think of Hamlet as an impulsive, even impetuous, character (I think it was Frances Fergusson who called him improvisational). He himself uses the term "rash." But this is a quality in himself that he dislikes; he admires Horatio, "that man who is not passion's slave," whom he "will wear in [his] heart, ay, in [his] heart's core," and so on. He does act rashly, when he follows the Ghost, when he interrupts the Players, and, of course, when he kills Polonius. But such rash actions come only when he is so impassioned that he doesn't have time for "thought" to intervene-when "the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pitch and moment With this regard their currents turn awry, And lose the name of action." He is, at this point in the play, a believer in consequential action, and so he cannot act without knowing the consequences, and when he thinks about the consequences, he becomes paralyzed-as when he doesn't kill the king at prayer: "and so 'a goes to heaven; And so I am revenged. That would be scanned. Only gradually does he move to a belief in existential, rather than consequential action. A key point for this change is in his soliloquy about Fortinbras: "Rightly to be great, Is not to stir without great argument, But rightly to find quarrel in a straw When honor's at the stake." The whole graveyard scene is devoted to the question of what comes of the great actions of Yorick, Great Caesar, and Alexander. And when Hamlet describes to Horatio what he did on board ship in finding their packet, he begins by observing: "Rashly--- And praised be rashness for it; let us know, Our indiscretion sometime serves us well When our deep plots do pall." And of course he ends that discussion with the "special providence in the fall of a sparrow" speech. "Since no man of aught he leaves knows, what is't to leave betimes? Let be." That conclusion is the exact opposite of what he said in the "To be or not to be" soliloquy." So, if it has already been beaten to death, I apologize for the intrusion, but, hey, I at least had a good time intruding. So thanks for the question. Ed Pixley ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 08:53:35 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0786 Shakespeare on Radio MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0786. Saturday, 26 July 1997. From: Hugh Davis Date: Tuesday, 22 Jul 1997 10:04:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shakespeare on Radio In the new biography of Humphrey Bogart by A.M. Sperber and Eric Lax, a brief discussion is given to the CBS Shakespeare Theater, a 1937 show used to fill in as summer broadcasting in the days before taped repeats. Although the show only lasted this one summer, it apparently caused NBC to schedule John Barrymore in a competing series, turning Mondays into "The Battle of the Bard." The CBS series was apparently edited hours of Shakespeare, with some of the shows including Burgess Meredith as Hamlet, Leslie Howard and Rosalind Russell in Much Ado, Eddie Robinson in Shrew, and Tallulah Bankhead and Welles 12th Night. Bogart joined Walter Huston and Brian Aherne in 1H4; Bogart was Hotspur, but the other roles are not identified. The book reviews Bogart's performance as adequate (he couldn't compete with Aherne or Huston's delivery), but it does not the novel casting, especially at a time when Bogie only played gangsters, and the authors note that this finally gave the actor a death speech. This discussion is on page 81 and immediately following. Do any list members know more about this intriguing series or its competitor, and are any tapes remaining? Thanks, Hugh Davis ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 08:57:30 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0787 Shakespeare's Language - Request for Suggestions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0787. Saturday, 26 July 1997. From: Jonathan Hope Date: Tuesday, 22 Jul 1997 14:36:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: Shakespeare's Language - Request for Suggestions I have been contracted by a publisher to write a chapter (c7000 words) on Shakespeare's language for a companion to Shakespeare studies aimed at undergraduates. My intention is that this will be a discursive account of Early Modern English, and Shakespeare's place within it - so I'll be trying to contextualise both EModE, and Shakespeare. If I can, I want to avoid producing just a list of weird things Shakespeare does with the language, and end up instead with an overview of what makes EModE different from Present-day English, and within that what marks Shakespeare out from other EModE users. I have a fairly clear idea of how I want to go about this, and am about to write a first draft. However, I'd be interested to hear any pleas or suggestions for things people would find useful in such a chapter - which I'll consider for inclusion in a second draft. Please reply either directly to me, and I'll summarise (though not till September), or to the whole list. A final point: I'm a historical linguist, and the chapter will be linguistic in approach. Other chapters will cover related issues like rhetoric, versification, printing, reading and so on. Thanks in anticipation, Jonathan Hope Middlesex University ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 09:07:11 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0788 Re: Othello; Stewart MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0788. Saturday, 26 July 1997. [1] From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 22 Jul 1997 10:02:42 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0783 Re: Othello's Age [2] From: James Marino Date: Tuesday, 22 Jul 1997 14:37:05 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0758 Re: Othello's Age [3] From: Dale Lyles Date: Tuesday, 22 Jul 1997 19:17:33 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0783 Re: Othello's Age [4] From: David Levine Date: Wednesday, 23 Jul 1997 00:03:00 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0783 Re: Stewart [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 22 Jul 1997 10:02:42 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0783 Re: Othello's Age Syd Kasten writes: >We have no prior scene or >statement to hint that consummation has ever taken place. Maybe not in the usual texts, but 1.3.261-265 could be interpreted either way. Othello asks (in most texts) for Desdemona to accompany him, not "to comply with heat (the young affects / In me defunct) and proper satisfaction". However, in the F1 and Q1 texts, the 'me' is written 'my'. If we take this literally, then we could read Othello's statement as saying that he's already consummated the relationship with Desdemona, and therefore no longer needst 'comply with heat'. I recall my third-year Shakespeare prof making the full argument when I was an undergrad, though I don't have either my notes or an OED handy. Suffice to say that there's a quibble on the definition of 'defunct', and that 'young' can either mean 'appropriate to a young man' or just indicate that the 'affects' of heat should be placed in the past. In fact, they only exist when young, since after consummation desire evaporates. The defunct of these passions are 'mine' since Othello has 'defuncted' 'heat' by consummation. I hope that makes sense. I would say, moreover, that there are a number of indications of both consummation and non-consummation in the play. Iago's dirty joke about an old black ram, as well as his comment to Cassio that Othello has not yet 'made wanton' with Desdemona both come to mind. The discrepancy, like that between actual time available for Desdmona's supposed infidelities and their description, may be a product of Kittredge's 'double time.' Cheers, Sean. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Marino Date: Tuesday, 22 Jul 1997 14:37:05 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0758 Re: Othello's Age Joyce Youings in Sixteenth Century England, part of the Penguin Social History of Britain, gives the age of marital consent as 14 for boys and 12 for girls. I agree that Desdemona's youth and naiveté are well established in the play. In fact, I was going to suggest that she may die a virgin, but was given pause by the ambiguity of Othello's remarks about his own great passion for her beauty even as he sees that as the source of her imagined sins (as in "O, thou weed,/ Who art so lovely fair, and smell'st so sweet,/That the sense aches at thee...") and Desdeona's call for her "wedding sheets" seems to imply that the marriage was consummated, but could also, and intriguingly, prepare the death scene as the first, or an other, nuptial. As to whether Othello is played old today, the difficulty I have with the idea that he might by "around forty-five or so" is just that old question of what age would have appeared "advanced into the vale of years" to that audience compared with ours. I am convinced that *disparity* in age is more important than the absolute ages of either Desdemona or Othello. Still, for the purpose of strongly making the point about disparate ages today, (what issues would arise today if Desdemona were played as a twelve-year old?) wouldn't it be better if, in performance, Othello didn't look too virile and strapping to have such doubts about his sexual prowess? Active generalship on one hand does not require advanced years; on the other hand a general may lead long after physical strength is diminished; history provided examples of both. Cheers, James [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Tuesday, 22 Jul 1997 19:17:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0783 Re: Othello's Age Syd Kasten's extremely interesting proposal that Othello and Desdemona were betrothed and unconsummated would give extra weight to his outre jealousy: if she were in fact still a virgin, then the idea that she has given herself first to Cassio might well drive Othello beyond the bounds. Is this idea playable, do you think? Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Levine Date: Wednesday, 23 Jul 1997 00:03:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0783 Re: Stewart Yes, Stewart was Claudius opposite Derek Jacobi in the BBC Hamlet production, and he was easily the most frightening, formidable Claudius I've ever seen. For that matter, he was also Enobarbus in the RSC Antony and Cleopatra production, directed by Trevor Nunn that played on ABC-TV around 1973 or so. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 09:40:57 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0789 Help re Forman and Montrose MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0789. Saturday, 26 July 1997. From: Judy Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 22 Jul 1997 16:53:42 -0300 (ADT) Subject: Help re Forman and Montrose In his influential 1983 essay 'Shaping fantasies' etc, (Representations vol.1, no.2, pp. 61-94), Louis Montrose quotes Simon Forman's dream of Queen Elizabeth. The footnote to the quotation reads: 'Quoted from manuscript in A. L. Rowse, _The Case Books of Simon Forman_ (London, 1974), p.31.' This essay is reprinted in the _New Casebooks_ volume on _Midsummer Night's Dream_ (ed. Richard Dutton, 1996). The footnote is unchanged. Montrose's essay was republished in somewhat altered form in _Rewriting the Renaissance_ (ed. Margaret W. Ferguson et al, Chicago, 1986). The footnote to the quotation of Forman's dream is identical with 1983, except for the addition of the publisher, ie '(London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1974)'. I have not been able to locate any book by A. L. Rowse with this title. I have consulted A. L. Rowse, _Simon Forman: Sex and Society in Shakespeare's Age_ (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1974). In this volume the quotation of Forman's dream appears on p. 20. Rowse's footnote refers to C. H. Josten's _Elias Ashmole_, I.29. At this location Josten speaks of the large body of manuscripts, including those of Forman, which were collected by Ashmole and are now in the Bodleian. Rowse does not give an MS call number, but I suppose Montrose may be correct in stating that Rowse is quoting from manuscript. Can anyone help me by providing information about a book by Rowse with the title Montrose gives (and which is repeated by other writers, eg Kirby Farrell), or should it be supposed that Montrose's references to title and page number are both wrong? Further information about the actual manuscript would also be helpful. Thank you! Judy Kennedy jkennedy@stthomasu.ca ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 09:45:06 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0790 Re: Tromeo and Juliet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0790. Saturday, 26 July 1997. From: Tanya Gough Date: Tuesday, 22 Jul 1997 09:27:39 -0400 Subject: Tromeo and Juliet >...believe me I'm >not a prude...but didn't you think this was a disgusting film? The >nurse sleeping with Juliet? Ok, so the film isn't for everyone. But I am concerned about the assumption that the film is worthless simply because it is not suitable for classroom viewing. Troma Films have mastered the art of pre-pubescent male-fantasy driven exploitation, and *Tromeo* is not intended to be viewed as anything other than shlock horror, with a excessive dose of gratuitous sex and violence. Yes, the film is disgusting. But that's the point. Adapting anything well known into another genre affects the integrity of the original, so within the context of the film, having the nurse sleep with Juliet makes perfect sense. I would hate to think that Polanski's *Macbeth* should be stricken from the shelves (think about the blood and the nude-Lady Macbeth scene! gracious me!) or that Peter Hall's *Midsummer's Night Dream* be considered unappropriate because Judi Dench is dressed only in green paint and Edenic leaves. I would much rather have Zeffirelli's Hamlet destroyed for its pointless butchering of the text and ridiculous staging (dueling with broadswords?!?!?!?) which contribute nothing to either text or genre. I wouldn't show the erotic version of Hamlet to a class, either, but that doesn't stop me from finding the entire concept hysterically funny. To each his own. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 10:01:07 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0791 CFP: Shakespeare at Kalamazoo 1998 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0791. Saturday, 26 July 1997. From: Ruth E. Sternglantz Date: Thursday, 24 Jul 1997 13:25:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: CFP: Shakespeare at Kalamazoo 1998 APOLOGIES FOR CROSSPOSTING Please Post Call for Papers 1998 SHAKESPEARE AT KALAMAZOO Thirty-third International Congress on Medieval Studies Kalamazoo, Michigan 7-10 May 1998 Shakespeare at Kalamazoo will be sponsoring two sessions at the 1998 Congress, both devoted to papers specifically relating Shakespeare to the broader canvas of cultural history. Session 1. Shakespeare in the Tradition of the Performing Arts Session 2. Shakespeare and Cultural Continuity Papers for Session 1 should demonstrate evidence in Shakespeare's plays of medieval ideas of theatre and of medieval performance practices and dramaturgical conventions. Papers for Session 2 should focus on the representation in Shakespeare's plays of late medieval and early modern cultural trends. Papers are invited from scholars in the fields of art history, music, folklore, history, philosophy, theatre history, history of science, as well as literature, both English and continental. The Congress on Medieval Studies provides a unique milieu for an exchange of insights on Shakespeare's place in the continuum of culture. The following rules corresponding to those established by the Board of the Medieval Institute should be strictly adhered to if you intend to submit an abstract: 1. All abstracts must include the following information at the top of the front page: title of paper; name of author; complete mailing address, including e- mail and fax if available; institutional affiliation, if any, of the author; confirmation of the 20-minute reading time length; statement of need (or no need) for audio-visual equipment. 2. Abstracts or papers must be typed, double-spaced, not more than 300 words long, and must clearly indicate the paper's thesis, methodology, and conclusions. Accepted abstracts will be submitted for publication to the Shakespeare Newsletter or other periodical. Publication of abstracts does not preclude publication of complete papers. 3. THREE COPIES OF ABSTRACTS or, PREFERABLY, COMPLETED PAPERS MUST BE SUBMITTED BY SEPTEMBER 1. Abstracts or papers submitted after the deadline cannot be considered. Three members of the governing board of Shakespeare at Kalamazoo will select the papers. Electronic submission is encouraged to facilitate transmission among the selection panel. 4. Submission of an abstract or paper will be considered agreement by the author to attend the Congress if the paper is accepted. 5. It is understood that papers submitted will be essentially new and will not have been presented in public before. 6. Graduate students wishing to submit material should consult their advisors about the suitability of their work and the regulations (if any) of their university. 7. Papers submitted may not require more than 20 MINUTES OF READING TIME, including slides, films, or other a/v support. Session leaders will hold papers strictly to this limit to facilitate discussion. 8. In order to allow as many scholars to participate in the program as possible, ONE ABSTRACT ONLY should be submitted to the Thirty-third Congress. Please direct inquiries, abstracts, and papers to Ruth Sternglantz NYU--General Studies Program 326 Shimkin Hall New York, NY 10012 Fax: 212 995-4137 E-mail: sternglz@is2.nyu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 10:04:41 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0792 Branagh's Hamlet: The Video MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0792. Saturday, 26 July 1997. From: Chris Gordon Date: Wednesday, 23 Jul 97 20:57:21 -0500 Subject: Branagh's Hamlet: The Video Branagh's _Hamlet_ was released on video yesterday and I rented and watched it. The bad news is that it's in pan-and-scan format, so you lose the sweep of the film, not to mention some of the interesting responses that happen at the edges of the screen, or conversations between two people in which you had been able to see both, but now you move between them. The good news is that the intimacy of the film is much more apparent, especially in certain scenes. I'd still rather have it letter-boxed myself, but will have to cope for now. The laser disc version may be 70 mm format, but I don't know (the disc is cheaper than the video however: about $70 as opposed to $100; I'll have to wait for the previously viewed tapes to appear before I can add it to my collection). Chris Gordon ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 10:10:32 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0793 EMLS 3.1 Please cross-post MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0793. Saturday, 26 July 1997. From: Joanne Woolway Date: FriDAY, 25 Jul 1997 08:31:59 +0100 (BST) Subject: EMLS 3.1 Please cross-post _"All's Well that Ends Well," "Love's Labour's Lost," "A Midsummer Night's Worst Nightmare": Or, How Early Modern Literary Studies 3.1 Finally Came to Fruition._ This lamentable tale of the delay of EMLS 3.1 begins in March 1997 with a deliberate decision to move EMLS's publication schedule to May, September, January, to avoid clashing with beginnings and ends of term and the MLA's December convention. Our timing slightly out of joint, we nonetheless felt confident that all was on schedule. But then a tempestuous noise of thunder and lightning was heard overhead and the Oriel College ethernet connection was hit by a bolt from the heavens. Suddenly, e-mail was no more, the internet receded into virtual unreality, and EMLS's non-existent funding was channelled into trans-atlantic phone-calls. The journal did not appear. Happier news was on the horizon, though, as a post-doctoral fellowship beckoned Ray Siemens to the University of Alberta. A welcome offer, its only drawback was that it meant him packing up and sending off his books and files and computer to these distant lands. And still the journal did not appear. Back in Oxford, meanwhile, and Joanne Woolway's other job (Adviser to Women Students) got her involved in a lengthy harassment case, which wiped out two weeks of term. This bode some strange eruption to our state . . . A job offer (Lecturer at Oriel College) added further distraction, though this time of a more welcome nature. So still the journal did not appear. Close to completion, the files were mounted on the EMLS site, carefully proof-read by a new team of editorial assistants, Sean Lawrence, Gillian Austen, and Jennifer Lewin (now in charge of interactive EMLS, with Paul Dyck). But some mischievous spirit had altered an access password and the homepage only showed issue 2.3. (O cursed spite, that ever I was born to set this right, said Joanne) And still the journal did not appear. To be or not to be?: that really was the question. But finally, it has appeared, and we now present this issue to our patient audience. The table of contents is below, and the EMLS site can be found at http://purl.oclc.org/emls/emlshome.html Included alongside issue 3.1 is the first in the EMLS Special Issue Series, edited by Ian Lancashire and Michael Best, and entitled _New Scholarship from Old Renaissance Dictionaries: Applications of the Early Modern English Dictionaries Database._ EMLS is always happy to consider submissions and new ideas for publication: full submission details, contact addresses, etc. can be found on the site. Happy reading! Raymond G. Siemens Joanne Woolway Early Modern Literary Studies = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Early Modern Literary Studies 3.1 (May 1997): Editor: Joanne Woolway, Oriel College, Oxford Articles: Steve Sohmer. "12 June 1599: Opening Day at Shakespeare's Globe." Randall Martin. "Isabella Whitney's 'Lamentation upon the death of William Gruffith.'" Emma Roth-Schwartz. "Colon and Semi-Colon in Donne's Prose Letters: Practice and Principle." Note: Jeffrey Kahan. "Ambroise Pare's Des Monstres as a Possible Source for Caliban." Reviews: Patricia Parker. Shakespeare from the Margins: Language, Culture, Context. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996. Mary Bly, Washington University, St. Louis. Chris Fitter. Poetry, Space, Landscape: Toward a New Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. Garrett A. Sullivan, Jr., Pennsylvania State University. William S. Carroll. Fat King, Lean Beggar: Representations of Poverty in the Age of Shakespeare. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1996. Michael Long, Oriel College, Oxford University. Mark Breitenberg. Anxious Masculinity in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. Stephen Longstaffe, University College of St Martin. Hilary Hinds. God's Englishwomen: Seventeenth-Century Radical Sectarian Writing and Feminist Criticism. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1996. Mark Houlahan, University of Waikato.. Melanie Hansen and Suzanne Trill, eds. Voicing Women: Gender and Sexuality in Early Modern Writing. Renaissance Texts and Studies, Keele, Staffordshire: Keele UP, 1996. Elizabeth Hodgson, University of British Columbia. David Lindley. The Trials of Frances Howard: Fact and Fiction at the Court of King James. New York: Routledge, 1993. Bryan N.S. Gooch, University of Victoria. Lady Mary Wroth. Lady Mary Wroth: Poems. A Modernized Edition. R. E. Pritchard, ed. Keele, Staffordshire: Keele UP, 1996. Joyce Green MacDonald, University of Kentucky. S. P. Cerasano and Marion Wynne-Davies, eds. Renaissance Drama by Women: Texts and Documents. New York: Routledge, 1996. Patricia Ralston, Covenant College. EMLS Special Issue Series 1 (April 1997): New Scholarship from Old Renaissance Dictionaries: Applications of the Early Modern English Dictionaries Database. Ian Lancashire and Michael Best, eds. Editorial Preface. Ian Lancashire, University of Toronto, and Michael Best, University of Victoria. "That purpose which is plain and easy to be understood": Using the Computer Database of Early Modern English Dictionaries to Resolve Problems in a Critical Edition of The Second Tome of Homilies (1563). Stephen Buick, University of Toronto. Renaissance Dictionaries and Shakespeare's Language: A Study of Word-meaning in Troilus and Cressida. Mark Catt, University of Toronto. Did Shakespeare Consciously Use Archaic English? Mary Catherine Davidson, University of Toronto. An English Renaissance Understanding of the Word "Tragedy,"1587-1616. Tanya Hagen, University of Toronto. Understanding Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus and the EMEDD. Ian Lancashire, University of Toronto. Reflections of an Electronic Scribe: Two Renaissance Dictionaries and Their Implicit Philosophies of Language. Jonathan Warren, University of Toronto. "A Double Spirit of Teaching": What Shakespeare's Teachers Teach Us. Patricia Winson, University of Toronto. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 10:13:26 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0794 Poor Yorick Website MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0794. Saturday, 26 July 1997. From: Tanya Gough Date: Friday, 25 Jul 1997 15:32:53 -0400 Subject: Poor Yorick Website You asked for it, you got it. My graphic designer par excellence has been working day and night to get us up and running - three months ahead of schedule, thanks to you lot. Come visit our Shakespeare Multimedia Catalog at: http://granite.cyg.net/~yorick Yours, Tanya Gough ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:19:00 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0795 Re: Shakespeare on Radio MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0795. Monday, 28 July 1997. [1] From: Tanya Gough Date: Saturday, 26 Jul 1997 09:27:58 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0786 Shakespeare on Radio [2] From: John Owen Date: Saturday, 26 Jul 1997 11:48:32 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0786 Shakespeare on Radio [3] From: Patricia E. Gallagher Date: Saturday, 26 Jul 1997 10:56:17 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0786 Shakespeare on Radio [4] From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Saturday, 26 Jul 1997 12:16:14 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0786 Shakespeare on Radio [5] From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Saturday, 26 Jul 1997 19:22:23 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0786 Shakespeare on Radio [6] From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Sunday, 27 Jul 1997 13:44:43 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0786 Shakespeare on Radio [7] From: David M Richman Date: Monday, 28 Jul 1997 09:40:31 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0786 Shakespeare on Radio [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tanya Gough Date: Saturday, 26 Jul 1997 09:27:58 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0786 Shakespeare on Radio Hugh - We've just got a line on that series. I don't have a price yet, but anyone interested can contact us, Poor Yorick at yorick@cyg.net, or through our new website: http://granite.cyg.net/~yorick Cheers, Tanya Gough [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen Date: Saturday, 26 Jul 1997 11:48:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0786 Shakespeare on Radio In reply to Hugh Davis, The Shakespeare in Hollywood series has been reissued a number of times. I have the LPs released by Fonodisk under the Ariel label, and cassette versions of two of the series from Radio Yesteryear. The address on the liner notes for these is: Radio Yesteryear Box C Sandy Hook, Conn 06482 Although be cautioned that I got these a good ten years ago, so the address may have changed, and you may need to do a little Web surfing to get the latest info. I have to disagree with Bogie's biographer. Bogart's performance is altogether praiseworthy, except for a couple of minor stumbles (it was live, after all and underrehearsed). He has no trouble at all conveying Hotspur in all his vitality. Walter Huston's diction is flawless, but he and Aherne are definitely outacted. And a word might be said also for Walter Connolly's excellent Falstaff. Get this if you can, by all means. One revelation of this series is actor Thomas Mitchell. He plays Lear and Brutus and is very good, especially in the latter part, and Lord knows it is difficult to make Brutus interesting. (Note-The radio yesteryear series also includes a rare recording of the great Old Vic production of Peer Gynt with Richardson and Olivier that is worth investigating.) [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patricia E. Gallagher Date: Saturday, 26 Jul 1997 10:56:17 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0786 Shakespeare on Radio In reference to radio broadcasts of Shakespeare, some years ago I purchased two lp sets (back in the days when records still existed) called "Hollywood Immortals Perform Shakespeare" and "Shakespeare in Hollywood" The first lp contains 5 original radio broadcasts: The Taming of the Shrew with Edward G. Robinson; Much Ado About Nothing, with Leslie Howard and Rosalind Russell; Julius Caesar with Claude Rains, Walter Abel & Thomas Mitchell; Henry IV with Humphrey Bogart; and Twelfth Night with Orson Welles, Sir Cedric Hardwicke a& Tallulah Bankhead. The second lp contains 4 programs; Twelfth Night, Much Ado and Shrew programs from above, and As You Like It with Frank Morgan & Elissa Landi. I'm not sure if these are still available. If anyone needs the exact information about these old records, let me know. Patricia E. Gallagher [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Saturday, 26 Jul 1997 12:16:14 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0786 Shakespeare on Radio Three episodes of the CBS Shakespeare Theater, including the H4 with Bogart, are available on tape from Radio Yesteryear, a company in Sandy Hook, NJ which sells tapes of old radio shows. The three are: The Taming of the Shrew with Edward G. Robinson, first broadcast July 3, 1937 (item LRB-41) Henry IV with Walter Huston, Humphrey Bogart, Brian Aherne, and Dame May Whitty, first broadcast August 23, 1937 (item LRB-42) Twelfth Night with Orson Welles, Tallulah Bankhead, and Sir Cedric Hardwicke, first broadcast August 30, 1937 (item LRB-43) The tapes cost $4.98 each plus postage, and can be ordered by calling Radio Yesteryear at 1-800-243-0987, by e-mailing them at radio@yesteryear.com, or by faxing 1-203-797-0819. It's possible there may be other tapes of the CBS Shakespeare series available, since they claim to have 50,000 radio shows that are not in their catalogue. They'll send a report on the availability of up to three programs for free with an order (or for $3 without an order). Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Saturday, 26 Jul 1997 19:22:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0786 Shakespeare on Radio Dear Hugh Davis, You can probably get copies of both of the Shakespeare radio programs you mention from RADIO YESTERYEAR, Box C, Sandy Hook, CT 06482. Order line is 800 243-0987, or Fax 203 797-0819. I've ordered copies of many of Barrymore's radio Shakespeare programs from them, and the quality of the cassettes is excellent. When you call, ask for the search form-they can search their huge database of radio programs according to any criterion you wish. One warning: the price of tapes is rather steep ($12.00 per hour of recording). I hope this helps. I hope you'll post any other information you run across about radio Shakespeare. Cheers, Douglas Lanier DML3@christa.unh.edu [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Sunday, 27 Jul 1997 13:44:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0786 Shakespeare on Radio Dear Hugh Davis, Most of the Shakespeare on radio shows that you have inquired about are available in a boxed set from Radio/Video Yesteryear, Box C, Sandy Hook, Conn. 06482. Call 203-426-2774. They are of excellent quality in my opinion. All the best, Kenneth Rothwell [7]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Monday, 28 Jul 1997 09:40:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0786 Shakespeare on Radio I have an old Columbia recording of five episodes of the Shakespeare on Radio series broadcast on CBS in 1937. I admire Bogart's Hotspur-impassioned, a bit dangerous. He doesn't like being toyed with by a manipulative crafty old king. Each play is cut down to just under an hour. I picked these up in a used record store about twenty years ago. I have no idea as to their current availability. David Richman ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:25:55 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0796 Re: Simon Forman MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0796. Monday, 28 July 1997. [1] From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Saturday, 26 Jul 97 11:14:00 PDT Subj: Simon Forman [2] From: Bruce Golden Date: Sunday, 27 Jul 1997 17:07:02 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0789 Help re Forman and Montrose [3] From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Monday, 28 Jul 1997 13:51:35 +1000 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0789 Forman [4] From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Monday, 28 Jul 1997 10:28:12 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0789 Help re Forman and Montrose [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Saturday, 26 Jul 97 11:14:00 PDT Subject: Simon Forman Judy Kennedy inquired about A.L. Rowse's book "The case books of Simon Forman." This is the title given when his "Simon Forman: Sex and Society in Shakespeare's Age" (Wiedenfeld and Nicolson, 1974) was re-published as a Picador paperback by Pan Books in 1976. Barbara Traister of Lehigh University is completing an edition of Forman's manuscripts from Oxford. Georgianna Ziegler Folger Library [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Golden Date: Sunday, 27 Jul 1997 17:07:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0789 Help re Forman and Montrose My copy of a Picador paper edition [no date] reads, _The Case Books Of Simon Forman: Sex and Society in Shakespeare's Age_. The quote and Josten reference are on page 31 of this edition, but Forman's "dream" passage, is fn. 2 cited from p. 226 of Josten. Rowse's fn. 1 seems to refer to Jung's quote concerning Elias Ashmole's dream notes, not Forman's. -Bruce Golden bgolden@wiley.csusb.edu [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Monday, 28 Jul 1997 13:51:35 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0789 Forman I have in front of me as I type this a paperback copy of A. L. Rowse, _The Case Books of Simon Forman: Sex and Society in Shakespeare's Age_ (London, 1974), published by Pan Books in a Picador edition. The description of Simon Forman's dream is indeed printed on p.31.' There is a note that it was first published in the same year (presumably in hardback, by Weidenfeld and Nicholson. [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Monday, 28 Jul 1997 10:28:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0789 Help re Forman and Montrose I don't know the answer to your question, but I know who would: Professor Barbara Traister of Lehigh University, who has conducted an extensive study of Forman and his casebooks. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:32:14 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0797 Re: Othello/Desdemona MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0797. Monday, 28 July 1997. [1] From: David Phillips Date: Sunday, 27 Jul 1997 11:37:43 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0788 Re: Othello; Stewart [2] From: Stuart Manger Date: Sunday, 27 Jul 1997 20:10:06 +0100 Subj: SHK 8.0788 Re: Othello/Desdemona Ages [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Phillips Date: Sunday, 27 Jul 1997 11:37:43 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0788 Re: Othello; Stewart I Those interested in the consummation debate would do well to consult the following: Nelson & Haines' "Othello's Unconsummated Marriage." Essays in Criticism 1983 January (vol. 33) and Nathan's "Othello's Marriage is Consummated." Cahiers Elisabethians 1988 (vol. 34). Also, Lynda Boose in "Othello's Handkerchief . . ." (ELR 5 and in Barthelemy's Critical Essays on Shakespeare's Othello) makes a good argument through her focus on the handkerchief and blood-stained wedding sheets. I tend to favor the argument that the marriage has been consummated. What, after all, have Desdemona and Othello been doing during Iago and Cassio's conversation in 2.3 after Cassio is dismissed? That scene begins before 10 P.M. and lasts until dawn, with Othello and Desdemona entering somewhere (I would guess) between 10 and midnight. For an interesting article on time in Othello, see Wentersdorf's "The Time Problem in Othello: A Reconsideration." SHJW 1985. All the best, David [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Manger Date: Sunday, 27 Jul 1997 20:10:06 +0100 Subject: SHK 8.0788 Re: Othello/Desdemona Ages >As to whether Othello is played old today, the difficulty I have with >the idea that he might by "around forty-five or so" is just that old >question of what age would have appeared "advanced into the vale of >years" to that audience compared with ours. I am convinced that >*disparity* in age is more important than the absolute ages of either >Desdemona or Othello. Still, for the purpose of strongly making the >point about disparate ages today, (what issues would arise today if >Desdemona were played as a twelve-year old?) wouldn't it be better if, >in performance, Othello didn't look too virile and strapping to have >such doubts about his sexual prowess? Active generalship on one hand >does not require advanced years; on the other hand a general may lead >long after physical strength is diminished; history provided examples of >both. Age of sexual consent is a key issue not only in 'Othello', of course; crucially it is raised in 'R and J': having just produced the show with R and J played by actors more or less the exact age Shakespeare calls for (J=14.5 years / R= 17 years), I can vouch for the visual / sexual frisson and validity of the gamble on stage. They simply looked absolutely right, and made the central dynamic of the play work so well and tragically. I think Desdemona is indeed young - many curled darlings have been pursuing her. She is overly-protected by Brabantio, and his shock and even disgust at the notion of her apparent sexual precocity is I imagine echoed in 90% of all fathers faced with suitors for their apparently sexually innocent offspring? BUT she is seen in important and distinguished company, apparently runs the house (Mrs Brabantio conspicuous by her absence?), and certainly feels strong enough to shock her father, and challenge him in public before the Doge himself, so 12?........... I think not. Maybe 17/18+? She's certainly older than Juliet, isn't she? Lot of the Act V Miranda in her? Othello's age is more interesting: 40+? Declined into the vale of years - yet that's not much? What does that mean? Not far into the vale? Or does the vale of years really matter? I agree with James that the key issue is disparity of ages: that is what Iago exploits. BUT he also exploits Othello's sexual insecurity about his own sexual attractiveness, maybe even experience? I'm afraid that a 40 year old can be just as tentative about his / her charms as an adolescent when bowled over by what is clearly a major passion, and age has very little to do with a sense of security about sexual identity in that context!! Shakespeare touches a ruefully raw nerve there, I feel!! Above all, the physical disparity on stage is important, however: too big, and he looks like a cradle-snatcher, she dangerously like a lovesick Lolita, or at least runaway child-bride, and there is for our own super-sensitive age the unpleasant sensation of child-abuse? Of course, the Elizabethans would have had no such qualms at all. But we, like Brabantio, might find the idea of such a pair making the beast with two backs a bit yukky? I think as a producer I'd go for a 40/20 age range? She would be old enough to feel confident of her own sexual identity, old enough to feel daddy's chains clogging, and certainly alive enough to life to find Othello's stories status/experience exciting, and he would be already successful, but had spent all his main years building a reputation that shuts out the notion of relationships that end in marriage, certainly to someone of such high-status as Desdemona? I'd be very unhappy with playing her as overly young, or Othello ditto, OR Othello as overly old: he must be convincingly sexually active/attractive to make the grip between the two lovers valid for the audience, and the outrage we feel as Iago unhinges it all totally disgraceful and tragic? If either party is too young / old, then all we might feel is what a relief! Hope there's something here to chew on? Stuart Manger ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:39:57 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0798 Re: Characters; Branagh; Tromeo MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0798. Monday, 28 July 1997. [1] From: Sean Lawrence Date: Saturday, 26 Jul 1997 09:50:58 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0785 Re: Hamlet and Characters [2] From: Tanya Gough Date: Saturday, 26 Jul 1997 10:20:52 -0400 Subj: Hamet Video [3] From: Billy Houck Date: Saturday, 26 Jul 1997 19:03:58 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0790 Re: Tromeo and Juliet [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Lawrence Date: Saturday, 26 Jul 1997 09:50:58 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0785 Re: Hamlet and Characters >Obviously, Simon Malloch has missed Terry Hawkes's point entirely. >Hamlet is neither a naturalistic play nor is it a soap opera. >Characters in Elizabethan plays don't "think", nor are they "human" in >the kind of transhistorical sense that Malloch seems to be suggesting. >Cheers >John Drakakis I think you've missed Simon's point entirely. To the best of my recollection, he did not at any point say that Hamlet is either a naturalistic play or a soap opera. Obviously you're not arguing against him, but against a strawman of your own creation. What he did argue is that art allows us to be taken out of ourselves. In other words, it subverts our naive enlightenment confidence in our own ontological superiority to anything else we might encounter. It is not only the fertility of (say) Ed Pixley's comments on Hamlet's character, posted in the same number of SHAKSPER as your own, which your line of reasoning would censor, but also any possibility of art being dangerous. Cheers, Sean. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tanya Gough Date: Saturday, 26 Jul 1997 10:20:52 -0400 Subject: Hamet Video Rumour has it the Branagh will be released at sell-through (i.e. affordable price as opposed to the higher cost for rental companies) in the late fall - and widescreen editions do exist - if your video store doesn't have it in stock, ask for it. Or you can wait until the price comes down (my sources say it will be at Christmas time) - and buy it letterboxed without paying through the nose for it. Yours, Tanya Gough [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Saturday, 26 Jul 1997 19:03:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0790 Re: Tromeo and Juliet The real question is why Troma Studios hasn't done TITUS ANDRONICUS yet. It's the obvious choice. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:41:58 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0799 Tempest MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0799. Monday, 28 July 1997. From: Scott Crozier Date: Monday, 28 Jul 1997 16:11:19 +1100 Subject: Tempest On the 6th of August, Horned Moon will be presenting their physicalised version of The Tempest at the Malthouse in Melbourne Australia. If you caught last year's Dream, which sold out in Melbourne and then in Singapore, you'll know what to expect. If you didn't and are in Melbourne during between the 6 and 16 August and you would like to see the best of Australia's physical theatre company's appropriation of Shakespeare then don't miss it! For more information, see the web site: http://www.hornedmoon.asn.au/ regards, Scott Crozier ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:44:36 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0800 CFP: Shakespop MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0800. Monday, 28 July 1997. From: Elizabeth Abele Date: Monday, 28 Jul 1997 10:29:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: CFP: Shakespop Call for Papers: SHAKESPEARE IN POPULAR CULTURE Popular Culture/American Culture Association Orlando April 8-11, 1998 Papers are still being accepted that examine the use and presence of Shakespeare in popular culture and media, including music, novels, games, film, television, advertising, etc. Please submit abstracts of 150-750 words by September 8 to: Elizabeth Abele 206 S. 13th St., #901 Philadelphia, PA 19107 eabele@astro.ocis.temple.edu ***** Papers already accepted: "Shakespeare and Terrorism: Fictions of Power" Susan Baker, University of Nevada--Reno "Shakespeare as "Worthy Pioneer!": From the McGuffey Readers to the Frontier Stage" Philip H. Christenson, SUNY Suffolk "Nothing So Crude": Shakespeare and Structure in Sandman" Jeremy R. Jacobs, University of Pittsburgh "Earnest Equivocator: Columbo Undoes Macbeth" Margaret Rose Jaster, Pennsylvania State University, Harrisburg "Shakespeare, Class, and Pornography" Jim Persoon, Grand Valley State University "Bill Shakespeare Never Knew the Ragtime of His Day" Robert Sawyer, University of Georgia "The Girlhood of Shakespeare's Heroines: Traditional Characters/Contemporary Characters" Susann E. Suprenant, University of Oregon========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 07:04:45 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0801 Othello/Desdemona; Characters; Branagh; Thanks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0801. Tuesday, 29 July 1997. [1] From: G. L. Horton Date: Monday, 28 Jul 1997 11:54:58 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0797 Re: Othello/Desdemona [2] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Monday, 28 Jul 1997 13:23:06 -0400 Subj: SHK 8.0782 Re: Hamlet and Characters [3] From: David Hale Date: Monday, 28 Jul 97 14:57:33 EDT Subj: Re: SHAKSPER: SHK 8.0792 Branaghs Hamlet: The Video [4] From: Hugh Davis Date: Monday, 28 Jul 1997 16:31:10 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0795 Re: Shakespeare on Radio [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: G. L. Horton Date: Monday, 28 Jul 1997 11:54:58 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0797 Re: Othello/Desdemona Stuart Manger says >I think as a producer I'd >go for a 40/20 age range? She would be old enough to feel confident of >her own sexual identity, old enough to feel daddy's chains clogging, and.. (snip) I sincerely hope that you mean that you would have the actor PLAY Desdemona as 20 years old, not that she must BE 20! First, because I have yet to hear a 20 year old whose vocal instrument is equal to a major Shakespearean role -- and I see quite a bit of student Shakespeare. I know that the Globe co. used boys: but these boys were apprenticed to the company, and had been in training nearly a decade before they appeared in the more challenging parts. You say you >...just produced the show with >R and J played by actors more or less the exact age Shakespeare calls >for (J=14.5 years / R= 17 years), I can vouch for the visual / sexual >frisson and validity of the gamble on stage. They simply looked >absolutely right Yes, but what did they SOUND like? Now, I will concede that the apparently teen-aged actor who played Katherine in Henry 5 at the New Globe was one of the best actors in that production. But though his line readings were excellent, I did have trouble hearing him. Second, such age specificity is type casting gone mad. Is a performer to train rigorously for the requisite years, and be washed up at 21, like those poor exploited girl gymnasts? Are we not to see the results of mature artistic consideration applied to a "young" part? Peggy Ashcroft began performing Shakespeare when a school child, but even so she says she was a much better Juliet when thirty than when twenty. She played heroines into her fifties, and compared her technique for conveying the impression of youth to Ulanova's and Fonteyn's. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Monday, 28 Jul 1997 13:23:06 -0400 Subject: SHK 8.0782 Re: Hamlet and Characters Dear Simon Malloch, Shakespeare's plays do not, by and large, wear what Gore Vidal called the grey badge of naturalism. There is nothing 'cold' or 'discouraging' about this. Quite the reverse. It's a principle which frees us from a good deal of chilling chit-chat. Terence Hawkes [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Hale Date: Monday, 28 Jul 97 14:57:33 EDT Subject: Re: SHAKSPER: SHK 8.0792 Branaghs Hamlet: The Video I also rented Branagh's "Hamlet" over the weekend, and enjoyed seeing it again. Watching while holding the published screenplay revealed lots of minor differences in the description of shots, sequences of shots, and other things. David Hale SUNY Brockport [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hugh Davis Date: Monday, 28 Jul 1997 16:31:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0795 Re: Shakespeare on Radio I want to offer sincerest thanks for the many good responses to my query about the Shakespeare experiments on radio. My appetite is now even greater for finding these performances (if John Owen is right, the H4 should be wonderful). I will get to work tracking them down. Thanks again to all for such wonderful aid, Hugh Davis ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 07:22:56 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0802 Re: Shakespeare on Radio; Simon Forman MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0802. Wednesday, 30 July 1997. [1] From: Thomas F. Connolly Date: Tuesday, 29 Jul 1997 10:24:45 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0786 Shakespeare on Radio [2] From: Judy Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 29 Jul 1997 11:48:31 -0300 (ADT) Subj: Re: Simon Forman [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas F. Connolly Date: Tuesday, 29 Jul 1997 10:24:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0786 Shakespeare on Radio I have purchased tapes of old radio broadcasts from "Fair Pickings" 339 Nassau St., Rome NY 315-337-2576. I own two Barrymore Shakespeare recordings made from the radio broadcasts --the label is "Audio Rarities." Martin Norden's book __John Barrymore: A Bio-Bibliography__ published by Greenwood has some information on the 1937 radio "Bard-battle." Remember NBC broadcast the shows over its "blue" network. The same that broadcast Walter Winchell (and turned into ABC), it was perceived as less prestigious. Thus the Shakespearean radio shows on the NBC blue network are all the more interesting. Tom Connolly University of Ostrava, Czech Republic [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Judy Kennedy Date: Tuesday, 29 Jul 1997 11:48:31 -0300 (ADT) Subject: Re: Simon Forman Many thanks to Georgianna Ziegler, Bruce Golden, Adrian Kiernander, and Phyllis Rackin for the clarification of the Montrose reference, and for the information about Barbara Traister's forthcoming edition of the Forman mss., which should be very interesting. Presumably the confusion arose when an editor of the _Rewriting the Renaissance_ volume inserted a publisher without consulting the author of the article. The Pan pb is hard to track down; it also seems to have had a confusing number of editions or reprintings, but Adrian Kiernander's information about publication in pb in the same year as the Weidenfeld and Nicolson accords with the Montrose ref. Thanks again! Judy Kennedy jkennedy@stthomasu.ca ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 07:26:35 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0803 Juliet's Birthday MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0803. Wednesday, 30 July 1997. From: Peter Nockolds Date: Tuesday, 29 Jul 1997 23:09:54 +0100 (BST) Subject: Juliet's Birthday 30th July 1997 Juliet's Birthday In Romeo and Juliet the nurse says Even or odde, of all daies in the yeare come Lammas Eve at night, shal she be fourteen. In a current French calendar of saints 30th July is the feast of St. Juliette, so was Juliet really born on an even-numbered day, the 30th, shortly before midnight? I've managed to trace the feast day of this saint - under the name Julitta - back to a calendar of saints from the 1660's, but no further. I've tried all the calendars of saints I could find in the British Library, but these are clearly not comprehensive. There were various reforms of the calendar of saints, with certain changes of dates, in the late 16th and early 17th century. Has anyone any suggestions on how I can obtain further information on the saints days which might have been known to Shakespeare? Peter Nockolds Richmond, Surrey, UK ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 09:48:06 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0804 Re: New Globe; Radio; Birthday MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0804. Thursday, 31 July 1997. [1] From: John McWilliams Date: Wednesday, 30 Jul 1997 12:50:38 +0100 Subj: The New/Old Globe [2] From: Larry Weiss Date: Wednesday, 30 Jul 1997 14:57:58 -0400 Subj: Re: Shakespeare on Radio; John Barrymore [3] From: Paul Nelsen Date: Wednesday, 30 Jul 1997 09:24:45 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0803 Juliet's Birthday [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John McWilliams Date: Wednesday, 30 Jul 1997 12:50:38 +0100 Subject: The New/Old Globe To go back to the old debate about The New Globe, I went yesterday and it was fairly poor. They performed 'The Winter's Tale' which was a pretty silly choice in the circumstances: the atmosphere generated by tourists continually walking through the standing room in front of the stage, putting their rucksacks down for a few minutes, looking bored and then going away again hardly allows you to be carried away by this magical 'old tale'. And the production wasn't great anyway. It was quite interesting actually to see the thing reconstructed having seen pictures/diagrams etc. and this did give some idea of atmosphere and staging (and a well performed comedy might work well here), but otherwise it did seem very Disneylandesque. Has anyone seen anything else there that worked better? [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss Date: Wednesday, 30 Jul 1997 14:57:58 -0400 Subject: Re: Shakespeare on Radio; John Barrymore I have a set of the 1937 radio broadcasts on the Ariel label. Although I have not listened to them in many years, I recall that they are worth the trouble to find-for the amusement, not for any brilliant acting or interesting insights. Bogart. for example, presents a uniquely slow-speaking Hotspur. I admit it was a novel approach. By the way, anyone who has a chance to see Christopher Plummer's "Barrymore" at the Music Box theater in New York will find the effort most rewarding. The play (a monologue, really) portrays the has-been Jack Barrymore trying to make a comeback in 1941 in a one-night only reprise of his first and greatest legitimate triumph, Richard III. Plummer has captured Barrymore's style, voice, mannerisms and appearance perfectly. On the night I attended he received a 10 or 15-minute standing ovation which, so far as I can see, was enthusiastically joined by everyone in the audience. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Nelsen Date: Wednesday, 30 Jul 1997 09:24:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0803 Juliet's Birthday > Has anyone any suggestions on how I can obtain further information on the >saints days which might have been known to Shakespeare? A fertile source to begin with is Francois Laroque's *Shakespeare's Festive World: Elizabethan Seasonal Entertainment and the Professional Stage* available in a translation by Janet Lloyd (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P. 1993). The bibliography itself will prove very helpful in developing an expanded reading list. A terrific index enhances the usefulness of this volume. I'd add that Michael Bristol's *Carnival and Theatre* (1985) and Robert Weimann's *Shakespeare and the Popular Tradition in the Theatre* are also key references. Paul Nelsen Marlboro College ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 09:50:35 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0805 Call for Videos MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0805. Thursday, 31 July 1997. From: Tanya Gough Date: Wednesday, 30 Jul 1997 08:34:21 -0400 Subject: Call for Videos Greetings to you all. Many thanks for all your interest in my endeavor, and special thanks to all of you who have already placed orders or made inquiries into our Shakespeare multimedia list. I am currently looking to expand our inventory to include festival and community theatre productions. Please contact me directly if you have or know of any commercial videos produced in conjunction with any of your local university, community or established theatre groups. We have just acquired several copies of the Russian "Twelfth Night" (1956), and we will be adding a range of audio spoken word and film soundtracks to our list shortly. Keep an eye on our website for updates. Thanks again, Tanya Gough ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 09:54:14 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0806 Qs: Actor's Identity; Harwood's _The Dresser_ and _Lear_ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0806. Thursday, 31 July 1997. [1] From: Rodney G Higginbotham Date: Wednesday, 30 Jul 1997 19:56:13 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Actor's Identity [2] From: Ching-Hsi Perng Date: Thursday, 31 Jul 1997 16:39:30 +0800 Subj: Harwood's _The Dresser_ and _Lear_ [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rodney G Higginbotham Date: Wednesday, 30 Jul 1997 19:56:13 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Actor's Identity I recently picked up an old print in an antique shop of an actor in the role of Falstaff. I haven't had any luck identifying the actor; therefore, I seek the assistance of fellow list members. I've scanned the image to the following web page: http://www.neiu.edu/users/urghiggi/fals.htm Please take a look and let me know. If you wish to contact me off-list, I am at R-Higginbotham1@neiu.edu Many thanks. Rodney Higinbotham [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ching-Hsi Perng Date: Thursday, 31 Jul 1997 16:39:30 +0800 Subject: Harwood's _The Dresser_ and _Lear_ Does anyone know of any comment on the relationship between _King Lear_ and Ronald Harwood's _The Dresser_? As a translator of the latter I would appreciate any information on this. Sincerely, Ching-Hsi Perng National Taiwan University Taipei, Taiwan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 09:58:13 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0807 Job at Folger Library MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0807. Thursday, 31 July 1997. From: C. Jenise Williamson Date: Wednesday, July 30, 1997 Subject: Job at Folger Library [Editor's Note: This announcement appeared July 17, 1997, on Associated Writing Programs . -HMC] Dear AWP Job List subscribers: Here is an update for a job posted last month. An extended job list will be posted shortly. REVISED Submission for AWP Job List ----------------------------- Poetry and Lectures Coordinator: Salary mid to upper 20's. Excellent benefits. Reports to Director of Museum & Public Programs. B.A. in English, advanced degree preferred. In-depth and on-going knowledge of modern literature required. Three to five years' experience in arts administration, including fundraising, grant writing, and budget preparation and implementation. As part of the Folger's Public Programs, designs, administers and arranges the Folger Poetry and Lecture Series. Researches, selects and contracts speakers and poets for series' programs. As part of the Folger development effort, identifies and solicits funding sources for programs, prepares grant applications and proposals, and leads the Folger Poetry Advisory Board in the organization of fundraising activities. Responsible for administration of poetry and lecture series budget. Administers the Hardison Poetry Prize Endowment fund and program and the Lannan Poetry Fellowship Program with area universities. Serves on the Board of Directors of the Poetry Committee of the Greater Washington, D.C. Area and maintains contact with national literary organizations. Supports the promotion of the series and other Public Programs in the preparation of announcements, invitations, and brochures. Send cover letter and resume to Folger Shakespeare Library, Attn: Poet, 201 E. Capitol St., S.E., WDC 20003-1094. No phone calls please. EOE. DEADLINE FOR RESUMES HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO SEPTEMBER 2, 1997.========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 07:40:11 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0808 Re: New Globe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0808. Friday, 1 August 1997. [1] From: Thomas F. Connolly Date: Thursday, 31 Jul 1997 10:21:02 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0804 Re: New Globe [2] From: Jay Johnson Date: Thursday, 31 Jul 1997 12:17:46 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0804 Re: New Globe [3] From: G. L. Horton Date: Thursday, 31 Jul 1997 11:49:04 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0804 Re: New Globe; [4] From: Gerda Grice Date: Thursday, 31 Jul 1997 16:33:52 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: New Globe [5] From: Steve Sohmer Date: Friday, 1 Aug 1997 04:59:54 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0804 Re: New Globe [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas F. Connolly Date: Thursday, 31 Jul 1997 10:21:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0804 Re: New Globe Having just come back from seeing Christopher Plummer's performance I must take issue with the high praise given here. Plummer IS very good, but the "play" is wretched. We are treated to slabs of ham dressed with the dried out cloves of Shakespearean quotation, seasoned with the unappetizing salt of profanity. It is quite clear that the playwright created a play with stop watch in hand. It has no beginning, middle or end. For Shakespeareans though, Plummer's costume and "Richard" make-up are an object lesson in travesty. For Barrymore-fans this is an accurate recreation of the nadir of the Great Profile's career. Thus it is less than pleasant. I repeat though-Plummer's choice to give an impression of Barrymore rather than an impersonation gives the evening some liveliness. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jay Johnson Date: Thursday, 31 Jul 1997 12:17:46 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0804 Re: New Globe My recent experience at the New Globe was very positive. I stood in the yard a couple of weeks ago for an afternoon performance of "The Winter's Tale" and, though I thought the production was stunningly misguided in many respects, I enjoyed the experience immensely. There were many standers who couldn't stand still for the full three hours, but the shifting and moving didn't distract me particularly. I also saw the other production, "Henry the Fift," but from the top gallery directly in front of the stage, and that experience was magical. The "Red Company" doing Henry made, I felt, all the right choices, and seeing it from that perspective-looking right into the cannon's mouth, as it were-was perfect. I came away a Big Fan of the Globe! I'd go back any time! Jay Johnson Medicine Hat College Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: G. L. Horton Date: Thursday, 31 Jul 1997 11:49:04 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0804 Re: New Globe; John McWilliams >To go back to the old debate about The New Globe, I went yesterday and >it was fairly poor. They performed 'The Winter's Tale' >Has anyone seen anything else there that worked better? I saw Henry5 the first week of July. There was no "great" acting in it, but competence, clear diction, presentational style. I was much moved by the performance, and I was not the only one in my section of the audience in tears. I was in the 3 rd row of groundlings, and many of the actors made eye contact with me, as well as directing certain appropriate lines to other individuals in the audience. We groundlings plopped ourselves down on the dirt or walked away to lean against the wall during the short act breaks, rising and reassembling when the players came out again. The players began ritually, with drumming, and Rylance delivered part of the Prologue in his shirt before donning his costume as Henry5. The story-telling speeches were shared among several actors subsequently. I was most impressed by the "sermon" aspect, and how the reverence that attaches itself to a "pilgrimage to Shakespeare's shrine" became part of the experience of the play. We spectators were visible to the actors and to each other at all times, and a huge component of the dramatic event. It is a very different feeling from the passive ideal of most modern performance-all I would compare it to is The Living Theatre in the 60's, and my church's productions of parts of the Cycle Plays at Christmas. As audience, we were assumed to want seriousness and enlightenment as well as entertainment, and the actors were very conscious of fine-tuning our responses, cueing laughs and commanding attention. Those "tourists" unwilling to cooperate, left. But there was always the possibility and the danger that an unruly or displeased audience could take over, and that tension, too, was part of the experience. The long rationalizing speeches (often cut) were not played per usual as psychological "symptoms" or interest-based manipulation-although some of this shading remains-but as "expert opinion": this is how the church, the law, the French nobility, the yeoman soldier, etc. thinks the matter through. Implicit is one's duty as audience to think it through for one's self, as the play unfolds and in the months to come. Admirable characters base their actions on such thought, the others on whim, vanity, or self-interest. There is much weakness and foolishness, but almost no vigorous villany (which is why some feeble attempts by members of the audience to "act Elizabethan" and boo the French quickly petered out). The outcome of the battle, however, is not rational but miraculous, not explicable as the result of French sin or error or of English merit or planning. Henry and his army looked stunned to be alive, and it took them a while to realize that it was over and that they have won. "Non nobis", indeed. I've never particularly liked Henry, either as king or as slumming Hal, and as an American democrat I certainly think Henry had no business whatsoever invading France! If God gave Henry victory to enforce his Divine Right to both thrones, well, God sinks in my opinion. But the performance made my anachronistic mind set irrelevant. I was struck anew by how rooted the plays are in the Mystery Cycles, and how they incorporate medieval drama's metaphorical reach and didactic intent, as well as its "Vice" comedy. It was the utter seriousness that I found so touching: souls matter, souls as well as bodies are at stake. The doubling might have made more use of wigs and beards, to piece out the actors' varying abilities to alter themselves from the inside out -- we have plenty of evidence that players of the Globe's period did so. The boy who played Katherine was quite convincing as a very young princess, the man who played Dame Quickly was fine, too. The 30-something six foot plus baritone Queen of France was very beautiful but too strange, skirting drag and raising considerations best stifled as alien to the world of the play. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gerda Grice Date: Thursday, 31 Jul 1997 16:33:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: New Globe I saw the Old Globe production of _The Winter's Tale_ in early June, when it was still in previews, and my impression of the overall effect and effectiveness of the production was totally different from John McWilliams'. I didn't feel that the venue was Disneylandesque, and I wasn't at all bothered by the to-and-froing of the standees. If anything, I felt it added a dimension to the experience. As for the performance-well, it certainly wasn't the most polished production of a Shakespeare play I've ever seen. Certainly, it was far, far less "well-dressed" and, in the case of some of the performances at least, not nearly as well acted as the production of _King Lear_ with Ian Holm at the RNT that I also saw when I was in London in the spring. But faults and all, the Globe performance of _The Winter's Tale_ moved me to tears more than once, while the RNT _King Lear_, for all of Holms' theatrical pyrotechnics, never moved me at all. I also found that the Globe's _The Winter's Tale_ created more of what used to be called "poetry of the theatre" than the RSC's Stratford-upon-Avon production of _Cymbeline_ did. (Incidentally, though, I did find the RSC's Cloten excellent. His name, unfortunately, escapes me for the moment.) Somehow, for me anyway, the magic of _The Winter's Tale_ shone through more brightly in this production than it did in other, in many ways superior, productions of it I'd seen previously. Gerda Grice Ryerson Polytechnic University Toronto, Canada [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Friday, 1 Aug 1997 04:59:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0804 Re: New Globe Dear Globe-Watchers, In the current issue of EMLS I speculate about the identity of the opening date and premiere play at Shakespeare's Globe in 1599: http://unixg.ubc.ca:7001/0/e-sources/emls/03-1/sohmjuli.html I'd be glad of comments, particularly opinions contrary, either via SHAKSPER or direct to drsohmer@aol.com. All the best, Steve ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 07:45:20 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0809 Re: Harwood's _The Dresser_ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0809. Friday, 1 August 1997. [1] From: Harry Hill Date: Thursday, 31 Jul 1997 11:01:07 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0806 Qs: Harwood's _The Dresser_ and _Lear_ [2] From: Karin Magaldi-Unger Date: Thursday, 31 Jul 1997 15:33:03 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0806 Qs- Actor's [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Thursday, 31 Jul 1997 11:01:07 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0806 Qs: Harwood's _The Dresser_ and _Lear_ As Sir in *The Dresser* I got my only opportunity so far to play Lear. That's the relationship. Harry Hill [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karin Magaldi-Unger Date: Thursday, 31 Jul 1997 15:33:03 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0806 Qs- Actor's We paired the two plays during our 1995 season here at Shakespeare Santa Cruz; there was much dialogue during post-show discussions and in the dressing rooms about how the two plays informed each other re: performance with actors doubling the roles of Sir-King Lear (Tony Church) & Norman/The Fool (Paul Whitworth) as well as thematically. While most of these conversations do not appear in print, there is a program article and some directorial notes about our perception of the connections that I can send you via email if you wish. Karin Magaldi-Unger Shakespeare Santa Cruz Education & Outreach ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 07:48:33 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0810 Re: Simon Forman MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0810. Friday, 1 August 1997. From: Barbara H. Traister Date: Thursday, 31 Jul 1997 23:56:26 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0789 Help re Forman and Montrose Judy Kennedy's query about the Rowse reference in Montrose's article on Forman's Elizabeth dream has been answered by several respondents. The dream which Rowse and Montrose quote can be found in Ashmole MS 226: 44r. The manuscript is a casebook in which Forman kept daily records of the patients he saw in his medical/astrological practice. Occasionally, he added personal notes about his dreams, his alchemical experiments, or his sexual activity. The dream which Montrose analyzes is one of three dreams about Elizabeth which Forman recorded (it's the longest and most detailed). He also records a dream about James I. Forman's manuscripts (collected in some 40 volumes) provide a hodgepodge of information. Editing them would be a difficult and perhaps not very useful task, though pieces of them would repay such work. I am not editing them but rather trying to provide an overview of what they offer to scholars of the period. In addition, I am reassessing Forman himself in the light of his self representation in his papers. It's fascinating material to work with. Barbara Traister ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 10:31:49 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0811 Re: Groundlings; First Globe; Videos MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0811. Saturday, 2 August 1997. [1] From: Jeff Myers Date: Friday, 01 Aug 1997 13:33:11 GMT Subj: Standing Your Groundlings; Was Re: New Globe [2] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 02 Aug 1997 13:15:36 -0600 Subj: JC at the first Globe [3] From: Tanya Gough Date: Friday, 1 Aug 1997 09:18:20 -0400 Subj: Excommunication [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Myers Date: Friday, 01 Aug 1997 13:33:11 GMT Subject: Standing Your Groundlings; Was Re: New Globe >My recent experience at the New Globe was very positive. I stood in the >yard a couple of weeks ago for an afternoon performance of "The Winter's >Tale" and, though I thought the production was stunningly misguided in >many respects, I enjoyed the experience immensely. There were many >standers who couldn't stand still for the full three hours, but the >shifting and moving didn't distract me particularly. And someone else wrote: >I was in the 3 rd row of groundlings, and many of the >actors made eye contact with me, as well as directing certain >appropriate lines to other individuals in the audience. We groundlings >plopped ourselves down on the dirt or walked away to lean against the >wall during the short act breaks, rising and reassembling when the >players came out again. Is it true that they make people stand for 3 hours? How much does one pay for this privilege? Do we really know that the groundlings in the original Globe all stood for entire plays? Sounds a bit ridiculous to me, but I haven't been there (and won't ever be if I have to stand through _Hamlet_, or even _Macbeth_). I'd just as soon wear a wig or dress in 18th-century garb to hear an original instrument performance of Mozart. Jeff Myers [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Saturday, 02 Aug 1997 13:15:36 -0600 Subject: JC at the first Globe > In the current issue of EMLS I speculate about the > identity of the opening date and premiere play at > Shakespeare's Globe in 1599. Steve Sohmer identifies a large number of allusions to the Julian/Gregorian calendar discrepancy in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar and these make 12 June 1599 the ideal day to premiere the play and the Globe the ideal venue. Steve, would you care to identify which of the allusions would be lost if JC opened on that day at the Curtain instead of the Globe? I ask this because I find the evidence for the calendar allusions to be much stronger than the evidence for the Globe being ready by early June. Gabriel Egan [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tanya Gough Date: Friday, 1 Aug 1997 09:18:20 -0400 Subject: Excommunication Just a quick note to let you all know that we are temporarily sold out of the Russian Tempest. I'll take advance orders for the next batch, but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE send all requests, orders and queries directly to me at yorick@cyg.net. If Hardy gets any more of my correspondence, I shalt be banished. Much obliged, Tanya Gough ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 10:35:55 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0812 Qs: Demonologie; New Play about Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0812. Saturday, 2 August 1997. [1] From: Stuart Manger Date: Friday, 1 Aug 1997 18:09:00 +0100 Subj: Macbeth: James 1: Demonologie [2] From: David R. Maier Date: Friday, 1 Aug 1997 08:34:49 -0700 Subj: Query: New Play about Shakespeare? [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Manger Date: Friday, 1 Aug 1997 18:09:00 +0100 Subject: Macbeth: James 1: Demonologie I am trying to trace an edition of 'Demonologie' on-line, preferably in UK, but I am prepared to go wherever for it. Can anyone help? Stuart Manger [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David R. Maier Date: Friday, 1 Aug 1997 08:34:49 -0700 Subject: Query: New Play about Shakespeare? This may have been discussed on the list already without my paying attention, but there was an article in the New York Times roughly three weeks ago referring to a new play about Shakespeare. I would appreciate any information concerning the play, including the title, where it's being performed and any comments. An off-list response would be fine. Thank you. David Maier dmaier@orednet.org ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 07:07:21 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0813 Re: New Globe; Groundlings MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0813. Monday, 4 August 1997. [1] From: Ron Ward Date: Sunday, 3 Aug 1997 10:49:35 +1200 (NZST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0808 Re: New Globe [2] From: Carl Fortunato Date: Sunday, 03 Aug 97 14:03:00 -0400 Subj: Re: New Globe [3] From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Sunday, 3 Aug 1997 16:07:23 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0808 Re: New Globe [4] From: Tom Simone Date: Saturday, 2 Aug 1997 15:08:23 +0100 Subj: Standing for performances, Globe and elsewhere [5] From: G. L. Horton Date: Sunday, 03 Aug 1997 19:36:01 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0811 Re: Groundlings [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Ward Date: Sunday, 3 Aug 1997 10:49:35 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0808 Re: New Globe I have been fascinated by the comments from those who attended the Globe performances. It seemed to me that the mobile and transient audience provides possible explanations for two things that have puzzled me for some time. 1. Why did S insert so many almost stand alone scenes and one liners in his plays? 2. How did the audiences acquire a taste for long plays of the sophisticated sought, presented by what could only be described as an intellectual elite. This is not something we do well these days. Video and audio tapes allow broken experience of the play. Presumably in S's day you could watch two acts on one day and the rest of the play on another. You paid two admissions, which helped with the financial side. Is there anything in this? Would be pleased to hear from anyone about the effective use of the hangings on stage as these were the subject of a nation wide endeavour in New Zealand. Regards Ron Ward [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carl Fortunato Date: Sunday, 03 Aug 97 14:03:00 -0400 Subject: Re: New Globe >My recent experience at the New Globe was very positive. I stood in the >yard a couple of weeks ago for an afternoon performance of "The Winter's >Tale" and, though I thought the production was stunningly misguided in >many respects, I enjoyed the experience immensely. There were many >standers who couldn't stand still for the full three hours, but the >shifting and moving didn't distract me particularly. I find it surprising that they chose "The Winter's Tale" for the second performance in the Globe, since, unless I am mistaken, it was originally staged at the Blackfriar's instead of the Globe. I suspect that the Globe is not very conducive to Shakespeare's romances. They weren't written for it, and heck, the place burnt down while attempting to perform one there. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Sunday, 3 Aug 1997 16:07:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0808 Re: New Globe Having seen both productions at The New Globe ... I was enchanted with H5 AND Rylance. I was as a groundling ready to do anything he wanted to 'get' the French and was also delighted with the audiences hissing the French characters and the actor's response to the hissing. Interesting choice to have Rylance speak the prologue and the drumming was magical; on the other hand, tell me about the choices in Winter's Tale -- rubber tires, barbed wire etc. I thought the directing was terrible poor...static..explanation..opera director..stand em there and let em sing school of directing.. I was in the gallery for that one and actually moved to the ground in order to be able to see the statue...hated the production..thought the concept totally misguided. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Simone Date: Saturday, 2 Aug 1997 15:08:23 +0100 Subject: Standing for performances, Globe and elsewhere I have recently come back from England where I conducted a course on Shakespeare in performance and attended three performances at the Globe, two of H5 and one of WT. we also saw LEAR at the National, WIVES, ADO, HAMLET, and CYMBELINE in Stratford. A response could go on for many pages, but I offer just a few elliptical comments. As for standing: three hours with an intermission or two is not much. I have known, and have been among standees at the Proms Wagner RING at Covent Garden in 1982, which totaled about 15 hours [granted that's a rather boastful extreme]. Standing is a different experience for most playgoers. As I understand it, there are about 1,000 numbered bench seats and 500 standing places in the yard at the Globe. Standing places during the day are 5 pounds sterling or about $8. Part of the interest of the reconstructed Globe is the whole shift in environment for play going. We found day performances more fun than evening one. And a number of my students preferred the openness of standing to the benches. In addition to its historical aspirations, the Globe and its current productions are an experiment in a different theatrical dynamic. Clearly the audience is a more responsive and involved group at the Globe than in most modern technical theaters/ As I understand it, actors and directors were taken aback at first when preview audiences began spontaneously cheering the English and booing the French in H5. There is much to be reflected on here in terms of the acting space, the relation to the audience, and aspects of the plays that may be illuminated by an approximation of Elizabethan staging. I would urge readers of the list to keep an open mind on these matters. As for the productions, I found the H% quite engaging, if a little short on stature for Rylance's Henry. The WT had some excellent aspects, particularly in Hermione and, I thought, Leontes. However, I found act 4 distinctly overladen with curious production values so that the comic dimensions of the play and youth were far too muted. One parallel comment on the RSC CYMBELINE. I found it quite enthralling-with a strong Imogen, Edward Petherbridge as a magical Cymbeline, and some wonderful production effects. by the why, Cloten was played by Guy Henry who was also a very funny Dr. Caius in WIVES. Also worth note were an unorthodox but strongly acted HAMLTT with Alex Jennings in remarkable form. Also, the nearly impossible to see LEAR with Ian Holm at the National was very strongly cast, although I found Robert Stephens' performances for his last appearances in Stratford and London to be more fully tragic. Anyway, a truly thought provoking season in London and Stratford this year. Best, Tom Simone University of Vermont [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: G. L. Horton Date: Sunday, 03 Aug 1997 19:36:01 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0811 Re: Groundlings; >Is it true that they make people stand for 3 hours? How much does one >pay for this privilege? 5 pounds, or about $8. I would GLADLY stand to see a play this inexpensively: almost any decently-acted play, almost any where. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 07:10:40 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0814 Utah Shakespearean Festival MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0814. Monday, 4 August 1997. From: David Evett Date: Saturday, 2 August 1997 7:08pm ET Subject: Utah Shakespearean Festival The Utah Shakespearean Festival presents a summer season of Shakespeare and other standards in two theaters on the campus of Southern Utah State College in Cedar City, in the southwestern part of the state about midway between the Grand Canyon and Las Vegas, and a couple of hours from half-a-dozen national parks and monuments. The festival emphasizes Family Entertainment. A company of 10 experienced Equity actors and about 40 others, mostly young performers working on or just finished with an undergraduate or MFA program, present a program of six plays, in rep, throughout July, August, and early September, together with pretheater entertainment on the grounds-skits, dancing, story-telling, puppetry, etc. There are two theaters, an outdoor arena influenced by the Walter Hodges reconstruction of the Globe, with a spacious two-level stage, and an indoor proscenium. Production values are fairly high-fully dressed sets on the indoor stage, full period costume-though we found the designs relatively unimaginative. The productions we saw were straightforward, conservative treatments of the texts, and all in all quite satisfactory-well-spoken, clear, conscientious, and generally very well received. Tickets range $19-35, and if your plans take you in that direction it's definitely a worthwhile evening. Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 07:13:42 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0815 Re: *JC* at Globe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0815. Monday, 4 August 1997. From: Steve Sohmer Date: Sunday, 3 Aug 1997 11:56:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0811 Re: First Globe Dear Gabriel Egan and others, Gabriel Egan raises an interesting question, and one I have not considered in the intriguing way he frames it: were one willing to stipulate that "Julius Caesar" may have been purpose-written for performance on the Summer Solstice in 1599, what evidence is there in the playtext that this performance took place at the Globe, rather than at the Curtain? I believe a persuasive argument that JC was purpose-written for the Globe stage can be deduced from "Caska's almanac": Decius. Here lyes the East: doth not the Day breake here? Cask. No. Cin. O pardon, Sir, it doth; and yon grey Lines That fret the Clouds, are Messengers of Day. Cask. You shall confesse, that you are both deceiv'd. Heere, as I point my Sword, the Sunne arises, Which is a great way growing on the South, Weighing the youthfull Season of the yeare. Some two moneths hence, up higher toward the North He first presents his fire, and the high East Stands as the Capitoll, directly heere. (731-42) Internal evidence suggests Shakespeare attached a great deal of significance to where Caska pointed. His speech is particularized to the compass, and the playwright has embedded a stage direction which requires the actor to draw his sword and point-which would lengthen and sharpen the gesture. Shakespeare also insists on the "high" east - that is, precisely east as the compass points-and abruptly introduces a reference to "the Capitoll." This latter has special significance, I think, given the physical surroundings in which the conspirators find themselves. They are met within the walls of Brutus' orchard. We know they cannot see the city beyond its walls because Brutus could not see the conspirators before they entered through the upstage door. Therefore, any structure which Caska envisions must retain a presence even though invisible beyond the wall. The audience at the Globe are in an analogous situation; they cannot see the city beyond the three-story walls of the theater. But an examination of the geography of Shakespeare's London reveals that, had Caska pointed to the "high East," he would have been pointing toward a building which dominated its quadrant of the skyline and would have remained a looming presence in the minds of an Elizabethan audience: the Tower of London. The Victorian scholar W.A. Wright appears to have been the first to detect this correspondence between the Roman Capitoll and the Tower: "It is worth remarking that the Tower, which would be the building in London most resembling the [Roman] Capitol to Shakespeare's mind, was as nearly as possible due east of the Globe Theater on Bankside." This Caesar-Tower-Elizabeth connection explains at least one other set of anomalies in JC: the bizarre references to lions wandering the Roman streets and haunting the Capitol. At line 452 Caska reports to Cassius, "Against the Capitoll I met a Lyon." At 513 Cassius confirms the presence of lions in the Roman Capitol when he alludes to a man who "roares, As doth the Lyon in the Capitoll." At line 1004 we learn that the lion Caska encountered was female; Calphurnia recounts "A Lionnesse hath whelped in the streets." Of course, there were no lions kept in the Roman capitol. However, lions were kept in the Tower of London. Stowe's Annales (5 August 1604) records that "a Lionesse named Elizabeth, in the Tower of London, brought forth a lion's whelp." In both an historical and metaphorical sense the Tower is the locus where the Roman and Elizabethan strands of Julius Caesar converge. The Tower was the London landmark most closely associated with Julius Caesar (cf. references in R3). The Tower was also emblematic not of Queen Elizabeth's glory but of her power. In the context of Caska's almanac, Shakespeare's glance at the Capitol-Tower nods us toward two monarchs who imposed the Julian calendar. The Curtain playhouse, by contrast, was located almost due North of the Tower. Therefore, an actor pointing to "the high East" to make the Capitoll - Tower connection could only do so from the stage of the Globe. Perhaps "Caska's almanac" effectively discourages a connection between "Julius Caesar" and the Curtain, and supports the suggestion that the play was purpose-written for the Globe. All the best, Steve Sohmer ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 07:15:57 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0816 Looking for 3 Richard IIIs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0816. Monday, 4 August 1997. From: Whit Wales Date: Sunday, 3 Aug 1997 12:13:11 -0400 Subject: Looking for 3 Richard IIIs Looking for the Olivier, MacKellan, and Pacino renditions and perhaps an overall recommendations of a proprietor(s) reliable and inexpensive from which to purchase/order not only the Richards, but other Shakespearean titles as well. Thanks in advance. Whit Wales ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 07:21:59 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0816 Re: New Globe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0816. Tuesday, 5 August 1997. [1] From: Steve Neville Date: Monday, 4 Aug 1997 08:58:08 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0813 Re: New Globe; Groundlings [2] From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Monday, 4 Aug 1997 08:28:40 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0813 Re: New Globe; Groundlings [3] From: David Schalkwyk Date: Tuesday, 5 Aug 1997 12:52:26 SAST-2 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0813 Re: New Globe; Groundlings [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Neville Date: Monday, 4 Aug 1997 08:58:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0813 Re: New Globe; Groundlings Tom Simone writes: << One parallel comment on the RSC CYMBELINE. I found it quite enthralling-with a strong Imogen, Edward Petherbridge as a magical Cymbeline, and some wonderful production effects. by the why, Cloten was played by Guy Henry who was also a very funny Dr. Caius in WIVES. >> I, too, thought Guy Henry very funny. What impressed me most, however, was Edward Petheridge's portrayal of Krapp in Beckett's _Krapp's Last Tape_ a mere hour and a half after his fine performance as Cymbeline. Brilliant. Regards Steve Neville sjnevil@aol.com [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Monday, 4 Aug 1997 08:28:40 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0813 Re: New Globe; Groundlings Carl Fortunato wrote: > I find it surprising that they chose "The Winter's Tale" for the second > performance in the Globe, since, unless I am mistaken, it was originally > staged at the Blackfriar's instead of the Globe. I suspect that the > Globe is not very conducive to Shakespeare's romances. They weren't > written for it, and heck, the place burnt down while attempting to > perform one there. "The Winter's Tale" may very well have been performed at Blackfriars, but the only record we have of a performance of the play during Shakespeare's lifetime was at the Globe-witnessed by Simon Forman in 1611. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Schalkwyk Date: Tuesday, 5 Aug 1997 12:52:26 SAST-2 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0813 Re: New Globe; Groundlings There can't be many people who have seen a performance of Henry 5 at the new Globe on one night and found themselves riding Big Thunder Mountain in Disneyland Paris the next... From its inception the New Globe has struggled to move out from the shadow of Disney, but my quite coincidental experience has left me pondering anew the conjunction of the two. I approached both with a considerable degree of skepticism and misgivings, and I was in both cases both pleasantly surprised and newly skeptical. As a "groundling" at the Globe I found the standing less problematic than the Disney's remarkable exercises in crowd- control in the form of interminable standing in lines. I was also unprepared for the sheer impression that the Globe makes on one once inside. (Expecting it to stand out from its surroundings as the original theatre must have done, I very nearly walked past it.) Once one is through the doors, it's an imposing theatre, especially from below, and especially in the combined bulk and lightness of the stage and heavens. At the same time, it is intimate, the intimacy being created by the fact that the audience is illuminated throughout, that there is a refreshing freedom to move about, talk, and touch the stage, and that the general sense of being an isolated individual, cocooned in silence and darkness is entirely absent. My skepticism, however, arises from the question what it is supposed to be and be doing, especially given the obsession with accuracy and authenticity that seems to have dogged its attempts to be a "popular" theatre. After a while one realizes that despite all the hype in the guidebooks about "authenticity", Disney need only be authentic to himself. From a political point of view, there is of course a great deal to attack in this self-referential "authenticity", and I expect that the avowals that the Globe will *not* be another theme park has something to do with its proponents' sense that its authenticity will be different: accurate, scholarly, historical, true. I have no problems with Gurr, Orrel, and the like pursuing a scholarly interest in the actual properties of the historical Globe, or, if they can manage it, indulging in the experiment of trying to reconstruct the thing (although, there, again, lies an immense political debate). My problem, sharpened by watching Henry 5, lies in the attempt to conjoin the authentic and the popular, the historical with the living in the search for an original Elizabethan theatrical experience for the audience. I am puzzled by the notions of authenticity that will go so far as to make the actors wear Elizabethan underclothes to force them to move in a presumably authentic way, or to dye costumes in an authentical Elizabethan solution of onion skin and urine, and yet stage the play in a strongly directed twentieth-century mode or, for that matter, ignore the small matter of the Heathrow flightpath in favour of the "original" position of the Globe. However careful one is about costuming or architectural detail, one cannot recreate an Elizabethan audience, and that means that many moves made in favour of authenticity will in fact alienate an audience who are simply not at home with such a move. Does a modern audience take men playing the part of women in the way that an Elizabethan one would take boys doing the same thing? Or can it see Elizabethan costumes as anything other than a sign of "authenticity"? If the responses to authenticity turn out to be, because of the weight and movement of history, inauthentic, then why do it? As a South African "groundling" I found the production (for that's what it was) and the groundlings' "spontaneous" reactions very uncomfortable. Was the booing and hissing at the French and the cheering of the English really "spontaneous", or did it arise from the popular conception that to do this is to be a *real* groundling, a *real* Elizabethan? If to be authentic is to abandon all critical engagement with the performance in favour of threadbare jingoism, no doubt all great fun, then the sooner we turn our backs on it the better. It is perhaps the audience's belief that by acting like "groundlings" they are being really Elizabethan that brings back the connection with Disneyland. In Disneyland, however, popularism is not sicklied o'oer with the pale cast of scholarship. I await the flack. David Schalkwyk University of Cape Town ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 07:28:28 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0817 Re: *JC* at Globe; Utah Festival; Radio Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0817. Tuesday, 5 August 1997. [1] From: John Drakakis Date: Monday, 4 Aug 1997 16:36:10 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0815 Re: *JC* at Globe [2] From: Mike Jensen Date: Monday, 04 Aug 1997 19:24:51 +0100 Subj: SHK 8.0814 Utah Shakespearean Festival -Reply [3] From: Mike Jensen Date: Monday, 04 Aug 1997 21:05:05 +0100 Subj: More Old Radio Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Monday, 4 Aug 1997 16:36:10 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0815 Re: *JC* at Globe There is a brief account of a Globe performance of JC probably in the early autumn of 1599. I have suggested elsewhere (Shakespeare Survey 1991) that it may well have been the play which inaugurated the new theatre. Cheers, John Drakakis [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Jensen Date: Monday, 04 Aug 1997 19:24:51 +0100 Subject: SHK 8.0814 Utah Shakespearean Festival -Reply With respect, Dave Evett and I had rather different experiences at the Utah Shakespearean Festival. I agree with most of his comments, and perhaps I am just too demanding, but the experience disappointed me overall. There was an excellent, if over cut Hamlet, a very good Henry V, an OK Pericles, and a very disappointing Twelfth Night. All productions were marred by uneven acting and Twelfth Night by poor direction. Imagine a production where Sir Toby and Sir Andrew wore zanier costumes than Malvolio in his yellow stockings. You'll find it in Utah. Even worse, Malvolio entered and held out his arms, as if to say look at me. When he did so, his bottom half was blocked by a banner. We couldn't look at him! Feste was a happy fool. The result, two of his sure fire laugh lines barely received a chuckle. They had absolutely no interest in the dark side of this very dark comedy. I was told by two of the fest sponsors that this safety is typical of the festival. They always take to lightest possible approach. I went expecting an Ashland like experience: a charming town, good second hand bookstores, good restaurants, very good-but-not-great theater. The town lacks charm, the two second hand bookstores are lousy (unless you want a genre paperback), not all the meals were bad, but all were disappointing, and the theater averages out as merely goodish. Even the University library disappointed me. Sure, if I were in the neighborhood anyway, I'd definitely stop for the theater, but I have no other reason to be in the neighborhood! Mike Jensen [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Jensen Date: Monday, 04 Aug 1997 21:05:05 +0100 Subject: More Old Radio Shakespeare Unmentioned by previous correspondents is a quite nice two part Othello that was broadcast on the anthology series Suspense on 5/4 and 5/11, 1953. It was adapted by and stars the gifted Eliot Lewis, who may be best known for playing Frank Remley on The Phil Harris/Alice Faye Show. You won't recognize the actor in this role. The two shows are available on one tape from: Radio Spirits, Inc. P.O. Box 2141 Schiller Park, IL 60176 (800) 723-4648 Their prices are on a sliding scale; you pay less per tape as you buy more. The top cost for a single tape is $6.98, plus shipping. Their service? Well, SHAKSPER isn't about flaming anyone. Let me just say I have had excellent service from Radio Spirits. They have treated me considerably better than Radio Yesteryear did a couple of years back. Bernice W. Kliman had a nice little article about the CBS series years ago, in an issue of Shakespeare on Film Newsletter. If you have any back numbers laying around, I suggest looking it up. Best to all, Mike Jensen ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 07:31:07 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0818 Q: Shakespeare at Stratford MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0818. Tuesday, 5 August 1997. From: Sylvia Schmidt Date: Tuesday, August 5, 1997 Subject: Shakespeare at Stratford I would be interested in hearing some thoughts and observations from people who have seen "Hamlet" and "Much Ado" in this year's RSC productions - both about the productions as a whole and Alex Jennings in particular. I saw him in "Measure for Measure" and "Midsummer Night's Dream" as well as "Peer Gynt" in 1994 and he was superb, especially in his portrayal of Angelo as a stiff-necked puritan horrified by his own baser urges and torn apart by his inner conflict. Thank you, Sylvia Schmidt ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 07:08:30 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0819 Re: Shakespeare at Stratford; Shakes&Co MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0819. Wednesday, 6 August 1997. [1] From: Tom Simone Date: Tuesday, 5 Aug 1997 09:42:42 +0100 Subj: Alex Jennings in Stratford [2] From: Don Rowan Date: Tuesday, 5 Aug 1997 14:22:16 GMT-400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0818 Q: Shakespeare at Stratford [3] From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Tuesday, 5 Aug 1997 18:01:11 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0818 Q: Shakespeare at Stratford [4] From: G. L. Horton Date: Tuesday, 05 Aug 1997 10:01:38 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0816 Re: Actors at Shakes&Co. , New Globe [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Simone Date: Tuesday, 5 Aug 1997 09:42:42 +0100 Subject: Alex Jennings in Stratford This is a brief reply to the inquiry of Sylvia Schmidt about Alex Jennings. I have also seen him in PEER GYNT (fabulous John Barton production at the Swan in 94), DREAM, MEASURE, and also his first RSC lea, I believe, as Richard II in ?1992. This year in Stratford he is doing both Benedick in ADO and Hamlet. I found the ADO to be a very good production, a bit melancholy, but that's ok given the tragi/comic mix. There was large unit set that seemed to represent vanishing sight line a la renaissance perspective. The visual theme of on stage portraits was interesting with one rather vulgar and cheap usage to depict the supposed infidelity of Hero. Jennings was a strong and engaging Benedick although I found the Beatrice of ?Sinead Redman to be unconvincing. The 82/83 production with Jacobi and Sinead Cusak is my favorite version. The HAMLET, directed by Matthew Warchus, is certainly untraditional with a modern setting, deletion of 1.1, and the use of various cinematic images. The opening with Hamlet pouring a libation at his father's tomb with a loudspeaker voice over of Claudius' opening lines of 1.2 was startling to a traditional Shakespearean like myself. On the gray wall backdrop there was a large projection of a home style movie of old Hamlet (the splendid Edward Petherbridge) and the young boy Hamlet. I learned at a workshop that the boy in the movie is Alex Jennings's son. My first response was guarded, but I found that Jennings delivered an amazingly articulate and passionate Hamlet. By far the best portrayal of Hamlet I've ever seen. And while I am generally a supporter of Branagh's film efforts, I found Jennings a clearly superior Hamlet. Speaking of film, I found a notable influence of the Zeffirelli HAMLET on various aspects of this production, partly echoed by the recurring film elements. Part of the strength of this HAMLET was its defamiliarizing the play for devotess of the play. It seemed like a different work in many ways than I read in the text(s), but I ultimately found that good. This was an unconventional but passionate and intelligent encounter with HAMLET with a superb Hamlet. I would consider going back to England to see it again. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Rowan Date: Tuesday, 5 Aug 1997 14:22:16 GMT-400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0818 Q: Shakespeare at Stratford Dear Sylvia: I would be extremely grateful if you could send me your reactions to the MND at Stratford. I am an Associate Editor of the Variorum MND responsible particularly for staging and stage-history. Anything you can tell me about the production, which for a number of reasons I shall not be able to see, would be most welcome. D.F. Rowan, "Don", rowan@unb.ca. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Tuesday, 5 Aug 1997 18:01:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0818 Q: Shakespeare at Stratford I saw Alex Jennings in both also...didn't care for him...hated his Hamlet too frenetic...Benedick a bit better but I was tainted after seeing his Hamlet and being disappointed...best Hamlet I've seen was in Boston two seasons ago ..Cambell Scott...did you see the mysteries this year? [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: G. L. Horton Date: Tuesday, 05 Aug 1997 10:01:38 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0816 Re: Actors at Shakes&Co. , New Globe Steve Neville said >What impressed me most, however, >was Edward Petheridge's portrayal of Krapp in Beckett's _Krapp's Last >Tape_ a mere hour and a half after his fine performance as Cymbeline. >Brilliant. I just saw Shakespeare & Co.'s (Lenox, MA) and go from Hal and Hotspur in Henry4 pt 1 to Jerry and Robert in Pinter's "Betrayal", from performances scaled for an outdoor stage the size of a football field to the intimacy of Wharton's drawing room theatre, seating perhaps 50. I also saw the student company's MND, and a small-cast WT. All excellent. I will be reviewing these productions for AisleSay, but I write slowly (about 1 review per week) and I want to recommend them to SHAKSPERians while there is still time to see them all. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 07:13:08 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0820 Re: New Globe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0820. Wednesday, 6 August 1997. [1] From: Harry Hill Date: Tuesday, 05 Aug 1997 07:45:19 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0816 Re: New Globe [2] From: Eric Armstrong Date: Tuesday, 5 Aug 1997 20:49:30 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Globe and not being a groundling. [3] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Wednesday, 6 Aug 1997 05:07:10 -0400 Subj: SHK 8.0816 Re: New Globe [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Tuesday, 05 Aug 1997 07:45:19 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0816 Re: New Globe Krapp right after Cymbeline It may have been a `brilliant' performance of Krapp an hour and a half after playing Cymbeline, but the actual feat is rather easy, if I may say so, since to act Krapp is a strangely relaxing process once one has left the rehearsal weeks. There is a great deal of that gripping motionlessness that so affects the spectator, for instance; the extreme focus needed to play with the meanings of one's eyes and their telling brows is akin to the concentration of meditation or prayer that leaves one elevated and exhausted afterwards and promotes a beautifully sound sleep once at home and the audience tossing in their newly existential beds. Harry Hill [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Tuesday, 5 Aug 1997 20:49:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Globe and not being a groundling. I saw Henry the Fift at the new Globe and had a problem that I believe hasn't been mentioned so far: I got a really bad sunburn. My wife and I had (rather uncomfortable) seats in the second gallery, right in the middle, the day that Hillary Clinton came to see the show. Not only did we not get in until her Highness had taken her seat, keeping us from seeing the theatre until the last moment, amidst a crush of people struggling to get in, but she only stayed for the first act. The stage is carefully placed so the actors don't have the sun in their eyes, but as a result, the audience DOES. This makes it quite difficult to see the stage. Because of fire regulations (which are stiff, the Globe being the only thatched building in London) you are not allowed to stand in the aisle to get into the shade and can't move down to the cool confines of the groundlings with out a ticket. For this reason I think that the groundlings had the best seats in the house and they were far cheaper too! Grumblingly, Eric Armstrong [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Wednesday, 6 Aug 1997 05:07:10 -0400 Subject: SHK 8.0816 Re: New Globe The 'New Globe' is wholly and delightfully an American venture and should be applauded as such. It embodies an American view of history (that the past can be coralled, domesticated, and thus escaped from). This strikes me as entirely admirable, provided its audiences realize that what's on offer is an experience as quintessential -and as remarkable- as the Grand Canyon, Times Square or the singing of Bessie Smith. Unfortunately, it is being marketed as something quite different. This suggests that, whereas the inscription over the entrance to the 'original' Globe was "Totus Mundus Agit Histrionem", the one over the entrance to its successor should read "Caveat Emptor". Either that, or "Play It Again, Sam". Terence Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 07:18:40 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0821 Re: JC at the First Globe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0821. Wednesday, 6 August 1997. [1] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 05 Aug 1997 13:44:41 -0600 Subj: JC at the First Globe [2] From: Peter Nockolds Date: Wednesday, 6 Aug 1997 11:16:05 +0100 (BST) Subj: 'JC' at the Globe [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Tuesday, 05 Aug 1997 13:44:41 -0600 Subject: JC at the First Globe John Drakakis wrote > There is a brief account of a Globe performance of JC probably in > the early autumn of 1599. Assuming John means the Platter account, then "probably" is misplaced in this sentence. Platter certainly saw the play on 21 September, but described it only as "the tragedy of the first Emperor Julius Caesar" and the venue as "the straw-thatched house". Both the first Globe and the Rose had thatched roofs, and the Admiral's men did plays about Julius Caesar in 1594-5 and 1602. The Swan too had a thatched roof but it was closed. So, the tricky bit is eliminating the possibility that Platter saw Henslowe's players doing a play about JC at the Rose on 21 Sept 1599. Steve Sohmer draws upon the Henslowe's account book receipts which appear to show a dip in takings at the Rose when, according to Sohmer, the Globe opened. But the receipts are a confusing and possibly incomplete record. Henslowe's receipts end on 3 June and start again on 6 October, which might mean the Rose was closed for the summer. (Carol Chillington Rutter takes this view in _Documents of the Rose_). But records of the Admiral's men touring seem to START again in autumn 1599 (Gurr _The Playing Companies_ p255) and they get paid for performing in Coventry on 28 Dec 1599 two days before Henslowe records a weekly take for the Rose. Must we give up Henslowe's records being takings at the Rose? Did the company split into two groups, one of whom toured while the other worked at the Rose? Did Henslowe record the takings of the touring company? If the Henslowe record falls under suspicion then a major reason for thinking that Platter saw Shakespeare's JC-the absence of such a play in Henslowe's records for 1599--disappears. Gabriel Egan [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Nockolds Date: Wednesday, 6 Aug 1997 11:16:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: 'JC' at the Globe Steve Sohmer appears to have misread one of his sources. According to Thomas, 'Religion and the Decline of Magic' (p352, as cited, Sohmer para.18),the traditional time for new ventures was 'the rising Moon', that is when the Moon is increasing in light. This seems to be borne out by the quotations which Sohmer supplies (note 6). According to rules given under the entry 'Elections' in de Vore's 'Encyclopaedia of Astrology' (Littlefield, Adams & Co. Totowa, New Jersey, 1977) the best part of the lunar cycle for new ventures is from three days after the conjunction of Moon and Sun to three days before the full Moon, that is on those days when the Moon is increasing in light most rapidly. The conjunction of Moon and Sun was not necessarily an auspicious time for the launch of a new venture. The conjunction which Sohmer has selected fell in square to the malefic Saturn. (Venus and not Saturn which was the fifth planet in the stellium in the constellation of Gemini noted in para.16) If the play began between noon and ten to three Saturn would have been in the ascendant. Both these indications are traditionally unfortunate, as confirmed both by de Vore, by William Lilly's Christian Astrology of 1647, and doubtless by many other sources. If the proprietors of the Globe were following 'standard' astrological doctrine of their day I would think it unlikely that they would have chosen 12th June 1599 as an opening date. Yours sincerely Peter Nockolds Richmond, Surrey, UK. (I imagine that the 40 volumes of papers of Simon Forman give many indications of Elizabethan astrological practice.) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 07:25:09 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0822 Conference on Editorial Problems MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0822. Wednesday, 6 August 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Tuesday, 05 Aug 1997 09:40:06 -0400 Subject: Conference on Editorial Problems [Editor's Note: This noticed was posted on the REED List. -HMC] CONFERENCE NOTICE AND REGISTRATION INFORMATION **COMPUTING THE EDITION** Problems in editing for the electronic medium The Thirty Third Annual Conference on Editorial Problems 7-9 November 1997 University College, University of Toronto http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/cep/ Email: cep1997@chass.utoronto.ca INVITED SPEAKERS Julia Flanders (Brown) Data or Wisdom? Electronic editing, empiricism and the quantification of knowledge John Lavagnino (Brown) Access Jerome McGann (Virginia) The contradictory imperatives of eye and mind Peter Robinson (De Montfort) The Canterbury Tales project and other electronic editions: where next? Peter Shillingsburg (Mississippi) The dank cellar of electronic texts Michael Sperberg-McQueen (Illinois at Chicago) Why you should not teach your edition to swim Kathryn Sutherland (Oxford) The real presence of texts PANELISTS (University of Toronto) Alex Jones ancient science Andrew Hughes musicology Ian Lancashire (chair) English Renaissance literature Keren Rice linguistics Gary Shawver medieval studies Jens Wollesen art history Russon Wooldridge lexicography The objective of the 1997 Conference on Editorial Problems is to examine the practice of editing as it is shaped by the electonic medium, and to explore the practiccality of the opportunities and the problems that come from their implementation. Many believe that the future of scholarly editing, if not specialized academic publishing generally, lies with the electronic medium. This Conference will take stock of major developments to date, examining critically, and from the problems that have arisen, adumbrating the nature of scholarly editing for the electronic medium. It will ask What are the desirable features of an electronic edition? How is the medium affecting our conception of editing and of the nature of text? How may we may refurbish our old wisdom and skills for this new medium? The Conference will consist of papers from seven invited speakers, followed by a panel of scholars representing a wide variety of disciplinary perspectives at Toronto. The resulting volume will be published in print and electronic forms by the University of Toronto Press. The imitative use of the computer to assist in producing an edition for print may now be taken for granted. The concerns of this Conference lie, rather, in the taken for granted. The concerns of this Conference lie, rather, in the ext= raensions of computting beyond a mirror-image of what we have always been abe to do. Thus its subject consists of the practical and theoretical problmes arising from new kinds of processing and analysis the rapid interactivity between editor or reader and the data; and the plethora of choices in what an electronic scholarly edition might be or do. Recent achievements and current projects dispel any doubt that the dividends of computing the edition are great, but they also show that these dividends have far-reaching and disturbing consequences. It is not simply that the choices we face are difficult, or even that the most positive and seemingly least problematic dividends challenge old ideas. The creative disturbance to our status quo originates in the objectification of editorial practice that computerization entails in the perceptual shift to a view of source material as data. Furthermore, the digital gift of including so much more in an edition than was formerly possible means a rethinking of what we consider to be data, what processes constitute editing, indeed what we mean by "scholarly" and others. Convenors Willard McCarty King's College London Fred Unwalla Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto Conference Coordinator Jennifer Forbes University of Toronto LOCATION The Conference will take place at University College in the University of Toronto. Travel information and a detailed map will be sent with the conference fee receipt. Internet Access All attendees will be offered access to the Internet, from which they may reach their regular e-mail accounts as well as browse the web. Computers with on-line access will be made available at Robarts Library and at other locations on campus. ACCOMMODATION All hotels detailed here will have rooms available during the conference. For all hotels the cut-off date for guaranteed reservations at the conference price is 7 October 1997 (i.e. one month before the start of the conference. When making their reservations, all guests are asked to quote the conference name, "The Conference on Editorial Problems" to qualify for the conference rate. Conference rates cannot be guaranteed on days other than 7-9 November, though all hotels will try to be accomodating. Any special arrangements (non-smoking rooms, whellchair accesible rooms, etc., must be made directly with the hotel concerned. People wishing to stay later or arrive earlier will have to make their own arrangements with the particular hotel. It is bext to make reservations early to ensure requirements are met. All hotel rates are in Canadian funds and do not include taxes (the taxes on hotel rooms are the Goods and Service Tax at 7% and the Provincial Sales Tax at 5%). Many hotels have penalties for cancellations, early departures etc. Please check all charges, potential penalites and other conditions with the hotel prior to booking. List of Hotels Quality Hotel Midtown 280 Bloor St. W., Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 1V8 phone: (416) 968-0010 fax: (416) 968-7765 Toll free reservations: 1-800-228-5151 $72 plus taxes (1 person) $84 plus taxes (2 people) Venture Inn Toronto Yorkville 89 Avenue Rd, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5R 2G3 phone: (416) 964-1220 fax: (416) 964-8692 Toll free reservations: 1-800-387-3933 $75 plus taxes for singles or doubles Park Plaza Hotel 4 Avenue Road, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5R 2E8 phone: (416) 924-5471 fax: (416) 924-4933 Toll free reservations: 1-800-977-4197 $149.00 plus taxes for singles or doubles Hotel Inter-Continental Toronto 220 Bloor St. W., Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 1T8 phone: (416) 960-5200 fax: (416) 324-5920 Toll free reservations: 1-800-267-0010 $165.00 singles, $185.00 doubles plus taxes Each guest must make his or her own reservations directly with the hotel and is responsible for any and all hotel charges and special arrangements. Please quote "Conference on Editorial Problems" when booking. For all hotels the cut-off date for guaranteed reservations at the conference price is October 7, 1997. REGISTRATION FORM Name: Institution: Address: Email: Tel: Fax: REGISTRATION FEE [ ] Full (includes papers, reception, banquet & Saturday lunch:$90 [ ] Partial (excludes reception & banquet): $70 [ ] Student (with Saturday lunch):$40 [ ] Student (papers only):$30 Students wishing to attend the Friday reception and the banquet must pay for Full registration I require a vegetarian (ovo-lacto) menu [ ] (please tick) Canadian or US currency only. Cheques or money orders should be made payable to the 'Conference on Editorial Problems'. Please note that no refunds will be awarded to cancellations received after 7 October 1997. Prior to that date a service charge of $15 will be levied on all cancellations. Numbers are limited to 100 for the conference so early registration is advised. The conference fee can be paid in advance with this form or on-site, but a $35 surcharge will be required for all on-site registrations. Please return this form along with your registration fee to: Jennifer Forbes, CEP97, PIMS, University of Toronto, 59 Queens Park Crescent East, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2C3 CANADA ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 07:27:49 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0823 Call for Papers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0823. Wednesday, 6 August 1997. From: R. Headlam-Wells Date: Tuesday, 5 Aug 1997 17:15:59 +0100 (BST) Subject: Call for Papers NORTHERN RENAISSANCE SEMINAR: CALL FOR PAPERS Saturday 7th March 1998 The Elizabethan Fin-de-Siecle This one-day conference is being organised by the Departments of English and History at Hull. Abstracts of papers should be submitted by 16th January to Rowlie Wymer, Department of English, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull HU6 7RX (tel: 01482 465704 e-mail: R.G.Wymer@english.hull.ac.uk). Papers of a primarily historical or primarily literary nature are equally welcome. Contributors will be encouraged to offer their work for publication in Renaissance Forum. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 07:31:58 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0824 Re: *R3* Videos; *Err.* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0824. Wednesday, 6 August 1997. [1] From: Joanne Gates Date: Tuesday, 5 Aug 1997 15:42:31 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0816 Looking for 3 Richard IIIs [2] From: Gavin Witt Date: Tuesday, 5 Aug 1997 15:34:18 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: Comedy of Errors [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Gates Date: Tuesday, 5 Aug 1997 15:42:31 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0816 Looking for 3 Richard IIIs I purchased the MacKellan Richard at Columbia House video. They have a web site, but I do all purchases off line: http://www.columbiahouse.com/ If you are joining, you can get your first 6 or 7 for a penny each, a good deal, committing you to buy the same number at regular price. No, I am not affilitated, but ... The prices sometimes go down after first month or two of release. After initial membership purchases you get dividends, so just with my women's lit and Shakespeare interests, I've acquired quite a video library at reasonable cost. Is the "restored" Richard III coming out on video? At one time they had a web site. I found more on Richard films at: http://www.webcom.com/blanchrd/mckellen/index.html Joanne Gates [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gavin Witt Date: Tuesday, 5 Aug 1997 15:34:18 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Comedy of Errors In belated follow-up to a thread of a month ago (if not more), regarding Comedy of Errors (particularly the possibility of playing the entire piece as a projected fantasy of Egeon's in the moment before his death), those in or around the Chicago area over the next two weeks are cordially invited to attend a live outdoor production of the piece that does not go quite so far but yet takes certain ambitious liberties in trying to find the "more" that lurks behind the farcical exterior of this marvelous early play. At 8 p.m. on Friday-Sunday August 8-10, and again at 8 p.m. Thu-Sat August 14-16, you can come to the Hutchinson Courtyard of the Reynolds Club on the campus of the University of Chicago in Hyde Park (57th and University Avenue)--admission is $10-12 for adults, less for students/seniors/groups. The production imagines the action taking place in a somewhat imaginary Little Italy on the Feast Day of San Rocco in 1943 (liberation of Italy). Vincente "the Duke" Solinus has some trouble in the neighborhood with some Syracusans moving in unbidden..... The hope is that the production actually responds to the Commedia/Plautine origins of the piece by using familiar types of somewhat "antique" flavor (vaudeville styles of Chaplin, Marx Bros., Keaton) to generate recognizable "types" and a heightened world while anchoring them in an equally distinguishable reality. The play seems to demand an environment that is a very tight, closed community (where everyone knows everybody) ruled by a single powerful figure with power of life and death-a world of explosive passion, intense desire, and the omnipresent threat of death. Hello, Brian DePalma (perhaps by way of Disney). We did take certain liberties, like making Balthazar into Frank and Connie Balthazar, but without changing the script (short of reassigning newly split lines). The whole play, then, becomes a suspended carnival, where the restoration of "order" made possible by the comic conclusion is the resumption of a form of riot-and the "madness" of the day happens to everyone, not just Antipholus and Dromio. I'm curious if anyone has encountered productions that made similar choices. Certainly influenced by affect of Flying K. Bros. production years ago that managed to incorporate genuine sentiment (particularly for Luciana/Adriana) with high-stakes physical comedy and athleticism. So, audience welcome, but so too are any responses/reactions. Best, Gavin Witt Resident Dramaturg Court Theatre, Chicago ghwitt@midway.uchicago.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 06:54:00 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0825 Re: Shakes&Co; New Globe; Stratford MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0825. Thursday, 7 August 1997. [1] From: G. L. Horton Date: Wednesday, 06 Aug 1997 08:17:31 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0819 Shakes&Co posting blunder [2] From: Edna Z. Boris <104757.652@CompuServe.COM> Date: Wednesday, 06 Aug 97 16:59:21 EDT Subj: Zulu Macbeth at Globe [3] From: Jay Johnson Date: Wednesday, 6 Aug 1997 21:55:57 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0818 Q: Shakespeare at Stratford [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: G. L. Horton Date: Wednesday, 06 Aug 1997 08:17:31 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0819 Shakes&Co posting blunder Oops-I left blanks for the actors' names in my post, intending to check spellings-and then sent it by mistake. Sorry! The actors are: Shakespeare & Co.'s (Lenox, MA) Allyn Burrows and Dan McCleary go from Hal and Hotspur in Henry4 pt 1 to Jerry and Robert in Pinter's "Betrayal".... G.L.Horton -- Newton, MA, USA ghorton@tiac.net [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edna Z. Boris <104757.652@CompuServe.COM> Date: Wednesday, 06 Aug 97 16:59:21 EDT Subject: Zulu Macbeth at Globe Although I went with reluctance to see the Zulu Macbeth playing this week at the Globe, the evening turned out to be one I'll probably never forget. Through pouring rain, groundlings stood (in plastic rain protectors that the Globe sells). My theater companion had gotten there before me and rented seat cushions, which I strongly recommend that others do. The seats are without backs and are hard. As others have reported, the Globe's intimacy, acoustics, sightlines all work well. Occasional English translations and explanations flashed on two screens suspended on the railing of the middle level of seats, near the stage, because the spoken and sung text was in Zulu. The energy of the Zulu performance was extraordinary. Any other "curtain call" after having seen this one will seem tame. The run is for this week only. See it if you can. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jay Johnson Date: Wednesday, 6 Aug 1997 21:55:57 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0818 Q: Shakespeare at Stratford With regard to this season at Stratford, I very much enjoyed Hamlet, but I didn't like Much Ado as much as I hoped to; Alex Jennings was very good in both of them. Hamlet, directed by Adrian Noble, is heavily cut and set in the modern world (the 1920s? 30s?), and it moves along briskly, surprising you along the way with its original takes on certain lines and scenes. The first appearance of the ghost at the wedding celebration and Jennings, during the play-within-a play scene, playing in clown's white-face are examples. Much Ado also has some unique interpretations, but here they come across as a bit forced and idiosyncratic. Jennings and Siobhan Redmond are very satisfying as Beatrice and Benedick, but the production raises issues, questions, and ideas that seem to come from nowhere and are to little purpose. The silent presence of the young boy at crucial moments is an example. Cheers, Jay Johnson Medicine Hat College Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 06:56:32 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0826 Query about A SHREW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0826. Thursday, 7 August 1997. From: Stephen Miller Date: Wednesday, 06 Aug 1997 15:54:33 BST Subject: Query about A SHREW At the moment I am completing a brief stage history of THE TAMING OF A SHREW or, more accurately, a history of the effect of A SHREW upon the staging of THE TAMING OF THE SHREW. This amounts mostly to the importation of the additional matter for Sly from A SHREW into productions of THE SHREW, as most will know. What I would like to know is whether anybody on SHAKSPER knows of any a filmed version of the Christopher Sly material? I do not know that Sly has ever appeared on film or television. On the other hand, if anyone knows of a performance of A SHREW or recalls any interesting use of material from that version onstage, I would be grateful for details. Very sincerely, Stephen Miller King's College London e-mail: s.miller@kcl.ac.uk or: stephen.miller@kcl.ac.uk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 07:01:02 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0828 Re: JC at the First Globe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0828. Thursday, 7 August 1997. From: John Drakakis Date: Thursday, 7 Aug 1997 01:51:37 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0821 Re: JC at the First Globe Thanks to Gabriel Egan for drawing attention to the problems of dating the first performance of Julius Caesar. I wonder though, if the reference in Hamlet to Polonius's having played Caesar may not also be a reference to an earlier performance of the play in which the actor playing Polonius had actually played Caesar. I'm aware that this is rather tenuous, but one of the reasons for referring to this might have been to remind an audience of the actor's last major appearance (though that might not be the only reason), and also to joke at the actor's expense as well as at the dramatic character's? I suppose this raises the question of what constitutes theatrical "evidence" and must it always be "documentary" in the strictly archival sense. Cheers, John Drakakis ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 06:58:41 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0827 R3 Society Website MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0827. Thursday, 7 August 1997. From: Laura Blanchard Date: Wednesday, 6 Aug 1997 08:13:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0824 Re: *R3* Videos; *Err.* I believe that the American Film Institute still has information on the recovered silent film archived on its website, which I think is http://www.afionline.org/ The URL given for the Richard III Society's film section is superseded by a more mnemonic domain name: http://www.r3.org/ We've also added a search engine, and have a film page from our learning resources section (http://www.r3.org/learning.html) as well as from our Richard III Onstage and Off section (http://www.r3.org/mckellen/). Regards, Laura Blanchard lblanchard@aol.com========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 06:51:08 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0829 Re: JC at the First Globe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0829. Friday, 8 August 1997. From: Harry Hill Date: Thursday, 07 Aug 1997 07:20:08 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0828 Re: JC at the First Globe The self-referentiality of the actor playing Polonius having appeared in Shakespeare's theatre as Caesar is indeed further consolidation of *Hamlet*'s theatrical metaphors. As Michael Bristol shows in his intelligent, bravura *Big-Time Shakespeare* [Routledge, 1996], the showbiz character of the plays makes the way clear for such naughty things such as "Well done, old Mole; canst work i'th earth so fast?". The technique, or bad habit, has always struck me as rather cheap, akin to Red Skelton feigning break-up or performers tempted to poke their heads around the scenery before the start of a play. But then, I've always been insufficiently Brechtian, favouring consistent attempt at rudimentary illusion from which only we may alienate ourselves as we choose. Harry Hill ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 07:00:58 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0830 Winning Tour Names for the SSE's 1999 Tours MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0830. Friday, 8 August 1997. From: Shenandoah Shakespeare Express Date: Thursday, 7 Aug 1997 17:13:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Winning Tour Names for the SSE's 1999 Tours Thanks to all those who submitted suggestions for SSE 1999 tour names. The titles selected are: 1999 Done Quickly Tour Macbeth Merchant of Venice Merry Wives of Windsor 1999 Eaten Heart Tour Hamlet Much Ado about Nothing We'll be posting again when we start looking for the SSE's 2000 tours. Cheers. [Editor's Note: Less than two weeks ago my family returned from its annual summer vacation with the Shenandoah Shakespeare Express. The three plays of the Valley Season - LLL, 1H4, and MND - were stunning. I simply cannot believe how the SSE seems to outdo itself every year. I hope to make a longer post about the productions as soon as I can, but I have been deeply involved in hiring to the exclusion of virtually all other pursuits. -Hardy] ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 07:12:49 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0831 Q: Hamlet, Gertrude and Freud MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0831. Friday, 8 August 1997. From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Thursday, 07 Aug 1997 17:32:01 -0700 Subject: Re: Hamlet, Gertrude and Freud Does anyone have any suggestions on texts addressing Freud's analysis of Hamlet? I would like to get some feedback on the Oedipal interpretation that seems to hover over the play. Thanks, JoAnna ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 08:31:28 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0832 Re: Hamlet, Gertrude and Freud MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0832. Sunday, 10 August 1997. [1] From: Richard Brestoff Date: Friday, 8 Aug 1997 12:30:38 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0831 Q: Hamlet, Gertrude and Freud [2] From: Surajit A. Bose Date: Friday, 8 Aug 1997 15:13:01 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0831 Q: Hamlet, Gertrude and Freud [3] From: Curtis Perry Date: Friday, 08 Aug 1997 09:33:48 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0831 Q: Hamlet, Gertrude and Freud [4] From: Stephan B. Paragon Date: Saturday, 9 Aug 1997 02:06:32 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0831 Q: Hamlet, Gertrude and Freud [5] From: Stuart Manger Date: Friday, 8 Aug 1997 23:59:06 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0831 Q: Hamlet, Gertrude and Freud [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Brestoff Date: Friday, 8 Aug 1997 12:30:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0831 Q: Hamlet, Gertrude and Freud The primary source is called, I think, Hamlet and Oedipus by Ernest Jones. Richard Brestoff [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Surajit A. Bose Date: Friday, 8 Aug 1997 15:13:01 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0831 Q: Hamlet, Gertrude and Freud Freud himself did not comment specifically on HAMLET at any length. But the locus classicus for the Oedipal interpretation is a brief essay by Freud's disciple Ernest Jones, "Hamlet and his Problems"; later, Jones expanded this into a full-length book, HAMLET AND OEDIPUS (New York: Norton, 1949; rept. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, c.1956). I'm afraid I do not have bibliographic references for the essay handy. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Curtis Perry Date: Friday, 08 Aug 1997 09:33:48 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0831 Q: Hamlet, Gertrude and Freud I'm sure you're getting plenty of responses, but I'd recommend the following: Norman Holland, _Psychoanalysis and Shakespeare_ (which offers a good solid precis of the theory's strengths and weaknesses); Ernest Jones _Hamlet and Oedipus_ (which is the classic articulation of the position; and Janet Adelman, _Suffocating Mothers_ (which offers a very compelling counterargument for another kind of account of the relationship). Curtis Perry [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephan B. Paragon Date: Saturday, 9 Aug 1997 02:06:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0831 Q: Hamlet, Gertrude and Freud Shakespeare was just holding the mirror up to nature. His infatuation with his mother is completely normal. Any son that truly loves his mother, will identify with other women in a similar vein. Freud just went a step further by showing us in a modern sense how we can screw up our emotions by the past presentaion of our own relations to maturity. [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Manger Date: Friday, 8 Aug 1997 23:59:06 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0831 Q: Hamlet, Gertrude and Freud The famous (infamous?) Ernest Jones? Bit passe as an ideological start, but your call.......... ! Stuart Manger ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 08:38:26 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0833 Re: JC at the First Globe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0833. Sunday, 10 August 1997. [1] From: Steve Sohmer Date: Friday, 8 Aug 1997 07:48:01 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0817 Re: *JC* at Globe [2] From: Greg Koch Date: Friday, 8 Aug 1997 09:02:43 -0400 Subj: Re: JC at the First Globe [3] From: Steve Sohmer Date: Saturday, 9 Aug 1997 07:11:15 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0828 Re: JC at the First Globe [4] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 9 Aug 1997 15:06:59 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0828 Re: JC at the First Globe [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Friday, 8 Aug 1997 07:48:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0817 Re: *JC* at Globe Dear Friends, Was glad to learn of John Drakakis' suggestion (ShS 1991) that the Globe opened with JC. I presume John cited Humphreys (Oxford 1984), as I did. All the best, Steve [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Greg Koch Date: Friday, 8 Aug 1997 09:02:43 -0400 Subject: Re: JC at the First Globe I like Mr. Hill's observation about how necessary it is to separate oneself from the illusions created. In Elizabethan day, certainly bad acting meant the "license" you took with the edicts of HRM, nobles and assigns. Although today we think actors better educated, an Elizabethan audience may balk: an actor's education meant making him well-aware of (bad) deviation. Anything else is game: like the fantasies explored in the play within a play - "A Midsummer Night's Dream" (I recently read an excellent essay about how Shakespeare shifts characters from their deviations using comic action - by Richard Cox in "The Artist and Political Vision," B. Barber and M.J.G. McGrath, editors, Transaction Press, Rutgers N.J. 1981). Now, the question is, what kind of license did Shakespeare have? Greg Koch [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Saturday, 9 Aug 1997 07:11:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0828 Re: JC at the First Globe Dear Friends, I agree with John Drakakis' suggestion that "the reference in Hamlet to Polonius's having played Caesar may not also be a reference to an earlier performance of the play in which the actor playing Polonius had actually played Caesar." And I wonder if this means that the actor who played Hamlet also played Brutus, since Polonius continues in a most point way: "I did enact Julius Caesar. I was killed i' th' Capitol. Brutus killed me"(1912-3). For those who find this level of speculation engaging, I'd suggest an extension of John's inference. In JC, there are two rather heavy puns which suggest that Shakespeare himself played Caesar (and, by entailment Polonius). The first occurs when Antony says, "When Caesar sayes, Do this; it is perform'd" (99). And the second when Caska attributes to Caesar "that Tounge of his, that bad the Romans Marke him, and write his Speeches in their Bookes"(223-4), which has no basis in the sources. All the best, Steve Sohmer [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 9 Aug 1997 15:06:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0828 Re: JC at the First Globe It was my assumption, with regard to Hamlet's many references to JC, that the two were played in rep at one early point in their history at the Globe. Burbage taking a turn as Brutus one afternoon, Hamlet the next, with the "unkindest cut" going into the same actor both days. Given the busy schedule at the Rose, with revivals, repeat performances, and a rotating rep that included as many as 14 plays, I can't help but think the Globe company did the same kind of grueling schedule, and didn't shrink from the occasional metatheatrical gesture to help promote the rest of their season. Andy White Arlington, VA ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 08:43:28 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0834 Announcements: LA Ham; Will and Testament MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0834. Sunday, 10 August 1997. [1] From: Harry Teplitz Date: Friday, 8 Aug 1997 15:24:06 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Los Angeles Hamlet Production [2] From: Fred Stone Date: Friday, 8 Aug 1997 14:03:19 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Will and Testament [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Teplitz Date: Friday, 8 Aug 1997 15:24:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Los Angeles Hamlet Production Flat Universe Productions Presents: Hamlet Directed By: Harry Teplitz (SHAKSPER list member) Summary: We present William Shakespeare's epic tale of passion, magic and revolution. In the spirit of Shakespeare's own theater, this troupe of young actors brings their enthusiasm for accessible classics and affordable entertainment to the Bard's greatest story. Where: The Rose Theater, 318 Lincoln Blvd. Rear Entrance, Venice When: August 8-31, Fri. Sat. & Sun. Times: Fridays & Saturdays at 8pm; Sundays at 7pm Prices: $10 For reservations please call the theater at (310) 392-6963. For other info. contact Flat Universe; (310) 478-7154 [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fred Stone Date: Friday, 8 Aug 1997 14:03:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Will and Testament What do Shakespeare, God, and an actor trampled to death by diehard Chicago Cubs fans have in common? Imagine fusing a dozen Shakespearean monologues into an entertaining modern day fantasy set in Heaven. Will and Testament, a life-after-death comedy, is a one person play created and performed by acclaimed Chicago actor, Fredric Stone. The show travels and brings the Bard nationwide to universities, colleges, high schools, and performing arts centers. Workshops and residencies are also offered. Open up the curtain on Will and Testament by scrolling the website below and discovering how you can host this special performance. Website: http://members.tripod.com/~fstoneact/w_t.html E-mail: fstoneact@aol.com Mailing address: Will and Testament Productions 5040 N. Marine Drive #3A Chicago, Il 60640 773-334-4196 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 08:51:05 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0835 Assorted Questions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0835. Sunday, 10 August 1997. [1] From: Miles Edward Taylor Date: Friday, 8 Aug 1997 07:29:07 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Q: Lost plays and publication [2] From: Ed Friedlander Date: Friday, 8 Aug 1997 10:57:30 CST Subj: Gertrude [3] From: Yoshiaki Takeda Date: Saturday, 9 Aug 1997 09:11:22 +0900 (JST) Subj: Lady Macbeth [4] From: Stuart Manger Date: Saturday, 9 Aug 1997 21:43:30 +0100 Subj: Macbeth / Witches [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Miles Edward Taylor Date: Friday, 8 Aug 1997 07:29:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Q: Lost plays and publication I am very much interested in the following questions and would appreciate any advice on what I might read to answer them. 1. Of the number of plays written for the public stage, what percentage was actually published by early modern printers? 2. Of this number, how many are extant? 3. Has any work been done comparing the relative frequency of publication for each company? In other words, for example, was a new play at the Globe more likely to be published than one at the Fortune or Red Bull? The first two questions really lead up to the third. I am attempting to get a handle on how the extant record might skew the perception of early drama, operating on the assumption that the different companies offered different fare which catered to specific niches in the market. Thanks for any suggestions. Miles Taylor University of Oregon [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Friedlander Date: Friday, 8 Aug 1997 10:57:30 CST Subject: Gertrude Forgive me if this is a topic that's been dealt with often. Last night I finally got around to reading Saxo Grammaticus. I've never seen a production in which Gertrude is played as clearly knowing Claudius is a murderer. By contrast, Saxo's queen... The first question a lady asked me as she was seeing Hamlet (Mel Gibson's) for the first time was, "Does the queen know?" Anybody help me? [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Yoshiaki Takeda Date: Saturday, 9 Aug 1997 09:11:22 +0900 (JST) Subject: Lady Macbeth Dear SHAKSPERians, These days I'm writing a paper on Lady Macbeth, which I will read at a small local meeting. The summary is as follows: Many critics say that Lady Macbeth is a cruel and unusual woman. They draw the conclusion from a speech of her as follows: I have given suck, and know How tender 'tis to love the babe that milks me: I would, while it was smiling in my face, Have pluck'd my nipple from his boneless gums, And dash'd the brains out, had I so sworn as you Have done to this (i.e. the murder of the king). (1.7.54-59) But I think that this shows her innate fondness and femininity. The key is "breast feeding." According to recent findings of social history, few mothers of upper class of Elizabethan England milked their babies for themselves because they and their husbands were afraid that it would impair the shape of their body. Moreover, they knew from experience that milking was apt to prevent mothers from pregnancy---this mattered indeed for ladies of upper class, who had to bring forth heirs as many as possible. Therefore, I believe that Lady Macbeth, who "positively" chose that, is a very fond mother, and that this speech of hers is merely a "bravado." I welcome any comments or suggestions. Thank you. Yoshiaki Takeda, Toyama prefec., JAPAN [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Manger Date: Saturday, 9 Aug 1997 21:43:30 +0100 Subject: Macbeth / Witches Is there any evidence as to who played the Witches in the earliest productions? Boys? Men? With music or without? We know that Hal Berridge, the boy down to play Lady Mac, was ill and didn't make the first night, but what about the Witches? Stuart Manger ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 06:18:27 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0836 Re: JC at the first Globe; Hamlet, Gertrude and Freud MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0836. Monday, 11 August 1997. [1] From: Peter Nockolds Date: Sunday, 10 Aug 1997 20:09:28 +0100 (BST) Subj: JC at the first Globe [2] From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Sunday, 10 Aug 1997 12:33:42 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0832 Re: Hamlet, Gertrude and Freud [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Nockolds Date: Sunday, 10 Aug 1997 20:09:28 +0100 (BST) Subject: JC at the first Globe. Does anyone else suspect a link between the name Polonius and the content of final speech? Polonius states that as Caesar, Brutus killed him. His last speech in this role begins 'I am as constant as the Northern Star...' and is concerned with the supposed immovability of this star. When he has finished he is assassinated. The North Star of course indicated the North Pole and the 'Pole' and 'Polonius' show a clear similarity. Caesar likens himself to the Pole Star and the multitude to the other stars. He states that he, Caesar, is different because he doesn't move like the multitude. He is mistaken. The Pole Star moves. Like all the other stars it describes a circle around the true pole. If mariners failed to adjust for this movement they might find themselves a hundred miles out on their latitude. The English natural philosopher Thomas Harriot, a contemporary of Shakespeare, prepared detailed tables of the motion of the Pole Star. Is there irony in this speech? Has Caesar failed to recognise his common humanity? Nautically-minded members of the audience might have thought as much, helped by the fact that during the 1590's there was a senior justice in the admiralty court named Dr. Julius Caesar. (I think he was chief justice in this court in 1599 but I don't have the relevant reference to hand). Peter Nockolds Richmond, Surrey, UK. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: JoAnna Koskinen Date: Sunday, 10 Aug 1997 12:33:42 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0832 Re: Hamlet, Gertrude and Freud Thanks to all for directing me in my research. JoAnna ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 06:22:14 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0837 The Yank Invasion, Via Southwark MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0837. Monday, 11 August 1997. From: Andrew Walker White Date: Sunday, 10 Aug 1997 20:32:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The Yank Invasion, Via Southwark For some time, I have been alternately amused and frustrated by the ad hominem attacks directed at the New Globe. As tempting as it is to respond in kind, and question the credentials of those who continue to dismiss it, perhaps a few historical remarks may be more appropriate: Sam Wanamaker, it can be assumed, was born in the United States. This is something for which he can never be forgiven, according to some on this list, but so be it. He had a thriving career as a performing artist in the USA until the Red Scare of the 1950's. Because of Mr. Wanamaker's alleged marxist politics, he was blacklisted and essentially forced to leave the country. Others in Mr. Wanamaker's position, and there were thousands, were less fortunate; many committed suicide, many others watched helplessly as their families were torn apart by poverty and the never-ending barrage of vitriol thhich will be Shakespeare's plays. I was born in Bonn in 1971. Between 1981 and 1984, I lived in Casper, Wyoming, where I attended fifth, sixth and seventh grade. So far, this has been my only extended stay in a foreign country. My only direct experience of England was gathered on several short trips, including two theatre-intensive pilgrimages to Stratford; at Bonn University, this experience is made possible for a small group of students every year by Professor Dieter Mehl. Since I have not yet finished studying, I do not have a full-time job, but I give tutorials in linguistics at university and teach the English language at the local Volkshochschule, an institution for adult education. I am not certain when my interest in Shakespeare began. My parents claim credit because they took me to an open-air performance of "Cymbeline" at Land's End when I was five, and though I can't say I remember much of it (reports are that I watched raptly for three hours in spite of not being able to understand a single word), it seems to have left a lasting impression. Whatever its origins, my interest has grown steadily in the course of my studies and shows no signs of abating as yet. ============================================================= *Bradley, Jacqueline A recent graduate of SMU, I currently teach in the Rhetoric Program at SMU, and for the last four years have taught both British and American Literature in the community college system. I have just published an article on a Joyce Carol Oates novel, "_Black Water_ and Diminishing Significance: Nameless, Wordless, Worthless," my first publication. My works in progress include a psychoanalytical study of Poe's "The Cask of Amontillado." My current Shakesperian research ranges from word choice in _Macbeth_ to a psychoanalysis of Bolingbroke. Formerly the graduate assistant for the Shakespeare Association of America, I continue to be interested in all things Shakespearian. ============================================================= *Evans, Shaula My name ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 08:40:03 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0838 Re: New Globe: The Yank Invasion MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0838. Tuesday, 12 August 1997. [1] From: John Drakakis Date: Monday, 11 Aug 1997 15:56:40 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0837 The Yank Invasion, Via Southwark [2] From: Don Rowan Date: Monday, 11 Aug 1997 14:24:52 GMT-400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0837 The Yank Invasion, Via Southwark [3] From: Scott Crozier Date: Tuesday, 12 Aug 1997 12:14:46 +1100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0837 The Yank Invasion, Via Southwark [4] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 11 Aug 1997 23:24:22 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0837 The Yank Invasion, Via Southwark [5] From: Amy S. Green Date: Tuesday, 12 Aug 97 05:22:39 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0820 Re: New Globe [6] From: Juul Muller-van Santen Date: Tuesday, 12 Aug 1997 13:29:18 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0837 The Yank Invasion, Via Southwark [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Monday, 11 Aug 1997 15:56:40 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0837 The Yank Invasion, Via Southwark I think Andrew White really does need to get his facts right. In Britain Shakespeare is regarded as THE national poet, and it is more than ironical that an American (albeit of Sam Wannamaker's wholly laudable political credentials) should seek to recapture a part of that English past. I have seen the working papers of the early Globe meetings and I am sorry to say that White is wrong in thinking that this project was aimed at ordinary people. The project has, it is true, changed over a period of years, but I have seen minutes of meetings in which the wishes of the local populace - which at the time of the project's inception was the poorest local authority in England - were ridden over roughshod. I have myself written on the early history of this flawed project in The Shakespeare Myth ed. Graham Holderness, and that history makes salutary reading. On the matter of Professor Gurr's involvement, he his a scholar whose work I respect, and as I see it, he has taken the rare, and some might say extravagant, opportunity to engage in an act of scholarly reconstruction. So far as I am aware he has not been concerned with the marketing of this project although I have heard him speak eloquently on the progress of his own findings from time to time. The result, however, is not, as Professor Gurr will be the first to admit, a faithful reproduction. So far as he is aware, and I wholly concur with him, there were no illuminated fire exits at the original Globe. So much for the building, but what is more important are the cultural contexts (both the 16th and the 20th century contexts) which produced this theatre. This is what, I suppose, White regards as Marxist twaddle. He, for his part, seems to be wholly dedicated to consumption. If the result is amusing, then he, Polonius-like, will be happy to support it, resting in the comfortable (but wholly misguided) assumption that the liberal philanthropy out of which the project emerged is a condition to which all cultures aspire. I believe that Francis Fukuyama in his book The End of History and The Last Man comes to a similar naive general conclusion. One would not even need to aspire to being a Marxist to see that this kind of capitalist twaddle just will not do. He that is giddy thinks the world turns round! Perhaps if Andrew White were prepared to be a little less sentimental, and a little more attentive to the details of the argument then he would realize that the issue is NOT Sam Wannamaker, or some nationalist animus aimed at one of the USA's wayward sons, but the rather dubious (if indeed complex) conditions which have generated the kind of fantasy to which the late Mr. Wannamaker fell prey. That, of course, requires a little bit of thought. Cheers, John Drakakis [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Rowan Date: Monday, 11 Aug 1997 14:24:52 GMT-400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0837 The Yank Invasion, Via Southwark Dear Andy: Thank you for what is certainly the fairest, best informed, and, most impartial, judicious, and balanced summation of the story of "that obsessive Yank" and "Disneyland on the Thames." The only point you left out was Theo Crosby, the best working architect of the time, who was fascinated by the combination of theoretical/practical problems of building a replica/reproduction/ whatever of "a Elizabethan playhouse". He worked closely with Sam from the real beginnings (20 years ago) and neither Sam nor anybody else (Gurr, Orrell) ever claimed anything more than (defensible authenticity). David Galloway was my mentor and just so that you know my extremely biased perspective, and how dead and how far behind the wave of performance criticism I "must" be, I am happy to tell those of you who do not know the "real" history. I was born in Rochester, N.Y. (not Kent or Minn.)and served gladly and proudly in the United States Army Air Corps and the terrible, peace time Royal Canadian Air Force. By this time, I was a Canadian citizen and suffering greatly as, technically, a British (may I use that word in academic discourse) subject. To offer my final hostages to fortune, I was educated at FHS and UNB, both can be found with an atlas. Because of my ignorance, I went on to Cambridge for a couple of years, but I don't normally use Cantab. That should almost certainly be enough for the flamers lurking in the semiotic bushes among all our joint boundaries, liquid or more or less permanent. One final gift: in 1988 I was proud to serve as University Orator in the presentation of an LLD. I was also the person who dared to put such a person forward. If you " beat not the bones of the buried (Sam, Theo, and David)", I am willing to serve as a non- moving target for all to shoot at. I do that because I believe that at this stage in our work on the Elizabethan stage the "New Globe" is an extremely useful tool, even for those who will certainly continue to undermine it with critical perspectives not available to us savages way back in the forty's and fifties. Yet once more I want to thank Andy for urging us to go forward , rather than waste our time worrying away at our pathetic past. rowan@unb.ca [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott CROZIER" Date: Tuesday, 12 Aug 1997 12:14:46 +1100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0837 The Yank Invasion, Via Southwark Thank you Andrew White for showing up much of the recent discussion for what it really was. Thanks to Sam Wannamaker and all the work and enthusiasm he generated around the world, we have a resource of great value. Scott Crozier [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 11 Aug 1997 23:24:22 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0837 The Yank Invasion, Via Southwark Andy White is correct in thinking that anti-American racism is not uncommon in the United Kingdom. One encounters it in situations (eg undergraduate seminars) in which all other forms of racism are, by consensus, not tolerated. But, Andy, isn't the word 'Yank' part of the problem? You use the word in your subject line and in your posting ("I was born a Yank"). I don't know a great deal about American history, but doesn't "Yank" connote a geographic and cultural specificity which is much narrower that, say, the word "American". Am I right in thinking that African Americans and Hispanic Americans (who form large minorities) might well feel that the word "Yank" does not describe them? As for the treatment of Wanamaker, isn't there a fascinating tension between his early left-wing thinking and the project to construct a replica of the Globe? The project has many friends on the right who see it as part of the perfectly proper glorification of the national poet. And, indeed, it has many enemies on the left who wish to expose the politics which underlie the construction of the national poet. But it MIGHT be argued (and has been on SHAKSPER) that the project cannot help but historicize the allegedly transhistorical, transcultural, transcendent, work of Shakespeare. This is just what those on the right generally oppose and those on the left want to promote. Wanamaker is no longer around to be asked about this, but others on SHAKSPER might actually have heard Wanamaker explain his reasons for wanting a replica of the Globe to be built. It's axiomatic in some left-wing circles that great scholarship, even if stimulated by conservative notions about transcendence, inevitably exposes the historical and cultural specificity of art. That is, right-wing ideas fall away when scholars do their work in an honest way. The counter view, articulated by Leah Marcus in her book _Unediting the Renaissance_ is that great scholars of the right have wanted to account for history in minute detail only in order to subtract it from great art and so find the transcendent remainder. The story about "marxist-inspired hooligans" throwing rocks at a Wanamaker house sounds like a bit of make-believe from the same source as that nonsense about ISGC receiving a huge profit out of litigation with Southwark council. Gabriel Egan [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amy S. Green Date: Tuesday, 12 Aug 97 05:22:39 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0820 Re: New Globe Re: Sunburning at the New Globe I thought I remembered an historical tidbit about the old Globe having a fanned awning akin to the contraptions used in Roman theatres to shield patrons from mid-day glare. If not, do we know much about how the Eliz's handled the problem? Was the stage oriented differently within the theatre? I, too, attended performances at Shakespeare and Co. this summer, although not Henry IV, and was sadly disappointed, not so much by the quality of the acting, but of the direction. The BETRAYAL especially, seemed to skim the surface of the play, despite a wise director's note in the program re the significance of silences and the unsaid in the performance of this text. Perhaps the company's recent struggles with its host organization at the Mount has (temporarily??) drained some of its considerable creative energies. Pity. Amy Green [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juul Muller-van Santen Date: Tuesday, 12 Aug 1997 13:29:18 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0837 The Yank Invasion, Via Southwark Dear Andy White, Good for you! That needed saying. Cheers, Julia Muller Amsterdam ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 08:43:38 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0839 Barrymore MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0839. Tuesday, 12 August 1997. From: Mike Jensen Date: Monday, 11 Aug 1997 17:50:06 +0100 Subject: Barrymore I just realized I don't know how the spell the last name of the actor John Barrymore, nor do I have a reference with me. To follow-up recent discussions about vintage audio Shakespeare, and especially to those of you in the neighborhood of Santa Cruz, CA, Logos Bookstore has vol. 2 of the 33 1/3 version of Barrymore's readings for the giveaway price of $3.00. I saw it in their Shakespeare record section on 8/9. One copy. Hurry. I was in town for Shakespeare/Santa Cruz's AYLI and R3. You may skip AYLI, unless you are driven to see yet another lack luster production. We left at the interval. I wanted to leave a half hour sooner. R3 was a different matter. Though heavily cut, it was a very clear, clean accounting of the story, with a GREAT performance by Paul Whitwoth at the usurper. It was derivative is many ways, Whitworth was on crutches a la Tony Sher, and Bob Crowley's hanging light bulbs from the RNT were in abundance. Instead of Olivier's crown hanging like a chandelier overhead, they had the throne of England. Derivative, perhaps, but very effective. Most of the important roles had strong performances, but, as always at Shakespeare/Santa Cruz, there was great unevenness in the company. Not the best R3 I have seen, but well worth a look, and catch Whitworth's performance if you possibly can. Mike Jensen ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 08:46:16 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0840 Re: Hamlet, Gertrude and Freud MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0840. Tuesday, 12 August 1997. From: Sean Kelly Date: Friday, 8 Aug 1997 12:28:51 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0831 Q: Hamlet, Gertrude and Freud Lacan has a great reading in Fehlman's "Literature and Psychoanalysis." I think that it is the fist essay. There might also be a reading in Lacan's Ethics and Psychoanalysis. Both should help with what you are looking for. Sean Kelly Binghamton University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 08:48:10 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0841 Wreckers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0841. Tuesday, 12 August 1997. From: James Marino Date: Monday, 11 Aug 1997 10:36:45 -0600 Subject: Wreckers I am interested in wrecking on the British coasts in the 16th century. There is material for the notorious activity in the Cornish coastal towns, but of course little or no direct record would give evidence of the infamous practice. Indirect evidence comes from such items as the delay in establishing lights and other landmarks along the western approaches for fear that they could be moved or falsified. In a related matter, I have searched unsuccessfully for a mariners' guide that would warn of the dangers of wishing a mark to be the one that is anticipated especially in ambiguous weather and after an arduous voyage. Can anyone help? Reply off the list, please. Regards, James ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 08:51:40 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0842 Re: JC at the First Globe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0842. Tuesday, 12 August 1997. From: Larry Weiss Date: Monday, 11 Aug 1997 14:55:17 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0833 Re: JC at the First Globe Steve Sohmer wrote: I wonder if this means that the actor who played Hamlet also played Brutus, since Polonius continues in a most point way: "I did enact Julius Caesar. I was killed i' Th.' Capitol. Brutus killed me"(1912-3). We know that Burbage played Hamlet -- for example, the speeches in Act V fixing Halmet's age at 35 and commenting on his fatness were probably inserted to justify having a young athlete played by a middle-aged fat man. Do we know if he also played Brutus? Larry Weiss ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 07:00:52 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0843 Re: Hamlet, Gertrude and Freud MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0843. Wednesday, 13 August 1997. [1] From: Steve Hayward Date: Tuesday, 12 Aug 1997 10:03:44 -0400 Subj: Hamlet, Gertrude and Freud [2] From: Surajit A. Bose Date: Tuesday, 12 Aug 1997 15:17:14 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0840 Re: Hamlet, Gertrude and Freud [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Hayward Date: Tuesday, 12 Aug 1997 10:03:44 -0400 Subject: Hamlet, Gertrude and Freud There is also an essay by Bruce Fink entitled "Reading Hamlet with Lacan" in _Lacan, Politics, Aesthetics_ (Apollon and Feldstein eds) that you might find useful. Steven Hayward York University [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Surajit A. Bose Date: Tuesday, 12 Aug 1997 15:17:14 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0840 Re: Hamlet, Gertrude and Freud I should have mentioned in my earlier response that Freud does have several scattered references to HAMLET in his writings. The longest, if I remember correctly, is in THE INTERPRETATION OF DREAMS. There are other important jottings on the play in his letters to Fleiss and Breuer. Peter Gay's book READING FREUD: EXPLORATIONS AND ENTERTAINMENTS (New Haven: Yale UP, 1990) has a long first chapter called "Freud and the man from Stratford." It's a great read and it also provides exact bibliographic references to Freud's and Freudian discussions of HAMLET. The essay is mainly about Freud's belief in the Oxford hypothesis, but since the topic of authorship is interdicted (and very properly too, may I add) on SHAKSPER, I can't say any more about it. -s ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 07:05:05 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0844 CFP: Southeastern Renaissance Conference MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0844. Wednesday, 13 August 1997. From: A.E.B. Coldiron Date: Tuesday, 12 Aug 1997 12:37:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SRC Call for Papers Call for Papers Southeastern Renaissance Conference 55th Annual Meeting University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill April 17-18, 1998 Now Receiving Papers on All Aspects of Renaissance Culture Twenty Minute Reading Time Send Two Copies and One-page Abstract Postmarked by January 15, 1998 To: Steven May , President Southeastern Renaissance Conference Department of English, Georgetown College Georgetown, Kentucky 40324 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 07:08:55 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0845 Qs: John Foxe; Sea Travel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0845. Wednesday, 13 August 1997. [1] From: Ron Shields Date: Tuesday, 12 Aug 1997 11:05:26 -0400 Subj: John Foxe Scholarship/Reformation Conference [2] From: John Mills Date: Tuesday, 12 Aug 1997 20:49:13 -0700 (MST) Subj: Sea Travel [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Shields Date: Tuesday, 12 Aug 1997 11:05:26 -0400 Subject: John Foxe Scholarship/Reformation Conference Does anyone on this list belong to (or know about) professional societies focusing on the works of John Foxe and/or the English Reformation? I would like to join and attend their annual conferences. Thanks. If so, please forward contact information privately to: rshield@bgnet.bgsu.edu [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Mills Date: Tuesday, 12 Aug 1997 20:49:13 -0700 (MST) Subject: Sea Travel The last time I taught A&C I was asked how long it took to sail from Rome to Alexandria. I've picked up some educated guesses from sailors but no hard data. Anyone have an authoritative answer? John Mills, English, Univ. of Arizona. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 07:13:28 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0846 Re: New Globe: The Yank Invasion MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0846. Wednesday, 13 August 1997. From: Sean Lawrence Date: Tuesday, 12 Aug 1997 09:42:07 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0838 Re: New Globe: The Yank Invasion I greatly enjoyed Gabriel Egan's response to Andy White's angry response to much of the Globe debate. He's right, for instance, to point out that anti-American racism still holds sway in a number of situations where all other racisms are not allowed. I think, Gabriel, that you mistake Andy's use of the word 'Yank', which is surely intended ironically, as a sort of parody of the discourse of anti-Americanism informing the recent thread. It was the British, after all, who first pulled the word "yank" out of its geographic and cultural specificity during the second world war. As for the tension between Wanamaker's "early-left wing thinking and his project to construct a replica of the Globe," I think the tension is more or less in the eyes of the beholder. It is only un-left to wish to reconstruct the Globe if art as such is viewed as inherently right. This is not the case to most 1950s and 1960s liberals, who protested their ability to produce art for art's sake, whatever sort of 'anti-American' interpretation might be projected unto it by MacCarthyism. It is also, one might add, not the case to the Czech dissidents, at least not if the Vaclav Havel biography is to be believed. I think that this general alignment (search for transcendence on the right, revelation of historical specificity on the left) is itself historically specific to the British, late-twentieth century situation. Historicism and transcendence function in tandem in Heidegger or Sartre, for instance. Moreover, the ruthless effort to appropriate national heritage in monetary terms also seems specifically British. While many countries have national poets, there isn't a Dante industry in the same way that there's a Shakespeare industry; similarly, while many countries are monarchies, nobody would seriously think of the King of Spain or Norway as an important source of tourism revenue, or of their yachts as floating emporiums of domestic produce. The upshot of such commercialization is to rob heritage and art of its ability to stand outside our economic being-in-the-world, and thereby to render it domesticated and safe. It ceases to be a source of retentions which serve as possibilities that we can project into the future, and so it ceases to provide us with possibilities for change and subversion. This is true of the Shakespeare industry whether one sees it as transcendent and therefore harmless, or as culturally specific and therefore fully imbricated within our customary ways of being-in-the-world. Cheers, Sean. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 06:58:28 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0847 Re: Sea Travel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0847. Thursday, 14 August 1997. [1] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Wednesday, 13 Aug 1997 07:30:27 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0845 Q: Sea Travel [2] From: Charles Edelman Date: Thursday, 14 Aug 1997 13:54:32 -0700 Subj: Sea Travel [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Wednesday, 13 Aug 1997 07:30:27 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0845 Q: Sea Travel Surely the *fact* does not matter; in the *fiction* of the play, the speed of crossing is a function of the advantage or disadvantage of each of its two opponents. L. Swilley [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Edelman Date: Thursday, 14 Aug 1997 13:54:32 -0700 Subject: Sea Travel The answer to John Mills' question on sailing time from Rome to Alexandria is easy - less than 1 act, if you go by way of Athens. Charles Edelman Edith Cowan University ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 07:02:52 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0848 Re: New Globe: The Yank Invasion MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0848. Thursday, 14 August 1997. [1] From: Steven Marx Date: Wednesday, 13 Aug 1997 07:41:21 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0846 Re: New Globe: The Yank Invasion [2] From: Ron Ward Date: Thursday, 14 Aug 1997 11:16:50 +1200 (NZST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0838 Re: New Globe [3] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Thursday, 14 Aug 1997 03:04:45 -0400 Subj: SHK 8.0837 The Yank Invasion [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Marx Date: Wednesday, 13 Aug 1997 07:41:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0846 Re: New Globe: The Yank Invasion The New Globe discussion recalls a moment of recognition I experienced while attending the Shakespeare Institute at Stratford-upon Avon last summer. Mixing with the crowds in the crass commercial atmosphere of the town had grossed me out on past visits. But this time, being admitted to the precincts of Church street and Hall's Croft allowed me a bit of the backstage vantage point of privileged patrons. From there all the hubbub seemed a happy sign of the whole community's ever growing Prosperity, bequeathed to it by the citizen who used his monetary gains in show business and real estate to purchase a large monument for himself next to the altar of its Holy Trinity Church. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Ward Date: Thursday, 14 Aug 1997 11:16:50 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0838 Re: New Globe I may have missed it but the debates on the new Globe have not-so far-mentioned anything about music, authentic or otherwise, in any of the productions. Neither have we heard about cannons discharging. Much more interesting than firing salvos of anti American or Anti British prejudice. Lets leave the placing of various people into nationalistic stereotypical roles to the less enlightened. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Thursday, 14 Aug 1997 03:04:45 -0400 Subject: SHK 8.0837 The Yank Invasion Dear Andrew White: Your conclusion, that we should 'stick to the merits of the Globe as it is' rests on a vast presupposition: that such a project can somehow be prised away from the material context of politics, history, and culture in which it was conceived, from which it derives, and to which it responds. A Globe Theatre 'as it is' or 'in itself', free from these pressures, does not and cannot exist. Always contextualize. With best wishes from me in Wales, to you in Arlington, Virginia. T. Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 07:05:39 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0849 Re: Barrymore MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0849. Thursday, 14 August 1997. From: Larry Weiss Date: Wednesday, 13 Aug 1997 10:56:11 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0839 Barrymore > Mike Jensen wrote: > To follow-up recent >discussions about vintage audio Shakespeare, and especially to those of >you in the neighborhood of Santa Cruz, CA, Logos Bookstore has vol 2 of >the 33 1/3 version of Barrymore's readings for the giveaway price of >$3.00. I saw it in their Shakespeare record section on 8/9. One copy. >Hurry. It was about a week after seeing Plummer's "Barrymore" that I remembered having a 2-volume set of his readings from Shakespeare. They are on the Audio Rarities label (## LPA 2280 & 2281). Barrymore recites (best word for it) speeches by Ham, Macb, RIII, Sir Toby & Malvolio. Surprisingly, the RIII (for which he was best regarded) is the most overacted. There is a great deal of unnecessary tremolo and vibrato in his voice. The wooing scene-chopped up of course-is completely unbelievable. But it is certainly worth having these in your collection, and if you can get them at $3 per, there can be no grounds for complaint. Larry Weiss ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 07:11:47 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0850 Commonwealth Shakespeare Company R&J (Boston) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0850. Thursday, 14 August 1997. From: Martin Jukovsky Date: Wednesday, 13 Aug 1997 23:31:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Commonwealth Shakespeare Company R&J (Boston) I want to recommend the Commonwealth Shakespeare Company production of ROMEO AND JULIET, playing here in Boston through Sunday, August 17. It's out in the open, in Boston Common, and is free of charge. It's a fine production, and the Nurse and Capulet are especially good. I saw it on Tuesday, and was impressed that the attendance was around 1500 -- remarkable for a weekday night at a show that boasts no well-known stars. The audience was a good cross-section of the city, students, workers, professionals, parents with children in carriages. They responded well to the play, especially to the humorous parts, which the performers brought out effectively. If you can get to Boston Common, this is worth seeing. (Suggestion: bring lawn chairs or blankets.) Martin Jukovsky Cambridge, Mass.========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 06:14:12 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0851 Re: Barrymore MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0851. Friday, 15 August 1997. From: Harry Hill Date: Thursday, 14 Aug 1997 08:20:07 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0849 Re: Barrymore Tremolo and Vibrato were practically characters in the plays back then! Booth too, by the way. And Gillette, Benson, Irving, Gielgud, Maurice Evans, Forbes-Robertson, early Ashcroft. The point is not their *conversational* believability. Although Gillette prided himself on, and fostered, what he called `the illusion of the first time', it is *emotional* credibility he was after, knowing perfectly well as Burbage, Will Kemp and William Shakespeare knew before him, that he was onstage and not out on the street with a tape recorder. Mamet, Williams, O'Neill, Pinter---they all sound "believable" because of their extraordinary gifts in the patterning, echoing, assonantal and subtle alliteration of what Hopkins termed `common language heightened'. I don't see that I can ever tire of reiterating this! Harry Hill ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 06:16:29 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0852 CFP (second posting): Shakespeare at Kalamazoo, May 1998 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0852. Friday, 15 August 1997. From: Ruth E. Sternglantz Date: Thursday, 14 Aug 1997 10:21:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: CFP (second posting): Shakespeare at Kalamazoo, May 1998 *Apologies for crossposting* Call for Papers 1998 SHAKESPEARE AT KALAMAZOO Thirty-third International Congress on Medieval Studies Kalamazoo, Michigan 7-10 May 1998 Shakespeare at Kalamazoo will be sponsoring two sessions at the 1998 Congress, both devoted to papers specifically relating Shakespeare to the broader canvas of cultural history. Session 1. Shakespeare in the Tradition of the Performing Arts Session 2. Shakespeare and Cultural Continuity Papers for Session 1 should demonstrate evidence in Shakespeare's plays of medieval ideas of theatre and of medieval performance practices and dramaturgical conventions. Papers for Session 2 should focus on the representation in Shakespeare's plays of late medieval and early modern cultural trends. Papers are invited from scholars in the fields of art history, music, folklore, history, philosophy, theatre history, history of science, as well as literature, both English and continental. Please direct inquiries, abstracts, and papers to Ruth Sternglantz NYU--General Studies Program 326 Shimkin Hall New York, NY 10012 Fax: 212 995-4137 E-mail: sternglz@is2.nyu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 06:22:15 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0853 Re: Sea Travel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0853. Friday, 15 August 1997. [1] From: Sara Hanna Date: Thursday, 14 Aug 1997 06:23:49 -0600 Subj: Sea Travel [2] From: Constance Relihan Date: Thursday, 14 Aug 1997 12:03:15 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0847 Re: Sea Travel [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sara Hanna Date: Thursday, 14 Aug 1997 06:23:49 -0600 Subject: Sea Travel In TRAVEL IN THE ANCIENT WORLD (1974, Johns Hopkins, 1994) Lionel Casson discusses a voyage of Cicero from Athens to Ephesus in 51 BC, then in the next paragraph speaks of travel between Rome and Alexandria: "What principally determines the speed, and at times even the direction, of travel by water were the summer trade winds of the Mediterranean, the Etesians or 'yearly winds' as the ancients called them. These blow consistently from the northern quadrant. Thus the voyage from Rome to Alexandria was apt to be a traveller's dream: with the prevailing wind on the stern, he could generally count on a quick and easy run of ten days to three weeks" (pp. 151-52). Sara Hanna [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Constance Relihan Date: Thursday, 14 Aug 1997 12:03:15 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0847 Re: Sea Travel L. Swilley's and C Edelman's responses to J. Mills' question about the sailing time from Rome to Alexandria seem unnecessarily dismissive of what is an interesting question. What would Shakespeare's audiences have perceived the appropriate sailing time to be? Does Shakespeare's handling of it serve to enhance a notion of fictionality or would his treatment have seemed realistic? Constance C. Relihan Department of English Auburn University ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 06:35:09 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0854 Re: New Globe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0854. Friday, 15 August 1997. [1] From: Tanya Gough Date: Thursday, 14 Aug 1997 08:34:06 -0400 Subj: Music at the New Globe [2] From: John Cox Date: Thursday, 14 Aug 1997 10:10:37 -0400 Subj: Music at New Globe [3] From: Martin Jukovsky Date: Thursday, 14 Aug 1997 23:47:41 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0837 The Yank Invasion, Via Southwark [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tanya Gough Date: Thursday, 14 Aug 1997 08:34:06 -0400 Subject: Music at the New Globe >I may have missed it but the debates on the new Globe have not-so >far-mentioned anything about music, authentic or otherwise, in any of >the productions. The Phillips label has already begun to issue a CD series of performances by the Musicians of the Globe - the first two titles are out and available from your local music store (contact me off the list if you are having trouble finding them). They are: "Ben Jonson's The Masque of Oberon" and "Shakespeare's Musick: Songs and Dances from Shakespeare's Plays." Future titles for the next few years include: "Purcell: Masque of Cupid and Bacchus," "Nutmeg and Ginger" (spicy ballads from Shakespeare's London), "The Enchanted Island" (music from Restoration revivals of The Tempest), "A Shakespeare Ode" (from the work of Thomas Linley), and "Shakespeare at Covent Garden" (based on 19th century revivals). I still have not been able to get out to see the new Globe myself, but the first two discs are well produced and solidly played. Tanya Gough [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cox Date: Thursday, 14 Aug 1997 10:10:37 -0400 Subject: Music at New Globe Ron Ward's question about music and cannon firing at the New Globe is easily answered. Both H5 and WT used lots of music, all played by a live consort in the raised area behind the stage. H5 began with "music" of another sort: the entire cast beat the stage with staves in rhythm for ten or fifteen minutes while the audience was assembling. The actors were out of sight, so the steady throbbing simply emanated from the back stage area, with no clue as to how it was being produced. I thought it was very effective. They resumed this "music" at the end of the play, briefly, before the curtain call, or perhaps during the curtain call. (I don't remember precisely, having seen the plays in early July.) H5 also used cannon fire twice, though I don't recall just when. The cannon was located at the very top of the theater, where the flag pole is. I could see the cannon mouth from where I was sitting in the center of the middle gallery. They put a firework of some kind in the cannon's mouth. In general, I thought H5 was much the more effective of the two productions in part because of the director's willingness to work with the theater. I don't mean that his production was better because it was more "authentic"; I mean that he used what the theater gave him, while David Freeman (who directed WT) resisted the theater. An example is Freeman's decision about how to produce a storm in WT. Actors came running onto the stage waving bath-towel sized pieces of camouflage cloth while they danced around. Since the theater offers a "heavens," why not produce a "storm" there, rather than resort to a distracting gimmick? Richard Olivier (who directed H5) was willing to give the cannon a try, and it was effective, especially in a play about war. No doubt directors and actors will learn by experiment in the Globe, as they do in any theater, and the result will depend in part on how they respond to the challenge of this particular acting space. John Cox Hope College [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Jukovsky Date: Thursday, 14 Aug 1997 23:47:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0837 The Yank Invasion, Via Southwark Andrew Walker White wrote: >P.S. -- So far as I know, Marx himself loved Shakespeare. Indeed he did. Eleanor Marx, in an 1895 memoir of her father, wrote that he would read to his children. "As to Shakespeare, he was the Bible of our house...By the time I was six I knew scene upon scene of Shakespeare by heart." Martin Jukovsky Cambridge, Mass. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 06:35:56 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0855 Re: Sea Travel; Barrymore MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0855. Monday, 18 August 1997. [1] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Friday, 15 Aug 1997 14:23:39 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0853 Re: Sea Travel [2] From: John Owen Date: Saturday, 16 Aug 1997 13:03:03 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0851 Re: Barrymore [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Friday, 15 Aug 1997 14:23:39 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0853 Re: Sea Travel > L. Swilley's and C Edelman's responses to J. Mills' question about the > sailing time from Rome to Alexandria seem unnecessarily dismissive of > what is an interesting question. What would Shakespeare's audiences have > perceived the appropriate sailing time to be? Does Shakespeare's > handling of it serve to enhance a notion of fictionality or would his > treatment have seemed realistic? > > Constance C. Relihan Relihan's remonstrance of my and C. Edelman's "unnecessarily dismissive" responses to J. Mill's question about the sailing time from Rome to Alexandria might have been in order had the text of Antony & Cleopatra specified a number of days or weeks for a crossing, but, as it appears, it doesn't. In III,vii, Antony observes, "Is it not strange, Canidius,/ That from Tarentum and Brundusium/ He could so quickly cut the Ionian Sea,/ And take in Toryne?" Later in the same scene, Canidius says, "This speed of Caesar's/ Carries beyond belief." Moreover, there is no reference anywhere else in the play to the number of months, weeks, days, etc. required to accomplish anything. I believe Shakespeare frequently foreshortens time to make his points; see, for example, Richard II, II,i, ll. 224ff, where we have news of Bolingbroke expected momentarily to "touch our northern shores," although Richard has not yet left for Ireland. It may be generally interesting to know how long it took the ancients to cross Mare Nostrum, and it may have great interest for the precise historian, but it has nothing to tell the student of the play, Antony & Cleopatra. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen Date: Saturday, 16 Aug 1997 13:03:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0851 Re: Barrymore >Booth too, by the way. And Gillette, Benson, Irving, Gielgud, Maurice Evans, Forbes-Robertson, early Ashcroft. The point is not their *conversational* believability.< No, but they must be recognizable human figures, to the point where the audience can connect in some way with their performances. Unfortunately, it seems that Barrymore was either unwilling or unable in his later career to tone down his mannerisms for a radio audience. Thus, in the famous Shakespearean battle of the airwaves, it is actually Burgess Meredith who wins the points for his Hamlet. Though all the vocal acrobatics are employed, unlike Barrymore Meredith actually seems to be putting some effort into the interpretation. (In all fairness to JB, his 1928 recording of "O what a rogue and peasant slave..." is quite electrifying. Nine years of alcoholism and disillusionment seem to have really taken their toll.) I think I understand Mr. Hill's point, but I am unwilling to give up completely the idea of an eternal battle between realism and recitation. I think of Hamlet's periwig-pated fellow, or poor Mr. Partridge in Tom Jones, so disappointed in Garrick who acted just as anyone would who had seen a ghost. And even Booth, in that one, priceless recording of "Most potent, grave and reverend signiors....", though he is clearly "performing", nevertheless shows a surprising simplicity and lack of affectation. While early Ashrcroft-well, can I help thinking of the crofter's wife in 39 Steps, a gentle, unaffected performance? Perhaps what I am getting at is that we expect the performer to try to communicate, to possess an awareness of the medium in use and the composition of the audience and be willing to adapt to these changing circumstances-not merely memorize some strange, symbolic language of recitation and bark it out on cue. John Owen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 06:40:05 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0856 Re: New Globe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0856. Monday, 18 August 1997. [1] From: Juul Muller-van Santen Date: Saturday, 16 Aug 1997 19:45:04 Subj: Re: Music at the Globe [2] From: Martin Jukovsky Date: Sunday, 17 Aug 1997 12:11:52 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0854 Re: New Globe (Marx on WS) [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juul Muller-van Santen Date: Saturday, 16 Aug 1997 19:45:04 Subject: Re: Music at the Globe May I add particulars to "The Musicians of the Globe"? This Early Music group was formed specifically for the new Globe and is directed by the superb Philip Pickett. The two cds already mentioned, "Shakespeare's Music" and "Ben Jonson's Masque of Oberon" will be followed by five more, all on a Philips. The only way I benefit from the cds is by listening! Cheers, Julia Muller Amsterdam [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Jukovsky Date: Sunday, 17 Aug 1997 12:11:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0854 Re: New Globe (Marx on WS) >Andrew Walker White wrote: > >>P.S. -- So far as I know, Marx himself loved Shakespeare. > >Indeed he did. Eleanor Marx, in an 1895 memoir of her father, wrote >that he would read to his children. "As to Shakespeare, he was the >Bible of our house...By the time I was six I knew scene upon scene of >Shakespeare by heart." Just to extend this mini-thread a little further, if I may-In his ECONOMIC AND PHILOSOPHIC MANUSCRIPTS OF 1884, Marx quotes two long passages from TIMON OF ATHENS, Act 4, Scene 3, and says, "Shakespeare excellently depicts the real nature of _money_." Martin Jukovsky Cambridge, Mass. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 06:47:31 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0857 Qs: Jazz MND; King John MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0857. Monday, 18 August 1997. [1] From: Merri Neidorff Date: Saturday, 16 Aug 1997 12:21:53 -0400 Subj: Jazz MND [2] From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Sunday, 17 Aug 1997 17:36:51 -0400 (EDT) Subj: King John [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Merri Neidorff Date: Saturday, 16 Aug 1997 12:21:53 -0400 Subject: Jazz MND A friend called to my attention the recent obituary in the NYT of Franklin Heller, director of the old TV "What's My Line", who is also credited with being the stage manager for a jazz version of MND featuring Louis Armstrong, Benny Goodman and Maxine Sullivan. My friend, who was an avid theatre-goer until the 60's, and remains a jazz enthusiast, has no recollection of this production and is curious if anyone on this list knows anything about it. Private replies welcome (neidorff@cybernex.net). Thanks. Merri Neidorff [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Sunday, 17 Aug 1997 17:36:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: King John Is anyone aware of who the" Richard "is that is referred to twice in this play...(not the Lionhearted.. I am aware of those) but it seems as if the characters are saying "go tell Richard" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 06:59:27 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0858 Re: Jazz MND MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0858. Tuesday, 19 August 1997. [1] From: Amy Green Date: Monday, 18 Aug 97 09:13:25 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0857 Q: Jazz MND [2] From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Monday, 18 Aug 97 09:04:00 PDT Subj: Jazz MND [3] From: Billy Houck Date: Monday, 18 Aug 1997 12:32:51 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0857 Q: Jazz MND [4] From: Louis Scheeder Date: Monday, 18 Aug 1997 20:01:47 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0857 Qs: Jazz MND [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amy Green Date: Monday, 18 Aug 97 09:13:25 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0857 Q: Jazz MND The Jazz MND would be the 1933 SWINGIN' THE DREAM, set in New Orleans in the 1890s, with Louis Armstrong as Bottom the Fireman. Also featured in this Broadway musical were Benny Goodman, Moms Mabley, and Butterfly McQueen. I'd love to hear the score if anyone knows where/if it's available. --Amy Green [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Monday, 18 Aug 97 09:04:00 PDT Subject: Jazz MND In reply to Merri Neidorff: in 1939, following the success of the WPA "Vodoo" Macbeth, Louis Armstrong and Benny Goodman designed a version of A Midsummer Night's Dream entitled "Swingin the Dream." Likewise, a one-act verson of the play entitled "Pyramus and Thisbe" was given by the Harlem Community Theater and the New Lafayette Players. Material on these productions may be found at the Schomburg Center and Lincoln Center libraries. Georgianna Ziegler Folger Library [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Monday, 18 Aug 1997 12:32:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0857 Q: Jazz MND I was called "Swingin' the Dream," as I recall. Billy Houck [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Scheeder Date: Monday, 18 Aug 1997 20:01:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0857 Qs: Jazz MND; You may be referring to "Swingin' the Dream" which was performed at Radio City Music Hall in 1939 and featured Louis Armstrong in the role of Bottom. According to reviews which I have read, the piece pleased neither the literati nor the jazz cognescenti. The performative genealogy of this piece might be of interest to some on the list. It was directed by Eric Charell (Erich Karl Loewenberg) , one of the leading exponents of the large, flashy revues produced in Berlin during the mid and late 20's. These revues featured troupes of young women known as "Tiller Girls," noted for their precision dancing. In NYC, they would be know as the Rockettes. Charell directed the international musical hit, *Der Kongress tanzt* (Congress Dances), a fairy tale about the Czar and a Viennese glove salesgirl set amidst the machinations of the Congress of Vienna. Charell was brought to Hollywood on the strength of that film and subsequently filmed a large musical revue, *Caravan* which was not a success. He spent the late 30's mounting such stage spectaculars as *White Horse Inn* at the Music Hall in New York and the Coliseum in London. Charell had worked under Reinhardt in the early 20's and may have been trying to replicate one of Reinhardt's great successes. He died on Long Island in 1973. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 07:07:19 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0859 Re: Richard in King John MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0859. Tuesday, 19 August 1997. [1] From: James P. Saeger Date: Monday, 18 Aug 1997 10:47:36 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0857 Q: King John [2] From: Paul Silverman Date: Monday, 18 Aug 1997 09:00:03 -0700 Subj: Re: King John [3] From: Jan Powell Date: Monday, 18 Aug 1997 23:36:46 -0700 Subj: Re: Richard in King John [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: James P. Saeger Date: Monday, 18 Aug 1997 10:47:36 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0857 Q: King John >Is anyone aware of who the" Richard "is that is referred to twice in >this play...(not the Lionhearted.. I am aware of those) but it seems as >if the characters are saying "go tell Richard" Philip Faulconbridge is knighted Richard Plantagenet at 1.1.162 and is occasionally called Richard elsewhere in the play-perhaps the references you mention are to him. Hope this helps. James Saeger [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Silverman Date: Monday, 18 Aug 1997 09:00:03 -0700 Subject: Re: King John >Is anyone aware of who the" Richard "is that is referred to twice in >this play...(not the Lionhearted.. I am aware of those) but it seems as >if the characters are saying "go tell Richard" Without the actual lines it's tough to tell, but the other "Richard" probably refers to Philip the Bastard, who, when recognized as Richard Coeur-de-Lion's son, is renamed "Richard." I, i 169... KING JOHN: From henceforth bear his name whose form thou bearest: Kneel thou down Philip, but rise more great, Arise Sir Richard and Plantagenet. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jan Powell Date: Monday, 18 Aug 1997 23:36:46 -0700 Subject: Re: Richard in King John Virginia M. Byrne asks: "Is anyone aware of who the 'Richard' is that is referred to twice in this play...(not the Lionhearted.. I am aware of those) but it seems as if the characters are saying 'go tell Richard'" Philip the Bastard is occasionally called "Richard" in reference to his father, Richard the Lionhearted. Since Philip has been officially accepted as the King's illegitimate son, calling him by his father's name honors his royal descent, as well as providing a wistful echo of the charismatic leadership now absent from the court. But for the unfortunate circumstances of his birth, Philip would be a brilliant leader, certainly far superior to John. The use of Richard's name for his son who cannot rule intensifies the sense of yearning and disappointment in the atmosphere of the play. This surely rang true for the Elizabethan audience, living in a rare time of relative peace and prosperity, but without an heir apparent to the throne. Jan Powell Artistic Director Tygres Heart Shakespeare Company ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 07:12:05 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0860 Re: Barrymore MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0860. Tuesday, 19 August 1997. [1] From: Mike Jensen Date: Monday, 18 Aug 1997 17:52:16 +0100 Subj: SHK 8.0855 Re: Barrymore [2] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Monday, 18 Aug 1997 20:10:20 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Tremolo and Vibrato [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Jensen Date: Monday, 18 Aug 1997 17:52:16 +0100 Subject: SHK 8.0855 Re: Barrymore I am entirely sympathetic to (what is becoming) the two sides of the vintage audio performance debate. Without really meaning to be overly Hegelian, both have a point. Performance style changes. Each generation of actors believes it is holding the mirror up to nature. Subsequent generations, looking back, usually find vintage performances hammy. John Owen's most recent comments show a lot of sensitivity, cutting through current expectations to find what worked in performances by both Meredith and Booth. I am quite sympathetic to those who want to view Barrymore's performances in context and give him all the breaks. I find his filmed scene from Henry VI, 3 hammy, but nonetheless stunning. The set is amazing. His Hamlet screen tests are another matter. One speech works, kind of, and his is completely lost in the other. By this year in his life, he was wrong for Hamlet, on film at any rate. He was too old, too boozy, and lacked that unjaded quality. Imagine him objecting to Claudius' drinking? It should have brought gales of laughter. After a certain point in his career, Barrymore was so full of alcohol and self loathing that he seldom gave a decent performance, coasting on his reputation. Eventually even that didn't help. It is sad. To my ear, his LPs sound like Barrymore being a self-consciously great ACT-TOR. I don't hear Shakespeare, I hear Barrymore leaving the speeches in tatters. Yes, one should be fair to older styles of acting, but if John Barrymore gives a performance that is self-absorbed, hammy, and slurred because he was under the influence, it is fair to call him on it. If that same performance works for you, I won't understand it, but I would never argue that it doesn't. You are in the best position to know what works for you, just as I am in the best position to know what doesn't work for me. Mike Jensen [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Monday, 18 Aug 1997 20:10:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Tremolo and Vibrato With regard to Booth, there is an old cylinder recording of him as Othello which indicates that he didn't use vibrato and tremolo, it's my understanding that his was a more natural, self-effacing delivery in some of the more heroic roles, to the degree that some couldn't hear him well. This is based on what I could gather from the "Great Shakespearians" recording which is now available, featuring many of those named by Harry Hill. Andy White ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 07:21:54 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0861 Re: New Globe; Performance; Shrew MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0861. Tuesday, 19 August 1997. [1] From: Richard A Burt Date: Monday, 18 Aug 1997 08:27:17 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0856 Re: New Globe [2] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Monday, 18 Aug 1997 20:39:59 -0400 (EDT) Subj: The Yank Invasion; Andy Replies [3] From: Tim Richards Date: Tuesday, 19 Aug 1997 09:54:19 +0800 Subj: SHK 8.0855 Re: Performance [4] From: Helen Robinson Date: Tuesday, 19 Aug 1997 13:47:39 +1000 (EST) Subj: SLY Scenes [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A Burt Date: Monday, 18 Aug 1997 08:27:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0856 Re: New Globe In a recent issue of Shakespeare Survey , R. S. White has a useful essay detailing Marx's use of Shakespeare. Richard Burt [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Monday, 18 Aug 1997 20:39:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The Yank Invasion; Andy Replies My apologies, first of all; the server has been down for the better part of a week, and I've had a couple drafts of my responses blown into the ether before I could post them. My thanks, first, to those of you who wrote me off-line. Your replies were quite welcome. Mr. Egan: You will be pleased to know that my reference to hooligans was not a figment of my imagination. The stoning of Wannamaker's house in Southwark (funny, elitists usually don't live in run-down neighborhoods, they stick to the swanky suburbs) is featured prominently in an interview with Sam's daughter, which was published around the time of the official opening. I can try to find a citation, if you wish. She recalls being horrified by the incident (a young person tends to take attacks like this to heart) but her father took it in stride... Mr. Drakakis: I haven't been able to locate the book you cite; perhaps you or others could post me a summary of what you found-off-list or on, whichever you think is most appropriate. I would especially be interested to learn if by 'the wishes of the local populace', you mean the wishes of certain self-appointed leaders. Elitists come in more than one stripe, and living near Washington, D.C. I have seen more than one instance of a so-called leader claiming to stand up for the downtrodden, without knowing or even caring what they actually wanted. In addition, it would be interesting to know what alternatives the Southwark authorities had, in terms of creating jobs and revitalizing a neighborhood which had seen better days. As for being "wholly dedicated to consumption", guilty as charged. As are the rest of us on this list, who certainly haven't shyed away from purchasing computers with modems in order to be better consumers ... and need I add that the gentleman whose works we discuss here worked as a shareholder in a commercial entertainment concern? Mr. Hawkes: By all means, let's be sure to explore the context of Shakespeare's and Wannamaker's actions. But let's also understand at the outset that we will continue to disagree as to motivations of these persons. Structuralism, etc., is fine by me, and I for one think that it's high time we stopped putting these works on a pedestal, and analyze them as the contemporary entertainment which they were designed to be. Perhaps that will be the best way to deflate the pretensions of those who push these plays as 'superior' in any way. They are great plays, not because theyare superior, but because they simply work. They have great drive and intensity, and by reintroducing the context of an open-air, broad-daylight playhouse, the full impact of these works can now finally be explored. This project is worthwhile precisely because even after the scholars are done fussing over the thatching and such, it's the performers who will either make it work or who will make this thing into a lime-and-plaster white elephant. As a performer, that's the aspect of it which thrills me. Andy White Finally back On-line [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Richards Date: Tuesday, 19 Aug 1997 09:54:19 +0800 Subject: SHK 8.0855 Re: Performance John Owen wrote: >Perhaps >what I am getting at is that we expect the performer to try to >communicate, to possess an awareness of the medium in use and the >composition of the audience and be willing to adapt to these changing >circumstances-not merely memorize some strange, symbolic language of >recitation and bark it out on cue. This is why I enjoy the BBC/Time-Life video recordings so little, and Kenneth Branagh's films so much. The BBC versions seem riddled with what someone on the Shakespeare newsgroup called "terminal ingrown reverence", leading to a lifeless, formalised performance with very little passion. Branagh's films, on the other hand, are full of passion. I don't always agree with his interpretations, but I think it's clear that he loves the material and, in his own performances, has a good grasp of its meaning and how to convey that to an audience. He certainly is aware of his medium and how to use it to best advantage to reach the viewers. Tim Richards. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Robinson Date: Tuesday, 19 Aug 1997 13:47:39 +1000 (EST) Subject: SLY Scenes I have only just caught up with my mail as I have been directing The Taming of the Shrew at the Genesian Theatre in Kent Street Sydney. I was particularly interested in Stephen Miller's "Query about A SHREW" dated Wednesday 6th August. I have included the Sly scenes at the beginning of the play and borrowed the epilogue from "A Shrew" which I modified slightly. The main play is staged as part of Sly's dream rather than a play within a play. Many people have commented that this framework has enabled them to make more sense of Kate's final speech. The production runs 'till Saturday 4th October and performances are on Friday and Saturday starting at 8 pm and on Sunday at 4.30. The play is set in the 1920s. Regards, Helen Robinson ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 06:28:44 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0862 A Software Query MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0862. Wednesday, 20 August 1997. From: Barrett Fisher Date: Tuesday, 19 Aug 1997 08:52:17 -0500 (CDT) Subject: A Software Query Several years ago, back when Hypercard stacks were the "cutting edge" (and before people began "pushing the envelope"), I purchased a site license for software called "The Theater Game," developed by Larry Friedlander at Stanford University. It presents the user with several options for creating different stages with a variety of props and several characters, some of whom can adopt different positions (kneeling, lying, standing, etc.). The user can then design a scene, record it, and play it back. While the technology is rather crude and has some severe limitations (e.g., characters cannot exit offstage, a problem which some of my students solved by having them fly to the ceiling!), I did encourage students to use it for a number of years. I have never received notice of a revision of this program (it was published in 1990). Have any other SHAKSPERERANS used "The Theater Game"? Has it been upgraded? I might consider using it again if new technologies (e.g., CD-ROM graphics capabilities) have been taken advantage of. If this is not of general interest, please reply to me off list: fisbar@bethel.edu Barrett Fisher Bethel College (MN) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 06:31:32 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0863 Re: Barrymore etc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0863. Wednesday, 20 August 1997. From: Harry Hill Date: Tuesday, 19 Aug 1997 07:47:42 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Barrymore etc. > Mike Jensen wrote: > Performance style changes. Each generation of actors believes it is > holding the mirror up to nature> Andy White wrote: > This is based on what I could gather from the "Great Shakespearians" > recording which is now available, featuring many of those named by Harry > Hill. Oh yes. In *The Companion to the Playhouse* (London: T. Becket & P.A. Dehondt, 1764), the entry for Garrick makes clear that he was at once the most naturalistic and technically superior actor that ever was. I prize my copy of this two-volume theatrical dictionary for its announced purpose of "For the more readily turning to any particular AUTHOR, or PERFORMANCE". Of the Gielgud-heavy offerings on the *Great Shakespeareans* compact disc, I favour Arthur Bouchier's `Is this a dagger that I see before me' for similar reasons: it *is* stagey, huge and full of `points' and `effects', at the same time capturing so many essences of haunting ambition and visceral/intellectual response to uncontrollable personal and political impulses and imaginings that I can see only the most literal of cinematic mirror-naturalists remaining unmoved. Harry Hill ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 06:35:22 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0864 Re: Performance MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0864. Wednesday, 20 August 1997. From: Ed Peschko Date: Tuesday, 19 Aug 1997 13:50:42 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0861 Re: Performance > John Owen wrote: > > >Perhaps > >what I am getting at is that we expect the performer to try to > >communicate, to possess an awareness of the medium in use and the > >composition of the audience and be willing to adapt to these changing > >circumstances-not merely memorize some strange, symbolic language of > >recitation and bark it out on cue. > > This is why I enjoy the BBC/Time-Life video recordings so little, and > Kenneth Branagh's films so much. The BBC versions seem riddled with > what someone on the Shakespeare newsgroup called "terminal ingrown > reverence", leading to a lifeless, formalised performance with very > little passion. Branagh's films, on the other hand, are full of > passion. I don't always agree with his interpretations, but I think > it's clear that he loves the material and, in his own performances, has > a good grasp of its meaning and how to convey that to an audience. He > certainly is aware of his medium and how to use it to best advantage to > reach the viewers. > > Tim Richards. Mmm... I disagree. Well, somewhat. The quality of the plays in the BBC's version are uneven. Some, like Two Gentleman of Verona, are pretty bad, but I think that has more to do with the quality of the *play itself* rather than the BBC's handling of it. Others, like Twelfth Night, Hamlet, and Othello (Bob Hoskins as Iago... wow...) are pretty damn good. They do keep fairly strictly to accent and period, but that is part of what is so fascinating to me - that you can keep to a formal system and still be expressive in the process. I like Kenneth Branagh's films, too.. but when he plays fast and free with the suntan oil (Much Ado) or brings in the audio mixing machine (Hamlet) I just kind of roll my eyes and bear it. Ed (PS: where else are you going to find Cymbeline, or The Winter's Tale, or Titus Andronicus performed? I really wish they would come out with a NTSC version of the series, or better yet, put it on videodisc. I'd buy it in a second.) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 07:18:00 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0865 Re: Performance; Thanks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0865. Thursday, 21 August 1997. [1] From: Bill Gelber Date: Wednesday, 20 Aug 1997 08:57:51 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0864 Re: Performance [2] From: Tim Richards Date: Thursday, 21 Aug 1997 10:15:41 +0800 Subj: SHK 8.0864 Re: Performance [3] From: Merri Neidorff Date: Wednesday, 20 Aug 1997 17:58:55 -0400 Subj: Thank you [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Gelber Date: Wednesday, 20 Aug 1997 08:57:51 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0864 Re: Performance It is too easy to dismiss a play (your comment on Two Gents) as "pretty bad" and the performances as good, when too often the opposite is the case: if a play seems "bad" in performance it may be that the performers, and, by inference, the director, have not realized it well. This was certainly the case, I thought, at the RSC in 1991 when I heard several audience members denigrate Troilus and Cressida while admiring the director's work on this "inferior" play. Sincerely, Bill Gelber [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Richards Date: Thursday, 21 Aug 1997 10:15:41 +0800 Subject: SHK 8.0864 Re: Performance Ed Peschko wrote: >Some, like Two Gentleman of Verona, are pretty bad, >but I think that has more to do with the quality of the *play itself* >rather than the BBC's handling of it. I watched the BBC version of Macbeth while rehearsing a part in the play myself, and was amazed at how dull it was. Reducing such a fast-paced, exciting play to such a plodder was quite an impressive feat. >PS: where else are you going to find Cymbeline, or The Winter's Tale, >or Titus Andronicus performed? This is a good point; I recently watched the BBC Pericles after a reading of the play, and I doubt I'd be able to find it on video anywhere else. There was a movie version of The Winter's Tale out in cinemas early this year, though, but I didn't get to see it (though I have seen it onstage). I wonder if it's about time for someone to recreate the BBC's project and refilm all the plays in a new series... or is this an impractical dream? Tim Richards. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Merri Neidorff Date: Wednesday, 20 Aug 1997 17:58:55 -0400 Subject: Thank you Many thanks for the answers, on and off-list, to my recent inquiry about the jazz MND with Louis Armstrong. Merri Neidorff ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 07:22:01 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0866 The Globe Theater Medallions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0866. Thursday, 21 August 1997. From: Ken Adelman Date: Wednesday, 20 Aug 97 16:24:51 UT Subject: RE: The Globe Theater Medallions I would appreciate information about medallions of each of the 36 plays which apparently are displayed in the door of the new Globe Theater. I have been told that the medallions are nicely done. If true, I'd like to receive the molds-or at least fine photos of them-so that we can use those images in new benches designed for the glorious Utah Shakespearean Festival in Cedar City. There, the site of our annual family pilgrimage for their first-rate productions and unbeatable seminars under the cedar trees, we plan to install a number of wooden benches with elaborate iron (or whatever) moldings on the backs, each bench having three or four ovals featuring Shakespeare characters. For those ovals we thought that the 36 medallions from the Globe would not only be beautiful but would also tie the Utah theaters to the Globe in an artistic, and transcendent, way. Information on the medallions should be sent directly to me at adelmank@aol.com. Many thanks for guidance anyone can offer. Best, Ken Adelman Arlington, VA ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 07:26:50 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0867 ANNOUNCEMENT: A Virtual Reality Theatre Project MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0867. Thursday, 21 August 1997. From: Stephen N. Matsuba Date: Wednesday, 20 Aug 1997 17:30:33 +0000 Subject: ANNOUNCEMENT: A Virtual Reality Theatre Project ANNOUNCEMENT OF A NEW VRML 2.0 THEATRE PROJECT: VRML DREAM Stephen N. Matsuba and Bernie Roehl would like to announce the start of VRML Dream: a VRML-based theatre production of Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream. The goal of this project is to broadcast a "live" production of the play over the Internet. The play's characters, sets and props will be constructed using VRML 2.0. VRML is the Virtual Reality Modeling Language: an international standard for creating 3-D environments and objects on the Internet. You can view VRML worlds using a VRML 2.0 browser. There are free browsers for WIndows 95 and NT, Macintosh PowerPCs, and Unix. You can get more information at either vrml.sgi.com or www.intervista.com The characters' avatars for VRML Dream will be controlled by "puppeteers" working on a variety of workstations with actors providing the voices. Because we are interested in the "broadcast" element of this medium, the audience will be able to watch the play from a variety of viewpoints, including a "director's" viewpoint that changes position in much the same way that a movie or television production controls the camera angle. Bernie and I have developed a working script for the production and plan to broadcast VRML Dream live over the Internet to coincide with the VRML 98 symposium in February 1998. We are looking for people who are interested in collaborating on this project. Bernie has set up a mailing list for this project. It is intended mainly as a technical forum, but we are interested in hearing from actors, theatre people, and Shakespeare scholars who are interested in contributing their expertise as well. To join, contract Bernie at broehl@ece.uwaterloo.ca If you would like more information about the project, you can contact either myself at matsuba@shoc.com or Bernie at broehl@ece.uwaterloo.ca. We have also set up a website about the project at http://www.shoc.com/vrmldream The website contains a copy of the working script for the production, and will also maintain an archive of the discussion. We look forward to hearing from you. Regards, Stephen========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 20:04:15 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0868 Job Opening: Asst Prof (Renaissance) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0868. Friday, 22 August 1997. From: Robert A. White Date: Thursday, 21 Aug 1997 07:53:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Job Opening: Asst Prof (Renaissance) The Department of English at The Citadel invites applications for the tenure-track position of Assistant Professor, beginning Fall 1998. We seek a Ph.D. in English Renaissance literature. Secondary interest in either law and literature or medieval literature is desirable. Candidates should be committed to teaching composition and literature surveys; teaching opportunities are also available within our M.A. program. The Citadel, a state-supported, co-educational college within a military setting, is located in historic Charleston, South Carolina. To learn more about our programs and this position, go to www.Citadel.edu on the Web and follow the link under Academics to our department home page. Then look under News from the Department. Women and minorities are especially encouraged to apply. Interviews will be held at SAMLA and MLA. Send a letter of application and c.v. with names of references no later than December 1, 1997, to Prof. Robert A. White, Head, Department of English, The Citadel, 171 Moultrie Street, Charleston, South Carolina 29409. The Citadel is an Equal Opportunity Employer. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 20:07:22 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0869 Live Nude Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0869. Friday, 22 August 1997. From: Richard A Burt Date: Thursday, 21 Aug 1997 09:56:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Live Nude Shakespeare Independent Edge is about to release a video called Live Nude Shakespeare for 32.00 in 4-6 weeks. Independent Edge is kind of like Troma Entertainment-lots of grade B videos with "babes" headlining. I've written on recent Shakespeare porn (two Hamlets, three Romeo and Juliets, one Midsummer Night's Dream) if anyone's interested. Best, Richard ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 20:11:11 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0870 Popular Culture MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0870. Friday, 22 August 1997. From: David Hale Date: Thursday, 21 Aug 97 11:25:08 EDT Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: A Virtual Reality Theatre Project SHAKSPEReans with an interest in popular culture may appreciate the playing with Sonnet 18 in "Hagar" for August 14th: Hagar: Shall I compare thee to the summer sun? Thou art more lovely and more fun! Helga: (holding pie, thinking) Hagar's the only poet I know who gets his inspiration from pies! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 20:15:44 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0871 Festival in Michigan MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0871. Friday, 22 August 1997. From: Ron Dwelle Date: Thursday, 21 Aug 1997 13:16:38 -0400 Subject: Festival in Michigan The 1997 Shakespeare Festival at Grand Valley State University (Grand Rapids, Michign) will run September 25 through October 5. Featured play will be As You Like It (Performances 9/26,27,&28 and Oct 1-5). Lots of movies, musical events. Guest speakers include John Russell Brown and Josef Sommer. You're all welcome. E-mail me if you want more information. Ron Dwelle ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 20:27:01 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0873 Re: Richard in King John; New Globe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0873. Friday, 22 August 1997. [1] From: Virginia Byrne Date: Thursday, 21 Aug 1997 14:09:05 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0859 Re: Richard in King John [2] From: Ron Ward Date: Friday, 22 Aug 1997 11:39:47 +1200 (NZST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0856 Re: New Globe [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia Byrne Date: Thursday, 21 Aug 1997 14:09:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0859 Re: Richard in King John Thank you all so very much...It was driving me crazy [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Ward Date: Friday, 22 Aug 1997 11:39:47 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0856 Re: New Globe Juul Muller-van Santen says >May I add particulars to "The Musicians of the Globe"? This Early Music >group was formed specifically for the new Globe and is directed by the >superb Philip Pickett. Thanks to the several responses I have got to my query, the picture of the Globe music is beginning to emerge. So far no one has mentioned instruments. I assume from the above that these were played in historically informed ways, even if Purcell (much too late) appears to have been used, probably because he wrote such beautiful arrangements for S's plays. S, as far as I know only mentions two contemporary composers. Dowland was one of these, "Who ravishes so the human sense." Can't recall the other (possibly Morley). My interest is in the audibility e.g. of the soft voiced lute (definitely used in H8) in such a venue. Does it carry through all the noise in the yard? I hope they don't amplify anything, so far no one has mentioned that. S also of course mentions Recorders, still popular at that time and up to the Commonwealth period, returning again in a considerably altered form in Purcell's day when the French influence destroyed much of the local musical styles. Thanks to all who provided notes on the recordings. I think they will get to New Zealand eventually. Regards Ron Ward ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 08:37:01 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0874 Re: Job Opening; Nude Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0874. Monday, 25 August 1997. [1] From: Jack Hettinger Date: Saturday, 23 Aug 97 07:09:11 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0868 Job Opening: Asst Prof (Renaissance) [2] From: Jarrett Walker Date: Saturday, 23 Aug 1997 23:08:19 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Nude Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack Hettinger Date: Saturday, 23 Aug 97 07:09:11 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0868 Job Opening: Asst Prof (Renaissance) .. for the times they are a-changin' ... [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jarrett Walker Date: Saturday, 23 Aug 1997 23:08:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Nude Shakespeare Well, having written on instrumental and orificial interest in Shakespearean tragedy, and the erotic phenomenology of performance generally, your flaring tidbit was hard to pass up ... Nude Shakespeare? The first question that comes to mind is: where did they find porn stars who could handle the language? Or are these real actors who don't mind having this on their resumes? A curious breakthrough ... please keep me on the mailing list. Yours, Jarrett Walker ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 08:39:01 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0875 Re: Performance (WT Film?) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0875. Monday, 25 August 1997. From: Valerie Wayne Date: Saturday, 23 Aug 1997 11:11:28 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0865 Re: Performance Tim Richards wrote: "There was a movie version of The Winter's Tale out in cinemas early this year, though, but I didn't get to see it." Can anyone provide information about this recent film production of WT? Valerie Wayne ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 13:48:03 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0876 Re: Performance (WT Film?) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0876. Tuesday, 26 August 1997. [1] From: Tom Simone Date: Monday, 25 Aug 1997 09:03:25 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0875 Re: Performance (WT Film?) [2] From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Monday, 25 Aug 1997 11:16:38 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0875 Re: Performance (WT Film?) [3] From: Michael Friedman Date: Monday, 25 Aug 1997 15:51:59 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0875 Re: Performance (WT Film?) [4] From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett Date: Monday, 25 Aug 1997 18:31:40 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0875 Re: Performance (WT Film?) [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Simone Date: Monday, 25 Aug 1997 09:03:25 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0875 Re: Performance (WT Film?) I think that the reference to a film of WINTER'S TALE is a mistake for the scantily distributed but quite good Trevor Nunn TWELFTH NIGHT released in late 1996. I have heard a rumor about a possible WT film, but no specifics. The Internet Movie Data Base, which is pretty good, does not list such a production. I would think WT could be a fine film, but it is one of the less popularly known of the major plays. Best, Tom Simone [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Monday, 25 Aug 1997 11:16:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0875 Re: Performance (WT Film?) Was he thinking perhaps of Twelfth Night? I don't recall a WT. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Monday, 25 Aug 1997 15:51:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0875 Re: Performance (WT Film?) Is it possible that Tim Richards is thinking of Kenneth Branagh's film, "A Midwinter's Tale," which is actually about *Hamlet*? Michael Friedman University of Scranton [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett Date: Monday, 25 Aug 1997 18:31:40 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0875 Re: Performance (WT Film?) Quoth Valerie Wayne: > Tim Richards wrote: > "There was a movie version of The Winter's Tale out in cinemas early > this year, though, but I didn't get to see it." > > Can anyone provide information about this recent film production of WT? I suspect this is a misremembrance of Kenneth Branagh's recent A MIDWINTER'S TALE (British title IN THE BLEAK MIDWINTER, since we Amurrican audiences can't be expected to know what "bleak" means, sigh....). Said film had nothing to do with THE WINTER'S TALE, instead being a bittersweet comedy about a troupe of down-on-their-luck actors trying to put on a benefit performance of HAMLET in a near-abandoned small-town church. Branagh directed, but did not appear in the cast (though Joan Collins shows up in a role!). I recommend it. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 13:51:32 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0877 Theatre Management MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0877. Tuesday, 26 August 1997. From: Billy Houck Date: Tuesday, 26 Aug 1997 00:34:12 -0400 (EDT)> Subject: Theatre Management I've been shopping for colleges with my son. He's interested in an undergrad program in theatre management...not stage managing, a blend of theatre and business. Does anybody know of schools that have such a degree? and We've been looking at the University of Evansville in Indiana. Does anyone know anything about them? Thanks, Billy Houck (respond off-list if you wish.) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 13:55:45 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0878 Re: Music at the New Globe; Nude Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0878. Tuesday, 26 August 1997. [1] From: Chantal Schutz Date: Monday, 25 Aug 1997 15:07:12 -0400 Subj: Music at the New Globe [2] From: Harry Keyishian Date: Monday, 25 Aug 1997 12:56:47 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0869 Live Nude Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chantal Schutz Date: Monday, 25 Aug 1997 15:07:12 -0400 Subject: Music at the New Globe I feel it is time I contributed to the debate on the New Globe. I am one of two Research Fellows at Reading University who have been commissioned to carry out a research project on the use of this new/old space by actors, directors and musicians. We have attended most rehearsals and seen each production many times. Pauline Kiernan, my colleague, watched workshops, rehearsals and performances in 1995 and 1996 too, and her reports on those two seasons (the "workshop" season and the "prologue" season) are published in my web-page on the New Globe (http://www.rdg.ac.uk/globe) . But the subject I want to address today is music, because I feel the general debate on the Globe replica would require more than a few lines on my part.. This year, music has not only been present in the plays: there have also been 3 concerts to date , plus one due on Sunday 31 August, all by Philip Pickett and his Musicians of the Globe. Each production has adopted a different attitude to music: Henry V, the "authentic" production, uses period instruments, played mostly from the musicians' room on the balcony. Occasionally, flourishes are played on stage or backstage, and drums are frequently on stage. The music was reconstituted by Philip Pickett, based on manuscripts in England and Europe, keyboard and other pieces that integrate "battle" music etc. Because this is a martial play, there are no soft instruments in the consort, ie no lute or viols... Softer instruments were used extensively in the concerts, including virginals, recorders, voices (countertenor and soprano). Musicians sat on stage for the concerts, so the acoustic conditions are different. I tried out all the different seating possibilities, and they were all excellent, even for solo lute and pianissimo voice. For the Winter's Tale, Claire Van Kampen wrote some new music. Her experience with The Two Gentlemen of Verona last year had taught her that playing from the balcony can be tricky, so she chose instruments that would carry, including percussion and trombone, but also some very soft ones like psalteries, used for the "awakening" of Hermione, or a tenor singing backstage, which were dramatically very effective. For The Maid's Tragedy, a brass band was used, with new music. For A chaste Maid in Cheapside, Claire Van Kampen mostly adapted period music and wrote some new tunes for period instruments, including Lute/cittern/guitar and recorder. Musicians alternate between the balcony and stage as action requires it (the prologue is entirely played on stage and the musicians are part of the story). The play ends with a jig. I will publish a more comprehensive report on music at the Globe at the end of the season in the Web-page, with interviews of musicians and composers, and maybe some sound or video clips. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Keyishian Date: Monday, 25 Aug 1997 12:56:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0869 Live Nude Shakespeare Regarding Nude Shakespeare, some possibilities come to mind: As You Like It in the Nude Twelfth Night in the Nude Love's Labor's Lost in the Nude A Comedy of Errors in the Nude Much Ado About Nothing in the Nude Two Gentlemen of Verona in the Nude (for gay audiences) Two Noble Kinsmen in the Nude (for kinky gay audiences) All's Well That Ends Well in the Nude (for audiences that like happy endings) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 14:00:40 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0879 The Arden Shakespeare's New Website MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0879. Tuesday, 26 August 1997. From: Nick Kind Date: Tuesday, 26 Aug 1997 10:05:22 +0100 Subject: The Arden Shakespeare's New Website The Arden Shakespeare now has its new website up and running at: . Currently this resource contains marketing and historical information about the Arden imprint, but all comments and suggestions for its development are welcomed! Nicholas Kind Electronic Development Editor The Arden Shakespeare nick.kind@nelson.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:08:50 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0880 Re: Performance (WT Film?) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0880. Wednesday, 27 August 1997. [1] From: Tom Simone Date: Tuesday, 26 Aug 1997 14:09:13 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0876 Re: Performance (WT Film?) [2] From: Harry Hill Date: Tuesday, 26 Aug 1997 17:10:24 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0876 Re: Performance (WT Film?) [3] From: Stephen Orgel Date: Tuesday, 26 Aug 1997 12:42:44 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0876 Re: Performance (WT Film?) [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Simone Date: Tuesday, 26 Aug 1997 14:09:13 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0876 Re: Performance (WT Film?) All the other respondents seem correct in identifying Branagh's A MIDWINTER'S TALE [English title from a famous carol, IN THE BLEAK MIDWINTER]. For those interested, the film is available on video. I have an excellent copy on laserdisc, and it should be on tape also. Tom Simone [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Tuesday, 26 Aug 1997 17:10:24 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0876 Re: Performance (WT Film?) Joseph Lockett imagines a slight against Americans in the change of title from IN THE BLEAK MIDWINTER to MIDWINTER'S TALE. All I see as a Scottish Canadian is that the original UK title makes a reference to an extremely popular Christmas Carol set to lovely music by Holst. Harry Hill [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Orgel Date: Tuesday, 26 Aug 1997 12:42:44 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0876 Re: Performance (WT Film?) I have a tape of a Japanese production of WT made about 15 years ago. The director is (I think!) named Koichi Kimura; the name meant nothing to my Japanese theater-buff friends. It's put out by a company named Spiral. It's a very energetic, quite straightforward production, full of attractive young actors-it has sort of the feel of a Young Vic production. Unlike the Ninagawa Hamlet and Suzuki Macbeth and Tokyo Globe Lear, there's nothing especially Japanese about it. It's the only WT I know other than the BBC/Time-Life video. Stephen Orgel ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:12:27 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0881 Education Officer at New Globe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0881. Wednesday, 27 August 1997. From: Scott Crozier Date: Wednesday, 27 Aug 1997 11:33:10 +1100 Subject: Education Officer at New Globe Would anybody on the list be able to supply me with the e-mail address or the official web site of the New Globe. I would also like to contact the education officer, or whatever that person may be called, if one exits. Regards, Scott Crozier ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:15:34 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0882 Updated Shakespeare Globe USA Website MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0882. Wednesday, 27 August 1997. From: Michael Mullin Date: Wednesday, 27 Aug 1997 18:10:52 +1000 Subject: Updated Shakespeare Globe USA Website The International Shakespeare Globe Centre (USA) is pleased to announce the opening of the updated Shakespeare Globe USA website: www.shakespeare.uiuc.edu Now open are the Classroom (please let us know if you wish your courses to be linked), the Viewing Room, the Teachers' Room (for secondary school teachers, the Library; (of links, by category), the Players' Room, the Design Studio, Worlds Elsewhere, and the Playgoers' Rooms. "Club Globe" for donors is still under construction. In the Viewing Room you can view an excerpt from a Brazilian Romeo and Juliet, the beginning of an archive of Shakespearean performance. Other excerpts are currently restricted to University of Illinois affiliates. To view a sample excerpt, you will need to download Vosaic, the streawming video application (plug-in) developed by the University of Illinois. Just follow the simple directions. To see where the hits are coming from, click on the counter on the start page. For users with 14.4k or slower modems, the website opens with a low-graphics version. Click on high bandwidth if you have a faster connection. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Please send them to the webmaster via the website. And please remember to visit our sister Globe sites at Reading and the University of Georgia. Links are on the start page. Michael Mullin, Founder and Director Shakespearwe Globe USA Website ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 07:18:08 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0883 Re: New Globe Website and Globe Education MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0883. Thursday, 28 August 1997. [1] From: Mark Lawhorn Date: Wednesday, 27 Aug 1997 06:47:04 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0881 Education Officer at New Globe [2] From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 27 Aug 1997 11:45:25 CST6CDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0881 Education Officer at New Globe [3] From: Chantal Schutz Date: Thursday, 28 Aug 1997 00:10:04 -0400 Subj: New Globe Website and Globe Education [4] From: Michael Mullin Date: Thursday, 28 Aug 1997 20:51:11 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0881 Education Officer at New Globe [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Lawhorn Date: Wednesday, 27 Aug 1997 06:47:04 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0881 Education Officer at New Globe Scott, I can't help with the Web Site, but I can give you the phone number of Globe Education. Try calling: 0171 620 0202. If you're dialing from the U.S., dial 011 44 first. Mark H. Lawhorn lawhorn@hawaii.edu lawhorn@lava.net [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Wednesday, 27 Aug 1997 11:45:25 CST6CDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0881 Education Officer at New Globe The on-line site for the New Globe is: http://www.reading.ac.uk/globe/ [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chantal Schutz Date: Thursday, 28 Aug 1997 00:10:04 -0400 Subject: New Globe Website and Globe Education In answer to Scott Crozier's email > Would anybody on the list be able to supply me with the e-mail address > or the official web site of the New Globe. I would also like to contact > the education officer, or whatever that person may be called, if one > exits. I maintain a Globe website at http://www.rdg.ac.uk/globe which is the closest to being an "official" one, although it is on the University of Reading server. There will very soon be a new "official" website specifically for Globe Education. The Director of Education is Patrick Spottiswoode. At present you can get in touch with Globe Ed. via email by writing to Fiona Banks (fiona-banks@e-link.co.uk) Chantal Miller Schütz Shakespeare's Globe University of Reading Website: http://www.rdg.ac.uk/globe [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Mullin Date: Thursday, 28 Aug 1997 20:51:11 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0881 Education Officer at New Globe Hi, Scott and anyone else who's interested in Globe Education activities- As noted in a recent post, there are three main Globe websites, the comprehensive "meta-site" Shakespeare Globe USA (wwww.shakespeare.uiuc.edu) and the site focusing on architecture and southeastern Globe Shakespeare activities at the University of Georgia. At Reading University in England is another, concentrating on Renaissance Shakespeare and on the activities on the London Globe theatre, including educational activities. The London on-site education director if Patrick Spottiswood. For educational activities in the USA,. contact Hugh Richmond, UC Berkely, who is director for the USA, or, in Australia, Diana Denley at Sydney Uni (or me, since I'm here on sabbatical). Hope this helps. Michael Mullin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 07:22:15 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0884 Re: WT Film?; Theatre Management MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0884. Thursday, 28 August 1997. [1] From: Tim Richards Date: Wednesday, 27 Aug 1997 23:09:32 +0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0876 Re: Performance (WT Film?) [2] From: Jodi Clark 303971 Date: Wednesday, 27 Aug 1997 11:02:29 +0200 (IST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0877 Theatre Management [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Richards Date: Wednesday, 27 Aug 1997 23:09:32 +0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0876 Re: Performance (WT Film?) Tom Simone wrote: >I think that the reference to a film of WINTER'S TALE is a mistake for >the scantily distributed but quite good Trevor Nunn TWELFTH NIGHT >released in late 1996. Damn damn damn, he's right of course! Don't know how I made that mistake. Ah well, who do we talk to about getting a film made of 'The Winter's Tale'? Tim Richards. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jodi Clark 303971 Date: Wednesday, 27 Aug 1997 11:02:29 +0200 (IST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0877 Theatre Management There are two schools I can think of off the top of my head that have Theatre Management as a major. One of those schools would be Emerson College in Boston, the other would be Carnegie Mellon. I don't know what Carnegie has for undergrad, but I know they have a pretty intense graduate program for theatre management, so I would imagine they would have some sort of undergrad program as well. As for Emerson, I am currently a graduate student there in Theatre Education, but my assistantship is with the Marketing Director of Emerson Stage. She teaches a class every year of theatre management with the director of the Performing Arts division. Right now she is advising two students for their projects in theatre management as a major. If you'd like to talk with her or simply contact Emerson for more information, let me know. Good luck! Sincerely, Jodi Clark Emerson College========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 08:40:12 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0885 Re: The Globe Theater Medallions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0885. Tuesday, 2 Septmeber 1997. From: Andrew J. Gurr Date: Thursday, 28 Aug 1997 13:58:18 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0866 The Globe Theater Medallions I'm not sure that I'm the best informed to answer your question about the new Globe's medallions, but I suspect that word of mouth may have generated a few distortions in the information, so thought I'd try to help in my own way. I know nothing of any medallions on the Globe's doors. What we do have is 134 iron-worked models of creatures named in the plays. They are fixed on the riverside gates, and do look very handsome. They comprise different figures, from mermaids to snails, and a few of the named plants. They were done by blacksmith craftsmen from over forty countries, who had a forge-in there in April to fix them on. A number of them can be obtained as photos on postcards sold at the Globe shop (see the mail order section on Reading U's Globe web page-www.reading.ac.uk/globe). If I see any medallions about the plays around the Globe, I'll alter my thoughts and let you know. Best wishes for your project. Andy Gurr. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 08:52:05 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0886 Re: WT Film MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0886. Tuesday, 2 Septmeber 1997. [1] From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Thursday, 28 Aug 1997 09:27:54 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0876 Re: Performance (WT Film?) [2] From: Jarrett Walker Date: Thursday, 28 Aug 1997 11:51:21 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: WT Film? Please, no! [3] From: Peter D. Holland Date: Friday, 29 Aug 1997 11:01:27 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0880 Re: Performance (WT Film?) [4] From: Bill Gelber Date: Sunday, 31 Aug 1997 00:24:58 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0880 Re: Performance (WT Film?) [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Thursday, 28 Aug 1997 09:27:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0876 Re: Performance (WT Film?) I had forgotten about MIDWINTER's TALE.I thought it was a production probably the result of too many beers at the local pub one night...thought it was poorly filmed and written though I had truly looked forward to seeing it I was very disappointed. Twelfth Night is now available at Blockbusters by the way [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jarrett Walker Date: Thursday, 28 Aug 1997 11:51:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: WT Film? Please, no! Tim Richards writes: who do we talk to about getting a film made of 'The Winter's Tale'? I understand the desire for films to reach wider audiences, but really, could there be a more thoroughly unfilmable play than WT? Even on stage, it's failure-rate is probably among the highest of any in the canon. Any reasonably competent production of WT may satisfy us Professional Suspenders of Disbelief, but pay attention to the teenagers in the next seat for a moment. We are trained to read for the plot, cause that's where the ACTION is. Any production WT has to charm its way in the face of that bias, because as soon as you look at the plot (the Man Behind the Curtain as it were) you've lost them. As a sentimentalist might put it, this play is a tightrope of spell-casting; if you miss one spell, the whole thing becomes a long and painful joke. (This is probably a modern problem; standards of plot-absurdity, and its effects, were clearly different for Jacobeans, but I will leave that question to the historicists.) Film, I think, makes this problem worse, at least in any conventional use of the medium. The few truly great productions of WT I've seen (and for that matter of other tightrope plays like MUCH ADO) have been about the presence of the body in space. As I think back to formative theatregoing experiences like the 1982 RSC WT with Patrick Stewart, I remember the sheer hugeness and fullness of the stage's emptiness, and in a great production, this effect goes to our condition as vulnerable bodies on a level that is probably mammalian, if not even more primitive. This effect, after all, is the very winterness of the play. Most of the scenes take place in palpable cold, where people are at once reaching out for control over space while desperately covering their vulnerable skins. At its core, I think this spell-casting works because the vulnerability of the character resonates with that of the actor which in turn resonates with that of the audience. How do you do that on film? Peter Greenaway's rococo horrors have certainly gained a following, and I suspect that the horror genre brings as close to the shared-vulnerability sensation as film can do. [I certainly respected the first 15 minutes of Prospero's Books as a complete and valid rendition of THE TEMPEST (though I wish the film had ended there)]. But even with all the naked extras in the world, film can't get at the phenomenal feeling of being a body in space, and without that, WT is thin gruel indeed. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter D. Holland Date: Friday, 29 Aug 1997 11:01:27 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0880 Re: Performance (WT Film?) There was another film version of *A Winter's Tale* apart from the BBC version and the Japanese one that Stephen Orgel mentioned: in 1967 a version staged by Frank Dunlop was filmed and given limited theatre release in England with Laurence Harvey as Leontes and (unless my memory is playing interesting tricks) Jane Asher as Perdita. The best thing about it was a brilliant Autolycus from Jim Dale. I have no idea where a copy could be found. Peter Holland [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Gelber Date: Sunday, 31 Aug 1997 00:24:58 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0880 Re: Performance (WT Film?) It seems as if there was a "Winter's Tale" filmed some years ago starring Laurence Harvey. I can't remember the year. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 08:56:38 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0887 Re: Theatre Management MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0887. Tuesday, 2 Septmeber 1997. [1] From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Thursday, 28 Aug 1997 09:31:21 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0884 Re: Theatre Management [2] From: Abigail Quart Date: Thursday, 28 Aug 1997 10:06:38 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0877 Theatre Management [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Thursday, 28 Aug 1997 09:31:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0884 Re: Theatre Management How about Hofstra...I've had students go from there into Theater management...I know they have a reputable theater major [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Abigail Quart Date: Thursday, 28 Aug 1997 10:06:38 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0877 Theatre Management Columbia University School of the Arts trains theater managers in its graduate program. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 09:00:26 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0888 Renaissance Literature Course -- Help Request MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0888. Tuesday, 2 Septmeber 1997. From: William Dynes Date: Thursday, 28 Aug 1997 16:06:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Renaissance Literature Course -- Help Request I have been asked to prepare a course on English Renaissance literature exclusive of Shakespeare, but I turn to SHAKSPEReans for assistance. I would appreciate any advice about appropriate anthologies for such a course, to be offered to a combined undergraduate / graduate audience. Please contact me directly at Dynes@Gandlf.Uindy.Edu. I appreciate any suggestions that you might have. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 09:03:39 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0889 Romanoff and Juliet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0889. Tuesday, 2 Septmeber 1997. From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Monday, 01 Sep 1997 10:57:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Romanoff and Juliet For those interested in Shakespeare spinoffs: the film ROMANOFF AND JULIET (1961, from the 1956 play by Peter Ustinov) will be shown twice this month on American Movie Classics on cable TV: 9/5 7:15-9 AM 9/14 2:15-4 PM It is a marvelous relic of cold-war politics and has some lovely moments (mostly from Ustinov himself, who also directs). This movie is not available on video (as far as I know), so crank up those VCRs. I am not affiliated with AMC, etc., etc. Cheers, Douglas Lanier DML3@christa.unh.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:13:50 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0890 ACTER in Fall 1997 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0890. Wednesday, 4 September 1997. From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Tuesday, 2 Sep 1997 08:58:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ACTER in Fall 1997 ACTER will begin the Fall 1997 tour of Actors from the London Stage in *Measure for Measure* with a performance Friday, September 19th at 7:30 p.m. in Chapel Hill High School (call ACTER or check website at address below for more details, cast pictures, resumes, etc.). Thereafter the troupe will be at Lafayette College, Easton, PA Sept. 22-28; Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, Sept. 29-October 5; Clark State Community College, Springfield, OH, Oct 6-12; Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, Oct. 13-19; University of Texas San Antonio, Oct. 22-26; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA Oct. 27-Nov. 2; Lawrence University, Appleton, WI, Nov. 3-9 and UNC-Chapel Hill, Nov. 10-16. Spring 1998 will see a tour of *A Midsummer Night's Dream*. Booking is now open for Fall 1998 (Tempest) and Spring 1999 (Merchant of Venice). Cynthia Dessen, General Manager, ACTER csdessen@email.unc.edu 919-967-4265 (phone/fax) ACTER website: http://www.unc.edu/depts/acter/ Mail to: 1100 Willow Drive, Chapel Hill NC 27514 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:16:32 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0891 Re: Renaissance Literature Course MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0891. Wednesday, 4 September 1997. From: Frances Helpinstine Date: Tuesday, 2 Sep 1997 10:26:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0888 Renaissance Literature Course -- Help Request Please add my name to the list for replies to the query about Renaissance literature texts, selections, syllabi, etc. I, too, have learned that I will have such a course for spring l998 and must soon submit book orders. Thanks, Fran Helphinstine ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:24:14 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0892 Re: WT Film MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0892. Wednesday, 4 September 1997. [1] From: Tanya Gough Date: Tuesday, 2 Sep 1997 09:47:31 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0886 Re: WT Film [2] From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 2 Sep 1997 15:27:39 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0886 Re: WT Film [3] From: Karen Krebser Date: Tuesday, 02 Sep 1997 10:02:50 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0886 _A Midwinter's Tale_ (was: Re: WT Film) [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tanya Gough Date: Tuesday, 2 Sep 1997 09:47:31 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0886 Re: WT Film Peter Holland (and Bill Gelber) write: > There was another film version of *A Winter's Tale* apart from the BBC > version and the Japanese one that Stephen Orgel mentioned: in 1967 a > version staged by Frank Dunlop was filmed and given limited theatre > release in England with Laurence Harvey as Leontes and (unless my >memory is playing interesting tricks) Jane Asher as Perdita. The best thing > about it was a brilliant Autolycus from Jim Dale. I have no idea where a > copy could be found. It doesn't look like the '68 Winter's Tale is still in print, but I've been making inquiries. You are right that Jane Asher played Perdita, with Diana Churchill (Paulina) and Alan Foss rounding out the cast. If anyone knows where a copy can be acquired (new or used), please contact me off list. Tanya Gough Poor Yorick CD & Video Emporium [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Tuesday, 2 Sep 1997 15:27:39 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0886 Re: WT Film This talk of WT films has reminded me that somewhere in the dark backward and abysm of time as a young teenager I saw a production of this play on British TV (i.e. in the very late fifties, very early sixties). Or am I imagining things? David Lindley University of Leeds [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Krebser Date: Tuesday, 02 Sep 1997 10:02:50 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0886 _A Midwinter's Tale_ (was: Re: WT Film) > I had forgotten about MIDWINTER's TALE.I thought it was a production > probably the result of too many beers at the local pub one > night...thought it was poorly filmed and written though I had truly > looked forward to seeing it I was very disappointed. Oh, dear! I thought it was wonderful, hilarious (Ophelia's pratfall down a set of marble steps!), well-written, and well-thought-out. But of course tastes differ. One thing a person might try: rent both Branagh's _A Midwinter's Tale_ and _Hamlet_ at the same time, and then watch them both back to back, _Midwinter_ first. It's as if Branagh is giving his audience a view into what it's like to be writing, directing, producing, and starring in a production of _Hamlet_, from a "backstage" perspective; and *then* seeing a full-blown, glorious production from the perspective of a "regular" audience, only perhaps with some knowledge or understanding of what effort went into the production, and what may have gone on behind the scenes that we the audience never get to see. Quite cool. And it was delightful to see Michael Maloney ("Laertes" and "the Dauphin" in Branagh's _Hamlet_ and _Henry V_, respectively) do so well in a comic/romantic lead role. I hadn't ever seen him smile before, and he makes a great "good guy." Karen Krebser ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:27:08 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0893 BBC Distribution MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0893. Wednesday, 4 September 1997. From: Tanya Gough Date: Wednesday, 3 Sep 1997 11:05:16 -0400 Subject: BBC Distribution I've just talked to BBC headquarters in New York, and they say that at the moment *none* of their titles are licensed for home video distribution. They are, however, slowly negotiating for some titles to be released next year, but the outcome appears to be tenuous. I am planning to send them a list of requested titles in a few weeks. You can help by e-mailing me OFF-LIST (please!) at yorick@cyg.net . Send me lists of any BBC titles you would like to purchase or have available. The more people respond, the more weight the list will have, and the more likely it will be that we can convince the powers-that-be that Shakespeare multimedia is a viable and active market. Please indicate if I can include your name on the list or not. Feel free to distribute this request to your colleagues. Thanks for your help! Tanya Gough ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 09:23:23 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0894 Re: WT Film MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0894. Friday, 5 September 1997. [1] From: Mike Jensen Date: Thursday, 04 Sep 1997 17:32:24 +0100 Subj: SHK 8.0892 Re: WT Film -Reply [2] From: Valerie Wayne Date: Thursday, 04 Sep 1997 11:08:29 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0892 Re: WT Film [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Jensen Date: Thursday, 04 Sep 1997 17:32:24 +0100 Subject: SHK 8.0892 Re: WT Film -Reply Could David Lindley be thinking of The Winter's Tale on BBC in 1962? It is the only late 50s/early 60s production I have been able to track down, and appears to be the first TV production of that play in an English speaking nation. (The film with Lawrence Harvey was 1968. At least one source says it was originally made for TV, though filmed during a performance at The Edinburgh Festival. EVERYONE wonders why they bothered.) The BBC was a fairly posh production, with three days studio recording time, generous back then. It had a good cast with Robert Shaw as Leontes and Sarah Badel as Perdita. Also in the cast was Rosalie Crutchley, who some will remember from Garden on the Sea (1955), By the Sword Divided (80s), and The Testament of John (1984). It was directed by Don Taylor, a name that shows up a lot in televised Shakespeare, sometimes as a designer, sometimes as a producer. Can anyone tell me if there are two Don Taylors? I have been trying to research this production. I have Ken Rothwell's wonderful book. Can anyone point me to other sources? Does anyone have any memories or knowledge they can share? I'd be grateful. Best, Mike Jensen [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Valerie Wayne Date: Thursday, 04 Sep 1997 11:08:29 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0892 Re: WT Film The Selective Filmography in _Shakespeare and the Moving Image_, ed. Anthony Davies and Stanley Wells (Cambridge UP, 1994), lists six films of WT. I'll describe them briefly. A little more information, primarily on other actors in these productions, appears on p. 49. 1. 1910 directed by Barry O'Neill (USA) 2. 1914 Tragedia alla Corte di Sicilia, directed by Baldessare Negroni (Italy) 3. 1914 Das Wintermarchen (Germany) 4. 1962 BBC production for TV (black & white) directed by Don Taylor and starring Robert Shaw as Leontes and Rosalie Crutchley as Hermione. This 16mm film is available from the BBC archives. (UK) 5. 1966 production in color mentioned by Peter Holland, directed by Frank Dunlop and starring Laurence Harvey and Moira Redmond. No distributor is listed in the filmography. 6. 1980 BBC production directed by Jane Howell and produced by Jonathan Miller, distributed by the BBC. Valerie Wayne ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 09:38:04 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0895 Qs: Beatles Video; Fritz Leiber MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0895. Friday, 5 September 1997. [1] From: Sean Kevin Lawrence Date: Thursday, 4 Sep 1997 14:17:33 -0700 Subj: Looking for MND / Beatles Video [2] From: Alan Young Date: Friday, 5 Sep 1997 08:51:58 +0000 Subj: Query re. Fritz Leiber [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Kevin Lawrence Date: Thursday, 4 Sep 1997 14:17:33 -0700 Subject: Looking for MND / Beatles Video. Hi, folks. I'm sure that someone can help me out here. I remember, vaguely, someone on the list mentioning a video in which the Beetles acted the Pyramus and Thisbe play from _Midsummer Night's Dream_, with John Lennon as Thisbe, in drag. A friend once mentioned that the title was 'Fun with the Fab Four', but she could have been wrong, and my memory might have failed me. In any case, the local artsy video place doesn't have a copy. Does anyone know what the video is really called? And if anyone distributes it? It strikes me as a powerful teaching resource, since it has a metadramatic import that's hard to convey without an example. Cheers, Sean. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Young Date: Friday, 5 Sep 1997 08:51:58 +0000 Subject: Query re. Fritz Leiber Can anyone help with information about the actor Fritz Leiber? I believe he was an American and well-known for his Shakespearean roles early this century. I have a photograph of him as Hamlet which I am trying to date. I need a few biographical details, but most of all I need to know when and where he played Hamlet. There is an account of his performance in this role in 1919 but I'm hoping for something earlier. Any help would be much appreciated. Alan R. Young e-mail: alan.young@acadiau.ca ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 09:49:44 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0896 Re: BBC Distribution; Renaissance Literature Course MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0896. Friday, 5 September 1997. [1] From: Jason Rosenbaum Date: Thursday, 4 Sep 1997 12:00:11 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0893 BBC Distribution [2] From: Pat Dolan Date: Thursday, 4 Sep 1997 09:50:51 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0891 Re: Renaissance Literature Course [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jason Rosenbaum Date: Thursday, 4 Sep 1997 12:00:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0893 BBC Distribution Many of the BBC produced Shakespeare programs are available on video from the shop at the International Shakespeare Globe Centre. You have the PAL/NTSC conversion problem, but anyone with a multi-system machine would be fine. For more info, call the ISGC exhibition office at 011-44-171-902-1500. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pat Dolan Date: Thursday, 4 Sep 1997 09:50:51 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0891 Re: Renaissance Literature Course I too would like to see the what people do with the Renaissance course, either the European Renaissance course or English. Since this is a Shakespeare list, let me pose a problem. Many of my Renaissance students will take the Shakespeare course as well, so I'm reluctant to spend many weeks on Shakespeare when so many other writers get neglected. I figure they'll get the canonical figure elsewhere. On the other hand, the course concerns the Renaissance, so it strikes me as false to ignore/slight him, especially if I want the class to talk about how the Renaissance/early modern period has been constructed by later writers. I'm wondering how you think about this and what you do. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 09:52:49 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0897 Qs: Ophelia and Claudius MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0897. Friday, 5 September 1997. From: Louis C Swilley Date: Thursday, 4 Sep 1997 12:26:16 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Ophelia and Claudius 1) Where and when has the dutiful Ophelia had the opportunity - and inclination - to learn the bawdy songs she sings in her madness? In his *Wilhelm Meister*, Goethe has his hero account for the inclination, but not for the opportunity. Anyone...? 2) Has anyone seen a production of Hamlet in which Claudius hesitates before asking Hamlet to remain at court rather than return to Wittenberg? I suppose that, swung into without pause, Claudius' gesture here is a bit of swaggering, misplaced self-confidence in his new authority? L. Swilley, Houston ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 09:56:11 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0898 Mr. William Shakespeare has moved MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0898. Friday, 5 September 1997. From: Terry Gray Date: Thursday, 04 Sep 1997 17:16:41 -0700 Subject: Mr. William Shakespeare has moved I am pleased to announce a new edition of the Internet site "Mr. William Shakespeare and the Internet" and, more importantly, announce that it has moved to a new web address at: http://daphne.palomar.edu/shakespeare/ I would appreciate getting comments-off-list-on the performance of the new server. Those of you who also use the site "How To Search The Web" may note that it has also moved to: http://daphne.palomar.edu/tgsearch/ Please update your links and bookmarks. Terry Gray - Palomar College Library tgray@palomar.edu http://daphne.palomar.edu/shakespeare/========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 08:46:19 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0899 Call for Papers: ISSEI MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0899. Monday, 8 September 1997. From: Daniel Meyer-Dinkgrafe Date: Friday, 05 Sep 1997 13:24:33 +0100 Subject: Call for Papers: ISSEI At the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of European Ideas (ISSEI), to be held at Haifa University, Israel, 16 - 21 August 1998, I will be offering two workshops. Colleagues wishing to present a paper in one (or both) of them should send a one-page abstract to me by January 1, 1998 WORKSHOP 1 Theatre and Consciousness: The Psychology of Performance. Despite current emphasis on the importance of the body for theatre performance, consciousness, although more elusive and intangible, is at least as important for any performance to take place and be successful. The actor's presence is at the centre of Eugenio Barba's theatre anthropology, referring to the third organ of the body of the theatre as "the irrational and secret temperature which renders our actions incandescent". It is "our personal destiny. If we don't have it, no one can teach it to us". Barba's description suggests an altered, non-ordinary state of consciousness, which is an appropriate concept to describe Grotowski's concept of translumination, in which the mind-body split is overcome. On more traditional levels of understanding is the issue of the actor's emotional involvement with the feelings the character is supposed to be experiencing. Diderot suggested that the actor should maintain a distance from those emotions, should not get involved, should keenly observe behaviour and reproduce its outward manifestations on stage during performance. Stanislavsky, on the other hand, clearly advocates the actor's emotional involvement, but requires the actor to simultaneously watch over those emotions. A kind of dual consciousness is thus at the centre of Stanislavsky's ideas. The ancient Indian treatise on drama and theatre, the Natyashastra appears to be contradictory on the issue of the actor's emotional involvement: in one passage it first states that the actor needs full concentration, suggesting involvement, and a few lines later advises that the actor playing an angry character should not be angry him/herself, or that an actor playing a character who has to weep should not feel sad him/herself. The way we understand consciousness as such will be essential to the understanding of the relationship between theatre and consciousness. These are only a few issues the workshop could raise. Topics are not limited to traditional theatre: contributions from music, dance and performance art are also strongly invited. WORKSHOP 2 Privileged Moments in European Literature Not limited to drama, but extending to prose fiction and poetry, this workshop focuses on experiences of altered states of consciousness, peak experiences, mystic experiences or privileged moments in European literature. Are they expressions of wishful thinking, are they metaphors for something else,, which we have to discover in the reading process. If they can be argued to have a literal truth-value or near truth-value, as Malekin and Yarrow have recently suggested (Peter Malekin and Ralph Yarrow, *Consciousness, Literature and Theatre. Theory and Beyond*, Basingstoke/New York: MacMillan/St. Martin's Press, 1997), this has important implications for literary criticism! Dr. Daniel Meyer-Dinkgrafe Department of Theatre, Film and Television Studies University of Wales Aberystwyth 1 Laura Place, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 2AU, UK Tel. ++44 1970 622835 Fax ++44 1970 622831 email: dam@aber.ac.uk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 08:51:44 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0900 Re: Fritz Leiber MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0900. Monday, 8 September 1997. [1] From: Fran Teague Date: Friday, 05 Sep 97 09:51:35 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0895 Q: Fritz Leiber [2] From: Martin Jukovsky Date: Saturday, 6 Sep 1997 00:28:54 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Fritz Leiber [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Friday, 05 Sep 97 09:51:35 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0895 Q: Fritz Leiber Re: Alan Young's query about Fritz Lieber's Hamlet: I give an account of the production in my article, "Hamlet in the Thirties," Theatre Survey 26 (1985): 63-79. Hope that helps! Fran T. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Jukovsky Date: Saturday, 6 Sep 1997 00:28:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Fritz Leiber Fritz Leiber's son was Fritz Leiber, Jr., the noted science fiction and fantasy author, who died in 1992. However, the grandson, Justin Leiber, is a science fiction author who is alive and a professor of philosophy at the University of Houston (according to the 1993 edition of THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCE FICTION). He might be able to help you with your query. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 09:00:52 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0901 Re: Ophelia and Claudius MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0901. Monday, 8 September 1997. [1] From: Richard Bovard Date: Friday, 05 Sep 1997 09:08:46 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0897 Qs: Ophelia and Claudius [2] From: Richard Regan Date: Saturday, 6 Sep 1997 00:01:53 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0897 Qs: Ophelia and Claudius [3] From: Cora Lee Wolfe Date: Saturday, 06 Sep 1997 06:45:35 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0897 Qs: Ophelia and Claudius [4] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 6 Sep 1997 12:37:12 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0897 Qs: Ophelia and Claudius [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Bovard Date: Friday, 05 Sep 1997 09:08:46 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0897 Qs: Ophelia and Claudius Perhaps poor Yorick, she knew him well? The clowns and jesters in Shakespeare's works sing many a base tune. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Regan Date: Saturday, 6 Sep 1997 00:01:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0897 Qs: Ophelia and Claudius Perhaps Ophelia heard the bawdy songs from the servants, and so many times that they were in effect rehearsed in her mind. Richard Regan Fairfield University [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cora Lee Wolfe Date: Saturday, 06 Sep 1997 06:45:35 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0897 Qs: Ophelia and Claudius I cared for an Alzheimer's patient who before her infirmity seemed not to understand anything of the vulgar, but who in her dementia could make me believe that in some former life she must have been as absolutely debauched and degraded slut. I have no trouble believing that somewhere in the medulla oblingata are stored songs and images that surface when our super ego is no longer functioning.. Cora Lee Wolfe [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 6 Sep 1997 12:37:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0897 Qs: Ophelia and Claudius With regard to the first question, I can offer two pet theories: one to do with facts of childhood, the other to do with the nature of Ophelia's madness. As children, it is safe to say that we all relish eavesdropping on the conversations and parties of adults. When songs are sung, especially ones of questionable content, we fully enjoy memorizing them, even if we haven't got the faintest notion what they're really about-all we know is that they are scandalous, and hence great fun to sing. For those who prefer Ophelia to remain true to herself, and hence an innocent, this explains how she could have picked up such an obscene lyric. Parties, even before the ascendance of Claudius, would have taken a very raunchy turn, and the Danish royal family was notorious for thoroughly debauched parties long before the arrival of King James and his Danish Queen. Having a child or two within earshot of the festivities more than accounts for Ophelia's knowledge of grown-up songs. As for why she sings it when she does, it seems to me that in her distraction, it is the voice of Claudius, and her association of him with these wild parties where dirty songs are sung with great spirit, that prompts her. Her visual and audio stimuli in these scenes are complex, and the voice of a rowdy could certainly trigger-involuntarily-a song of that nature, which she would certainly _never_ sing in front of an adult if she were in her right mind. "As for your intent on going back to Wittenburg"-one way of handling this, which seems to work on stage, is to treat this as news Claudius has received from Gertrude. It is really Gertrude who wants Hamlet to stay nearby, anxious as she is for his forgiveness for marrying so soon. There's no need for Claudius to hesitate here; he's been told about the back-to-school plan, and for his own selfish reasons will not allow Hamlet to leave the castle. Hamlet, for his own part, can dart a glance of betrayal towards his mother, as if he had intended to leave quietly. His assent, in this instance, can be very sarcastic and bitter, since his mom has accused him of faking sorrow, and has also barred his path back to Wittenburg. Mere possibilities, but an example of how fertile these lines can be. Andy White Arlington, VA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 09:13:26 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0902 Re: Beatles' Video MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0902. Monday, 8 September 1997. [1] From: Billy Houck Date: Friday, 5 Sep 1997 11:53:40 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0895 Q: Beatles Video [2] From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Friday, 5 Sep 1997 14:44:14 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0895 Q: Beatles Video [3] From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Monday, September 8, 1997 Subj: Beatles' Video [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Friday, 5 Sep 1997 11:53:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0895 Q: Beatles Video It was called THE BEATLES LTD. or THE BEATLES, LIMITED. It was very silly with lots of giggling girls, as I recall. -Billy Houck [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Friday, 5 Sep 1997 14:44:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0895 Q: Beatles Video Dear Kevin Lawrence, I screened the Beatles episode from MND at the NFTVA in London last October. The videocassette that I used had eight Shakespeare spoofs spliced in to it, all of them under the rubric of "You've got to give em Shakespeare every time," BBC, 1974, but one was sub-labeled "BBC TV Presents Hancock on Stage," and yet another noted some connection with the Monty Python show that I never got straight. The Beatles' section of 7 minutes duration was the third skit. I think McCartney was Pyramus and Lennon, Thisby but I'm only guessing. They play out the wall routine to the utter delight of the studio audience who are shown in reaction shots. Then Lion appears and says, "If I was really a lion I wouldn't be making all the money I am today, would I?" Wonderful mugging all the way. You can book viewing time at the BFI at the going rate, which is fairly daunting. Speaking of a comment by another colleague about the availability of WT on 16mm at the BBC, unless things have changed drastically in the last few years, I wouldn't hold my breath. The BBC, I was told, exists to transmit not to preserve. Happily into spinoffs, Ken Rothwell [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Monday, September 8, 1997 Subject: Beatles' Video I recall seeing the Beatles' Pyramus and Thisby on US television. The details, alias, I cannot bring to mind, but I do remember the Wall bit was quite funny. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 09:16:30 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0903 Another Report on the Globe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0903. Monday, 8 September 1997. From: Stephen Orgel Date: Friday, 5 Sep 1997 11:11:11 -0700 Subject: Another Report on the Globe I found the Globe a very mixed bag. I hated, and indeed walked out on, The Maid's Tragedy, in which the company seemed to be doing everything it could to defeat the theater, including preposterously covering the back facade, Christo-like, with a black cloth, presumably so it wouldn't be a distraction. Acoustics are a serious problem, especially when they play as they did in The Maid's Tragedy, halfway back, as if it were a proscenium stage. Since our tickets (comps, so maybe I shouldn't be complaining) were on the side, much of the action was also hidden behind the stage pillar-these were not claimed to be obstructed view seats: people shelling out 22 pounds should be warned! The audience, moreover, was impossible, determined to find everything, including Aspasia's tragic speeches, hilarious. I really felt for the actors, who were quite creditable. The next day A Chaste Maid in Cheapside was much better, and I began to see the possibilities of the place: most of the action was played as far forward as possible, all entrances were made along the outer edge of the stage and around the pillars, which were also used as props, and there was lots of climbing up and down and around: it will obviously take a long time for directors to learn how to use the theater. The seating, on narrow backless benches, is terminally uncomfortable, even if you rent a cushion-directors will have to learn very fast why cutting was so essential to the theater of Shakespeare's age. Cheers, Stephen Orgel ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 09:19:06 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0904 Casting Suggestion for Taming of The Shrew MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0904. Monday, 8 September 1997. From: Richard Nathan Date: Saturday, 6 Sep 1997 04:37:35 +0000 Subject: Casting Suggestion for Taming of The Shrew Does anyone know if there have been any recent productions of "TAMING OF THE SHREW" in which Katherine was played by a man in drag? I was wondering if this would work, particularly if the play-within-a-play structure was maintained. I wonder how the show would work if someone who looked like Curly Howard played Katherine, someone who looked like Moe Howard played Petruchio, and someone who looked like Larry Fine played Grumio. If nothing else, having Katherine played by an obvious man in drag would add an interesting layer at the end to "her" speech about being ashamed women are so simple. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 10:26:35 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0905 Re: Mr. William Shakespeare has moved MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0905. Monday, 8 September 1997. [1] From: Richard Nathan Date: Saturday, 6 Sep 1997 04:48:52 +0000 Subj: Parodies of "Hamlet" and "King Lear" [2] From: Steven Marx Date: Sunday, 07 Sep 1997 16:58:27 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0898 Mr. William Shakespeare has moved [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Nathan Date: Saturday, 6 Sep 1997 04:48:52 +0000 Subject: Parodies of "Hamlet" and "King Lear" I would like to publicly thank Terry Gray for putting a link to my "Hamlet" parody ("A NIGHT IN ELSINORE") up on his brilliant editions of "MR. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE AND THE INTERNET" which is now located at: http://daphne.palomar.edu.shakespeare/ My parody is a version of "Hamlet" as it would have been performed by the Marx Brothers, Laurel and Hardy and the Three Stooges. It's published by Drama Exchange on their site, and can be found at: http://www.dramex.org/plays/scripts/elsinore.txt I've just finished the first draft of a sequel of sorts. I've rewritten "KING LEAR" for W.C. Fields. I would like to send it to anyone who would be interested in reading it and giving me his or her honest opinion. If you would like to see it, please send a request to Richard-Nathan@worldnet.att.net I will be happy to send out copies of the Lear parody either via e-mail or through the regular mails. Thank you. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Marx Date: Sunday, 07 Sep 1997 16:58:27 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0898 Mr. William Shakespeare has moved This already useful and reliable site is now more complete and faster. I consult it regularly and recommend it to my students who find it even more helpful than I do. There is now more Shakespeare criticism available on the web than there was a year ago, but the cascade of information I expect still has not taken place. Why shouldn't we SHAKSPERians be able to consult one another's work, both published and unpublished, easily and thoroughly through use of modern technology? Why aren't we making our own work more available to our colleagues? EMLS and Renaissance Forum are fine examples of electronic refereed journals, but they are small and appear infrequently. All it takes is a simple copy and paste operation for all of us to place our own essays and books onto a university or AOL web server and thereby render them accessible through general search engines already in place like Yahoo and Alta Vista and through special interest sites like Terry Gray's or the various Globe sites. [Editor's Note: I second Steven Marx's remarks about Mr. William Shakespeare and the Internet and also endorse his suggestion that we make our work more readily available on the Internet. At present, the SHAKSPER fileserver contains 35 essays, 1 draft book, 2 sets of NEH Workshop Notebooks, reviews, and public domain e-texts and more. At the present, access to this archive is for members only, but at some point these files will be accessible through a SHAKSPER web site. Many are currently available at the EMLS SHAKSPER site. I encourage submissions to the fileserver. To find what is already available send the command - GET SHAKSPER FILES - to listserv@ws.bowiestate.edu. -HMC] ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 10:21:43 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0906 Re: Criticism on the Web MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0906. Tuesday, 9 September 1997. [1] From: Terry Gray Date: Monday, 08 Sep 1997 08:34:27 -0700 Subj: Criticism on the Web [2] From: David Lindley Date: Monday, 8 Sep 1997 16:40:24 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0905 Re: Stuff on the Internet [3] From: Richard A Burt Date: Monday, 08 Sep 1997 16:25:27 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0905 Re: Mr. William Shakespeare has moved [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry Gray Date: Monday, 08 Sep 1997 08:34:27 -0700 Subject: Criticism on the Web Steven Marx has recently made a plea, which I wholeheartedly second, for more criticism to be published on the web. Dr. Marx has led the way with his own freely available scholarship, as have _EMLS_ (containing much of the SHAKSPER listserv archives), _Connotations_, and _Renaissance Forum_ among other publications. As a webliographer, I have attempted to catalog as much criticism as I could find on the web for the use of the Shakespeare community. The paucity of resources, in spite of the excellent resources listed above, is alarming. If you have on-line criticism you have mounted, please inform me and I will index it on the criticism pages of "Mr. William Shakespeare and the Internet," and from there it will be disseminated on other indices. If not, I would encourage all front line scholars to use the web to disseminate their ideas: either through their Departmental web servers, or one of the excellent web publications previously mentioned. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Monday, 8 Sep 1997 16:40:24 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0905 Re: Stuff on the Internet I'm sorry, but the thought of amplifying the volume of material on Shakespeare yet further by having unmoderated, unrefereed essays simply 'available' on the internet fills me with horror. Having spent five years trying desperately to keep up with published material for the annual review in *Shakespeare Survey* I'm only too aware of the fact that even with the barriers to print that exist a good deal that is pretty pointless already troubles the data-bases. Between a list such as this, which valuably allows people to shoot from the hip, and 'publication' which it is expected that any serious scholar should consult there ought, in my view, to be some sort of fire-screen. No doubt this is, Canute-like, to wish the waves away but..... David Lindley University of Leeds [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A Burt Date: Monday, 08 Sep 1997 16:25:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0905 Re: Mr. William Shakespeare has moved > From: Steven Marx > Why shouldn't we SHAKSPERians be able to consult one another's work, > both published and unpublished, easily and thoroughly through use of > modern technology? Why aren't we making our own work more available to > our colleagues? > [Editor's Note: I second Steven Marx's remarks about Mr. William > Shakespeare and the Internet and also endorse his suggestion that we > make our work more readily available on the Internet. Isn't there a problem with copyright here? Can we publish our work on the web and then have it published by a jounral or press? I thought that one precluded the other. Best, Richard ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 10:28:48 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0907 Re: Casting Suggestion for Shrew MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0907. Tuesday, 9 September 1997. [1] From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 8 Sep 1997 11:35:14 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0904 Casting Suggestion for Taming of The Shrew [2] From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Monday, 8 Sep 1997 17:21:20 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0904 Casting Suggestion for Taming of The Shrew [3] From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Monday, 08 Sep 1997 18:03:39 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Reverse-gender TAMING OF THE SHREW [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 8 Sep 1997 11:35:14 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0904 Casting Suggestion for Taming of The Shrew >Does anyone know if there have been any recent productions of "TAMING OF >THE SHREW" in which Katherine was played by a man in drag? I was >wondering if this would work, particularly if the play-within-a-play >structure was maintained. How about Patrick Stewart as Kate, with all of the other characters played by women? [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Monday, 8 Sep 1997 17:21:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0904 Casting Suggestion for Taming of The Shrew I saw a production where the director had Kate come out at end in P's clothes and vice versa and it worked very well..she did P lines and he Kate's. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas M Lanier Date: Monday, 08 Sep 1997 18:03:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Reverse-gender TAMING OF THE SHREW I'm not sure whether it is cross-dressed or not, but the New York Times this weekend listed an off-Broadway SHREW directed by Kenneth Nowell which was billed as a "reverse-gender" production. Has anyone seen this production? Cheers, Douglas Lanier DML3@christa.unh.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 10:34:22 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0908 Re: New Globe; Ophelia MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0908. Tuesday, 9 September 1997. [1] From: Michael Pickering Date: Monday, 8 Sep 1997 20:39:45 +0100 (BST) Subj: A sore bottom at the Globe [2] From: Harvey Roy Greenberg Date: Monday, 8 Sep 1997 18:19:50 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0901 Re: Ophelia and Claudius [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Pickering Date: Monday, 8 Sep 1997 20:39:45 +0100 (BST) Subject: A sore bottom at the Globe Is Stephen Orgel arguing that the fact that he found the benches uncomfortable establishes `why cutting was so essential to the theatre of Shakespeare's age'? I don't think many people have found the benches a problem, and anyway why pay £22 or whatever when you can stand for £5? Standing is far more involving and incidentally solves any acoustic problem (but again I don't think most people have in fact found more than passing problems with the acoustics). Finding the rest of the audience a stupid irritation seems to me a fairly constant feature of theatre-going. Perhaps it was in the galleries in Shakespeare's time too. Perhaps the main lesson of the Globe is why top-price ticket holders were so anxious to have the companies to themselves in the indoor theatres. But the responses of audiences at the Globe vary enormously from one performance to another, even of the same play. I do think there was a particular problem with Aspatia in the Maid's Tragedy - the actress bewailed her fate in a ludicrously whiney voice which the audience at first took to put her in the same comic category as her father and then failed to be persuaded otherwise. But anyway the rest of the audience at the Globe can't be wished away and if one can't tolerate its involvement, for good or ill, there is simply no point seeing productions there. I have seen no comment on the one-off performance last week of As You Like It by the Original Shakespeare Company, which works without a director, the actors learning their own parts and cues only and coming together for rehearsal on the day. It was a tremendous success. The involvement of an on-stage `bookholder' (prompter) was not in the least a distraction (isn't that amazing?). Rosalind's great speeches were heard with tremendous attention. The performance lasted four hours, ending at eleven-thirty pm, with hardly a defector. It seemed a good argument for pursuing the authenticity path in every respect EXCEPT cutting. MICHAEL PICKERING michaelp@dircon.co.uk [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harvey Roy Greenberg Date: Monday, 8 Sep 1997 18:19:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0901 Re: Ophelia and Claudius I have seen a fair number of Ophelia-like metamorphoses vis-a-vis exuberant erotic verbal and behavioral eruptions both in patients with organic brain disease and psychoses. Harvey Roy Greenberg md ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 10:37:46 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0909 The Great Egress Theatre Company's TN MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0909. Tuesday, 9 September 1997. From: Carl Fortunato Date: Mondayy, 08 Sep 97 18:43:00 -0400 Subject: 12th Night The Great Egress Theatre Company, a new theatre company in New York City, announces its debut performance - William Shakespeare's *Twelfth Night.* The play will be performed in two different places: 1) Central Park's Rustic Playground - Enter at 67th St and 5th Avenue; it's immediately on your right. September 13th and 14th at 5:00pm, free of charge. 2) Stand UpStairs - the new theatre above StandUp New York. 78th and Broadway. September 12th, 19th and 21st at 8:00; $10.00 a ticket. The performers are: Ian Eaton - Sir Andrew Aguecheek David Ellner - Sir Toby Belch Shannon Emerick - Viola Carl Fortunato - Feste Francesca Fortunato - Olivia Todd Fredericks - Sebastian Alex Harper - Captain, Officer and Priest Miguel Parga - Orsino Collette Porteous - Maria Santos - Antonio David Skigen - Malvolio Eric Vetter - Fabian Directed by Carl and Francesca Fortunato Phone number - 560-2585. Hope to see you there. - Carl (carl.fortunato@moondog.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 08:27:18 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0910 Re: Criticism on the Web MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0910. Thursday, 11 September 1997. [1] From: Stuart Manger Date: Tuesday, 9 Sep 1997 21:44:55 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0906 Re: Criticism on the Web [2] From: Peter C. Herman" Date: Wednesday, 10 Sep 1997 14:33:25 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0906 Re: Criticism on the Web [3] From: Norm Holland Date: Wednesday, 10 Sep 97 17:47:59 EDT Subj: Article online [4] From: Dale Lyles Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 00:54:51 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0906 Re: Criticism on the Web [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Manger Date: Tuesday, 9 Sep 1997 21:44:55 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0906 Re: Criticism on the Web >I'm sorry, but the thought of amplifying the volume of material on >Shakespeare yet further by having unmoderated, unrefereed essays simply >'available' on the internet fills me with horror. > >Having spent five years trying desperately to keep up with published >material for the annual review in *Shakespeare Survey* I'm only too >aware of the fact that even with the barriers to print that exist a good >deal that is pretty pointless already troubles the data-bases. > >Between a list such as this, which valuably allows people to shoot from >the hip, and 'publication' which it is expected that any serious scholar >should consult there ought, in my view, to be some sort of fire-screen. >No doubt this is, Canute-like, to wish the waves away but..... > >David Lindley >University of Leeds May I fully endorse David Lindley's stand? I teach in a UK boarding school (Sedebrgh School in North of England) with avid, impressionable 16-18 year old Sixth Form students. Generally, they are up for any short cut to completion of assignments. The Internet is NOT, for them, a place of infinite speculation and enquiry, but a resource, a library. They simply have not grasped that what appears here is , as David said, 'un-refereed', and they certainly have no notion of how criticism is policed and validated before it gets into print. The small scale expert publication like Shakespeare Survey', or 'Medium Aevum' etc., etc. would surely die in quick time if the internet became the chosen method of academic argument? These excellent magazines give the opportunity for small scale articles on particular areas to be thoughtfully and thoroughly researched, and provides the young don making his way with an ideal forum for piece by piece thinking that can be tested by considered, rather than MAD style reaction!? reaction. While I realise uncomfortably that along this road lies censorship, I also feel that the academic community has a responsibility to engage the hearts and minds of the younger generation WITH WELL THOUGHT OUT HYPOTHESES. If I was sure that students trapezing the internet were sophisticated enough to realise the temporary nature of what actually happens here, then I would be thrilled to indulge in spleen, bile, wild flights of happenstance and maybe. It is one thing to fly kites in one's own garden, and quite another to do so in a ten acre field and claim expertise and a role in the community at large. Now, if there were a properly refereed, properly registered site into which academics would feed, then OK. But realistically, which academic would do so, when publication is the secret of extension / acquisition of tenure? One of David Lindley's erstwhile colleagues at Leeds - Tom Shippey, whom may the Gods bless for variety - and I had exactly this debate about five years ago before he went off to St. Louis Univ. What I personally truly value here is that academics of serious eminence deploy expertise to educate others, and make cautious, informed, intelligent notions strut and fret their hour upon the stage. Having Messrs. Hawkes, Lindley, Dutton on the internet for me in UK, gives me the chance to consult, listen to snatches of lectures, peep over shoulders at book drafts, and perhaps even make suggestions. The internet is surely a massive Common Room, in which ideas are seriously discussed. If they once become formalised into 'critical verb sap', are we not in grave danger of losing spontaneity, informality, and the fresh whiff of danger and excitement? Fewer would chance their arms with big stuff if they thought that a rival could download and print? You can't copyright the internet? I think there is a major problem here, don't you? That it may one day be solved I do not doubt, but the internet 'law' ebing what it currently is, I feel we need to be just a tad reticent in rushing into cybercrit. Stuart Manger [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter C. Herman" Date: Wednesday, 10 Sep 1997 14:33:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0906 Re: Criticism on the Web Concerning the issue of posting our work on the Web, the New York Times recently had an article on Virginia Tech's mandating that Master and Ph.D theses (mainly in engineering) have to be posted. This new policy created an uproar and had to be amended because, as students at Tech pointed out, once their work gets posted, no journal will touch it. And with no peer-reviewed articles, there are no job offers or grants. The situation for us literary types is, I think, the same, and posting our work without first getting it peer-reviewed might be very well for the well-established members of the profession (i.e. those at the Full Professor rank), but for the rest of us, it portends professional disaster. Peter C. Herman [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Wednesday, 10 Sep 97 17:47:59 EDT Subject: Article online In response to the request for articles online I offer one: "`The Barge She Sat In': Psychoanalysis and Syntactic Choice." It reads WS' changes from North's text for clues to the psychology of the author. The URL is: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/nnh/barge.htm and there is an abstract of the essay at http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/nnh/online.htm Enjoy! --Best, Norm [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 00:54:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0906 Re: Criticism on the Web One of my articles, non-scholarly to be sure, was picked up from the web by a theatre magazine and published (after contacting me, of course.) I was delighted. I'm sure it will depend on the publication as to whether they want such soiled goods as web-published critical works. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 08:30:06 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0911 Ian McKellen *Macbeth* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0911. Thursday, 11 September 1997. From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Tuesday, 9 Sep 1997 15:24:16 -0400 Subject: Ian McKellen *Macbeth* Does anyone know of a distributor of the video of *Macbeth* with Ian McKellen and Judi Dench-and its cost? Thanks very much, Bernice ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 08:32:49 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0912 World Shakespeare Bibliography MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0912. Thursday, 11 September 1997. From: Jim Harner Date: Tuesday, 9 Sep 1997 20:41:03 -0500 (CDT) Subject: World Shakespeare Bibliography Cambridge University Press has just released the World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM 1987-94. The 24,768 entries (along with several thousand additional reviews) cover scholarship and productions in more than 80 languages. Full details are available at the World Shakespeare Bibliography Web-Site: http://www-english.tamu.edu/wsb/ (which includes a list of books and articles that I have not yet been able to track down). At the end of this month, I will close the file on the 1996 print bibliography (in Shakespeare Quarterly). If you have published a book, essay, or review-or directed a production-please send along an offprint or program so that I can be certain to include your work in the 1996 Bibliography (and in the forthcoming World Shakespeare Bibliography on CD-ROM 1983-95). I'll conclude with the usual bibliographer's plea that anyone who publishes on Shakespeare-outside the journals devoted to the Bard-send along a photocopy or offprint as soon as an essay or review appears. Each year, I inadvertently overlook publications that appear in out-of-the-way periodicals, or I must hold over entries because a journal is at the bindery or because an issue was lost in the mail. Cordially--Jim Harner James L. Harner Editor, World Shakespeare Bibliography Department of English Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-4227 409-845-3400 (voice) 409-862-2292 (fax) j-harner@tamu.edu http://www-english.tamu.edu/wsb ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 08:41:03 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0913 Re: New Globe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0913. Thursday, 11 September 1997. [1] From: Stephen Orgel Date: Tuesdayy, 9 Sep 1997 16:14:22 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0908 Re: New Globe [2] From: Norm Holland Date: Wednesday, 10 Sep 97 17:43:24 EDT Subj: Globe again [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Orgel Date: Tuesdayy, 9 Sep 1997 16:14:22 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0908 Re: New Globe; Ophelia Well, I seem to have hit a nerve! If Michael Pickering is really suggesting that people who don't want to stand should forget about the Globe, I will reluctantly agree with him, but he will get no thanks from the proprietors. The theater has more seating than standing room for the same reason the original Globe did, because it was assumed that more people want to sit than stand. On the correctness of this assumption depends the financial solvency of the operation. I also would like to say a word in defense of Aspatia, so ungallantly treated by Pickering: I found her not whiny at all, but-when I could hear her-passionate and articulate. Of course I went to the opening performance. I'm quite prepared to believe that several days of audiences like the one I attended with would have reduced her to whining. As for the 4 hour As You Like It, it must have had long intermissions-or very slow actors. Chacun a son gout. S. Orgel [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Wednesday, 10 Sep 97 17:43:24 EDT Subject: Globe again I assumed that SHAKSPER would have finished up with the new Globe Theatre during my summer travels, but Steve Orgel's post inspires me to put in my oar, similar but different. Nutshell: direction poor, theater great, and the experience something quite different from anything I've experienced in a theater before. (See my last three paragraphs for that. I apologize for the length of this posting, but those who aren't interested in the details should skip to the end.) Our first visit was for H5, very near opening day, unfortunately part of a "Festival of Firsts." A lot of the audience were there in tuxedos, and I got the feeling that if you were important in the media, that's where you were Saturday, June 14th. We were seeing all the cast of Masterpiece Theater in mufti. The theater itself is as exact a reproduction of Globe II as I can remember from my days of studying Elizabethan theatrical practice with Alfred Harbage. It is extremely ornate in the Tudor-Jacobean mode with gilt and color and paintings, mascherons on the back facade, and two faux marble columns. There are paintings of a rather crude kind on the tiring-house facade: St. George slaying a dragon, various other patriotic subjects. The pilasters have classical figures on them. The heavens are well decorated with sun, moon and so on. But that big open playing space is just out there and waiting for someone who knows how to use it. The circular building means that wherever you sit or stand (on the asphalted groundling-space) you are within about 30-40 feet of the players, *if* they are playing to the front of the stage. (A big if, as Steve Orgel points out.) As a result, the theater is both big and surprisingly intimate, as everyone has reported. One feels in close proximity despite the very large crowd; capacity 900 groundlings, they say, total 2000, if I understood correctly. It's as though everybody were in orchestra seats in the tenth row in a proscenium theater. _Pace_ Orgel, I found the cushions sufficient comfort. Yet you are by the same token very much aware of the people around you as an audience. They are not, as in a modern theater, vague shapes in the dark, but actual faces and clothes, particularly the groundlings, who are shifting positions, moving around, going out to the lobby, and so on. So this is not a theatre of illusion, but one of listening. It is like being at a boxing match. The presence of all these others is, as I found out, an essential part of the experience. At the same time, however, the actors' voices were straining. They seemed to be talking at the top of their lungs all the time. I had thought that the cylindrical shape would reflect the sound back into the auditorium, but I guess a lot of sound is lost through the open air at the top and absorbed by people's bodies. The company played Henry V relatively straight with gorgeous armor, French fopperies, red ecclesiastical robes, all very decorative. The lead and director, Mark Rylance, decided this was to be a thoughtful Henry, so instead of letting those great oratorical speeches roll out, he would pause from time to time to indicate thought. Unfortunately, his way of indicating thought was to walk around in a circle, so there was a great deal of that in the middle of the speeches. Also he was having a bad day. From time to time, he forgot lines. I think he was used to a more naturalistic stage in which the actor pauses to consider possibilities, feel remorse, or whatever. I don't think you can do that on this stage. I think it requires a more continuous kind of speaking, because this is a theater more of listening, less of watching, than we are used to. The company kept breaking the play up with five minute intermissions, totally destroying any sense of flow or continuous development. This may have been part of the Festival-I hope they don't do it at regular performances. The audience was encouraged to boo and hiss the French and cheer the English, with the result that the whole thing took on the atmosphere of a football game. Very stop-start. Instead of a smooth flow from scene to scene, the director made sharp breaks between scenes by having totally different styles and entrances. These and the intermissions led me to feel that each scene was set up like a different skit in a college revue. The use of several different characters for the prologue and chorus also contributed to the fragmented feeling. All the nesting and paralleling of the low-life scenes and the monarchical doings got lost. Rylance also introduced a bunch of totally irrelevant songs and insisted on having the Te Deum sung at full length, by two choristers in the upper stage. On Tuesday, June 17th, we again crossed the Thames to Bankside, this time for The Winter's Tale. Rylance had the brainstorm of staging Sicilia and Bohemia as two African kingdoms, complete with thrones made of cut up tractor tires (tyres?) and brown earth of some kind that got all over everybody's costumes and bare feet. You had the anomalous result of a bunch of people in African get-ups sitting in front of that Renaissance facade with its baroque angels and whatnot. Idiotic! In one astonishing touch, the notorious bear was played by a metamorphosed Hermione (a vengeful ghost, perhaps?). In any case, Shakespeare's hidden bear-bairn wordplay was lost. The acting and staging was somewhat better here, but the sheepshearing was converted from a Renaissance pastoral to an African fertility ceremony with Perdita virtually humped on stage. Paulina was an African crone throwing spells this way and that. The whole effect was one of primitive, almost savage ritual (much in play during the trial and sheep-shearing scenes). Forget stateliness! I think Rylance was looking for a setting where a monarch would have absolute power, where lots of supernatural rituals would be associated with him, and in which gods and oracles would be believed. The colors were remarkable: Leontes' Sicilia was all done in brown, Polyxenes' Bohemia in blue. The Bohemians wore necklaces of what looked like bear claws, but when I got up close, I could see they were plastic drawer pulls! Clearly, Rylance has missed the point. This is a theater of speech and language and listening, not one of visually projecting into the play, not one of visually delivered emotions. This is not a theater where you look at an illusion, but a theater where you watch and listen to an actor. The director's role is much reduced from its modern status. (Come to think of it, we know the names of a number of Elizabethan actors and theater owners, but next to nothing about directors.) The recent posting about an actor-centered production is much to the point. This Globe is an actor's theater, not a director's. The Autolycus, however, was superb, and it was he who showed me what this theater could do. I've seen him on Masterpiece Theatre dozens of times, but I didn't catch his name (programs were one pound). Where the others were caught up in trying to make things look African, he was English music-hall and playing to the audience. In the latter part of the play, I left our (fairly expensive) seats in the first gallery and stood as a groundling right in front of the stage. It was fantastic! Like watching a close-up in a movie. I was often just three feet from the actors. They would be playing to the whole house and I would see the sweat and spit of their speaking-very exciting, like watching a sporting event close-up. It was particularly effective with Autolycus. He was, as I say, playing to the crowd, strumming a ukelele and otherwise carrying on, confiding his schemes to the upper galleries. Yet I, as groundling, felt he was doing this to me. When he began cadging money, not only I, but everybody in that front row of groundlings began tossing coins at him. Which he cheerfully picked up and pocketed to the guffaws of the rest of the audience. I've never felt quite that relation to an actor, that he was acting, that I knew he was acting and I was in a theater and part of a crowd, but that I was part of his acting and believing him in his part. People talk about blurring the line between performer and audience but this happened in a very special way, where he remained the performer, playing to the rest of the house, but I was there in his act, with him. I've never experienced anything quite like that in a theater. I think it's a strange combination of Brecht's alienation effect (the daylight, the crowd, the lack of illusion, and yes, Steve, the discomfort) but *at the same time* an identification with the actor in his role. If I examine my own feelings, I think I identify with him the same way that I identify with someone in an athletic event or giving a speech-I feel as if I were acting the part. For that very reason, I believe in the illusion at the same time that I know it is an illusion. Perhaps this is a purely personal reaction. I would like to think, though, that some of the people at that marvelously true Globe have stumbled onto the art of Elizabethan theater. I hope that, in time, more will. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 08:45:14 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0914 Scene for 1 m, 1f MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0914. Thursday, 11 September 1997. From: Shaula Evans Date: Tuesday, 9 Sep 1997 18:54:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Scene for 1 m, 1f I have been asked to direct a scene, any scene from Shakespeare. (it's a long story ... ) I have one actor, male, early 40's, one actor, female, early 40's. I wanted to do the scene where Kate encounters Petruchio for the first time in Shrew, but for internal reasons doesn't look likely. Any suggestions? I need a 10-20 min scene, that works outside the context of the play. All input appreciated! Shaula Evans Shakespeare Kelowna ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 08:50:09 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0915 Re: Casting Suggestion for Shrew MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0915. Thursday, 11 September 1997. From: Gil Harris Date: Monday, 08 Sep 1997 11:48:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: RE: SHK 8.0904 Casting Suggestion for Taming of The Shrew In response to Richard Nathan's query, I directed a production of _Taming of the Shrew_ last year at The Kitchen Theatre in Ithaca, NY, in which all the characters from the main play, but not the induction framework, were cross-cast. The last scene was set in a Karaoke bar, and featured the actor playing Katherina lip-synching that difficult last speech to a recording made by the actress playing Petruchio. The cross-casting helped lend an unexpected spin to certain otherwise inert lines and episodes (e.g. Lucentio's remark that Tranio is "as secret and dear" to him "as Anna to the Queen of Carthage was" [1.1.147-48], or Petruchio's "mak[ing] the woman of" Vincentio [5.5.36]); and when framed by the conventionally cast induction scenes, the cross-cast main play repeatedly foregrounded the sheer performativity of gender. For example, the page who is dressed up as Sly's wife in the induction, and of whom the Lord says "if the boy have not a woman's gift/ To rain a shower of commanded tears,/ An onion will do well for such a shift,/ Which, in a napkin being close conveyed,/ Shall in despite enforce a watery eye" (Ind.1.120-24), resurfaced in the main play as Bianca, and still in possession of the Lord's onion-which served to lend extra piquancy to Katherina's caustic observation about her: "It is best/ Put finger in the eye, an she knew why" (1.1.78-79). The production was filmed, and I might be able to make a limited number of video copies available to interested SHAKSPER list members. Please contact me off the list at . Best wishes, Jonathan Gil Harris Ithaca College [was posting of members' biographies] ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 08:45:36 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0916 Re: Criticism on the Web MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0916. Friday, 12 September 1997. [1] From: Billy Houck Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 11:00:12 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0910 Re: Criticism on the Web [2] From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Wednesdayy, 10 Sep 1997 23:54:56 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0910 Re: Criticism on the Web [3] From: Ron Dwelle Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 15:41:26 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0910 Re: Criticism on the Web [4] From: Michael Best Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 09:11:55 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0910 Re: Criticism on the Web [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 11:00:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0910 Re: Criticism on the Web I was unaware that prior to the invention of the internet books and magazines consisted solely of material with "WELL THOUGHT OUT HYPOTHESES." Don't we all own beautifully bound books whose authors used weak, even false hypotheses? The internet is a telephone call with pictures. What we need to do is teach our students to know crap when they read it. Billy Houck Arroyo Grande High School [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Wednesdayy, 10 Sep 1997 23:54:56 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0910 Re: Criticism on the Web I would like to echo Stuart Manger's thoughts and stand on posting criticism on the web. I teach Advanced Placement English to high school seniors and, for some, the temptation of plagiarism coupled with the pressure of producing high quality essays makes the web a handy tool for finding ready made papers. I believe we touched on this subject last spring during a discussion of plagiarism. Mike Sirofchuck Kodiak HS [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Dwelle Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 15:41:26 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0910 Re: Criticism on the Web Based on my recent experience with undergraduates, the web has arrived as the primary source for scholarly/critical information (on Shakespeare as well as on everything else). Undoubtedly, the refereed journal will continue as part of the fuel for driving the tenure machine, but I think we (all of us) will be derelict if we don't move as rapidly as we reasonably can to getting as much Shakespeare criticism/scholarship/discussion on-line as possible. It's where the next generation is, already. [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Best Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 09:11:55 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0910 Re: Criticism on the Web With respect, I think that both David Linley and Stuart Manger rather miss the point(s) about publishing criticism on the Web. Let me suggest a few. * The very fact that an increasing quantity of unrefereed material is being put on the Web makes it important to make high quality work available. * There are an increasing number of sites (like EMLS at and Renaissance Forum at ) which fully referee the articles posted. * As print journals become more expensive, fewer libraries will be able to subscribe to them, and they will become less accessible to students, especially those in smaller intitutions or schools. Students will use the Web anyway (I get regular enquiries from students world-wide, asking me to do their homework). Perhaps one approach is to do what I require in one assignment for my (partly) on-line courses on Shakespeare: students are asked to find various resources on Shakespeare and the Renaissance, and to evaluate their usefulness, scholarly value, and the level of discourse required by the particular location of the material. Make it an exercise in critical thinking. Plagiarism is another concern, of course, but my experience is that material that is copied from the Web is usually easy to trace. If I suspect plagiarism I run one of the usual search engines with suitable keywords, and find the passage. Easier than spending a few hours in the library. Michael Best Department of English, University of Victoria ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:09:07 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0917 Re: Scene for 1 m, 1 f MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0917. Friday, 12 September 1997. [1] From: Lawrence Manley Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 09:54:40 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0914 Scene for 1 m, 1f [2] From: Abigail Quart Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 10:17:23 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0915 Re: Casting Suggestion [3] From: Roger Gross Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 12:47:13 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0914 Scene for 1 m, 1f [4] From: Thomas Berger Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 14:27:43 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0914 Scene for 1 m, 1f [5] From: Michael Friedman Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 14:35:52 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0914 Scene for 1 m, 1f [6] From: Matthew Bibb Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 97 10:41:29 PST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0914 Scene for 1 m, 1f [7] From: Douglas Abel Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 16:11:25 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0914 Scene for 1 m, 1f [8] From: Keith Ghormley Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 17:51:52 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0914 Scene for 1 m, 1f [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lawrence Manley Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 09:54:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0914 Scene for 1 m, 1f In response to Shaula Evans' query about scenes 1m, 1f 40-somethings, what about MADO 4.1.255-336 (maybe a bit on the short side) MM 2.4 Henry V, 5.2.100ff I would guess these are all pretty difficult-they involve a lot of subtext. Now my question for the list, Which of these would be most challenging, which least? [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Abigail Quart Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 10:17:23 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0915 Re: Casting Suggestion Much Ado, IV i, Beatrice and Benedick. Richard III, I ii, Richard and Anne courtship. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Gross Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 12:47:13 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0914 Scene for 1 m, 1f Shaula Evans needs a good duet. Take a good look at the amazing Beatrice/Benedick scene toward the end of MUCH ADO, 4.1. I think its one of the very best duets in Shakespeare. It is funny and profoundly sad, filled with tension and decision. Layer upon layer of subtext. But you'll need good actors. Roger Gross U. of Arkansas [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas Berger Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 14:27:43 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0914 Scene for 1 m, 1f Why don't you put those 40 year olds to good use and have them do the first meeting of Romeo and Juliet, those sonnets that they toss back and forth. See if it "works" (ah, show biz!) for 40 year olds. I hope it might. Best, tom berger [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 14:35:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0914 Scene for 1 m, 1f Shaula, A likely candidate might be the "Kill Claudio" scene between Beatrice and Benedick at the end of 4.1 in *Much Ado About Nothing*, which is often performed as a set piece. Michael Friedman University of Scranton [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Bibb Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 97 10:41:29 PST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0914 Scene for 1 m, 1f Two possible scenes come to mind, as I've been involved in productions of both of the following, and can attest to their power apart from the play as a whole: Isabella and Angelo, _Measure for Measure_, Act 2, Scene 2 and Act 2, Scene 4. If you think your actress can pull off the portrayal of a novitiate (She is usually played as much younger than "early 40s") these scenes can be extraordinarily powerful. Richard and Elizabeth, _Richard III_, Act IV, Scene 4. From "Stay, Madam; I must speak a word with you," to "Relenting fool, and shallow, changing woman!" These scenes share a sense of psychological warfare, gender and sexual conflict, power corrupting the weak (although neither of these women is as weak as their tormentors imagine)...in other words, all sorts of juicy stuff for actors to enjoy. They also have the added benefit of being a little less well-known than the usual "Macbeth and Lady Macbeth" scenes that are performed so often. Matt Bibb UCLA Shakespeare Reading and Performance Group [7]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Abel Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 16:11:25 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0914 Scene for 1 m, 1f The long scene between Richard and Elizabeth and Richard III, Act IV, Scene 1v, ll. 197-431. Dynamite if done well. [8]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith Ghormley Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 17:51:52 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0914 Scene for 1 m, 1f Henry V, V.ii Richard III, I.ii ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:21:00 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0918 Re: Ian McKellen *Macbeth* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0918. Friday, 12 September 1997. [1] From: Tanya Gough Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 09:23:40 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0911 Ian McKellen *Macbeth* [2] From: Ron Moyer Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 9:05:32 -0500 (CDT) Subj: RE: SHK 8.0911 Ian McKellen *Macbeth* [3] From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 08:36:49 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0911 Ian McKellen *Macbeth* [4] From: Scott Crozier Date: Fridayy, 12 Sep 1997 08:59:48 +1100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0911 Ian McKellen *Macbeth* [5] From: Joanne Walen Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 18:42:07 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0911 Ian McKellen *Macbeth* [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tanya Gough Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 09:23:40 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0911 Ian McKellen *Macbeth* I haven't seen the full video text of Macbeth with McKellen and Dench anywhere, although it may be available in PAL format. However, we do stock a fantastic CD-ROM in the Voyager series, which includes the full text, accompanied by the complete audio from the RSC production Ms. Kilman mentions. The package is a lovely resource - the text is glossed with "hot" terminology (click on the phrases and a definition appears); click anywhere on the text and the audio picks up immediately at that point (or indicates that the chosen section was cut from the production); click on the character list and get a complete list which includes the total number of lines spoken in the play and an index of first lines; there are introductory essays, film clips from Orson Welles, Polanski and Kurosawa, a picture gallery, maps of Scotland, and two scenes presented as "Karaoke Shakespeare," wherein you can chose the part of Macbeth or Lady Macbeth and read the text with either McKellen or Dench. I never get tired of it. Suggested list price is over $65 Canadian. We sell it through our website for $49.99 Canadian plus shipping. Tanya Gough [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Moyer Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 9:05:32 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: SHK 8.0911 Ian McKellen *Macbeth* Bernice, Films for the Humanities and Sciences distributes the video of Trevor Nunn's production of _Macbeth_ with McKellen, Dench, Rees, McDiarmid, et al. The FFH video is listed at $89.95; its catalog number is BAY1251. FFH can be contacted at 800-257-5126 or 609-275-1400; FAX: 609-275-3767; E-Mail: (whew!). FFH also distributes the Nunn-McKellen _Othello_ (at $159), among other vids. Ron Moyer [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 08:36:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0911 Ian McKellen *Macbeth* To Bernice Kliman: The 1979 RSC/Trevor Nunn production of *Macbeth* to which you refer is available from The Writing Company (800-421-4246; 800-944-5432; order # FHM214V-K7; 2 VHS vc's; $149). Because our campus library has it in its holdings, I've been able to require it as outside-class viewing in my undergrad S tragedies course since 1991 with considerable success. It's quite provocative. Best, Lynn [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Fridayy, 12 Sep 1997 08:59:48 +1100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0911 Ian McKellen *Macbeth* Bernice Kliman asks about the wonderful Judy Dench, Ian McKellan Macbeth from the RSC directed by Trevor Nunn ?? It is available from Thames International, Academy Television, 104 Kirkstall Road, Leeds, LS3 1JS Phone 0532 461528. It is the best Macbeth on video I know although it does lack the atmosphere of the original production in The Other Place, the camera work is sensitive to the fell of the production. Regards, Scott Crozier [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Walen Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 18:42:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0911 Ian McKellen *Macbeth* In the 1997 Writing Company (1-800-421-4246; access@WritingCo.com; http://WritingCo.com/Shakespeare) catalog the '79 Trevor Nunn RCS production with McKellen and Dench is listed at $149. The '96 Films for the Humanities catalog lists the same video for $89.95. They can be reached at 1-800-257-5126. If you can run the British video system, the RSC has the tape available for #10.99, or about $18-19. Good luck, Joanne ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:25:28 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0919 Play Locations MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0919. Friday, 12 September 1997. From: Gareth Euridge Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 09:16:32 -0400 Subject: Play Locations Not directly a Shakespeare question, but . . . Have been trying to find work recently on the significance of "place" in early modern drama. I know, for example, that Italy was considered the home of all things nefarious and naughty, but was wondering if we could be more specific. Would there be any reasons why a play would be set in, say, Florence rather than Venice, Naples rather than Bologna? Most particularly, I am wondering about Massinger's _The Unnatural Combat_, set in Marseilles. Would this have meant anything particular to an early mod English audience, or would it have simply signified generic French-ness? And what did that mean? And how was French-ness constructed differently than Italian-ness, or Spanish-ness? I have had little luck so far, so would be very grateful for any help. Please respond directly to me, or, if this thread should live, well . . . Gareth M. Euridge euridge@denison.edu http://www.denison.edu/~euridge ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:29:04 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0920 Re: Casting Suggestion for Shrew MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0920. Friday, 12 September 1997. [1] From: Richard J. Kennedy Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 06:05:48 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0915 Re: Casting Suggestion for Shrew [2] From: Richard A. Burt Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 18:32:23 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0915 Re: Casting Suggestion for Shrew [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J. Kennedy Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 06:05:48 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0915 Re: Casting Suggestion for Shrew As for Shrews, you might check out my new web page. http://www.orednet.org/~rkennedy Any comments or suggestions are welcome. Kennedy [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A. Burt Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 18:32:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0915 Re: Casting Suggestion for Shrew Does anyone know of a production of _The Taming of the Shrew_ (or adaptation) in which Kate is played as lesbian, Petruchio her boy toy? Best, Richard ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:34:00 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0921 CSF Hamlet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0921. Friday, 12 September 1997. From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 13:43:43 -0400 Subject: CSF Hamlet The Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival's Hamlet will open on September 18 at the Aronoff Center in downtown Cincinnati, with Marni Penning playing the title role as a woman. The decision to play Hamlet as a woman leads inevitably to a series of changes in the script; e.g., Lord Hamlet becomes Lady Hamlet; he becomes she, but the major changes are extra-textual. Hamlet's relationship with Ophelia is a lesbian relationship, a fact that bothers the royal family and court, and Hamlet's relationship with Horatio is obviously heterosexual. Penning's Hamlet is, indeed, bisexual. The production is set in a fantasy Denmark in the 1990s. The soldiers carry 20th century weapons, and Hamlet conceals a Beretta under her black jacket. The swords are brought in by the visiting players, and Hamlet gets hers directly from the player king. Polonius is shot rather than stabbed-though Hamlet is carrying a sword while she blows him away. There is some strategic doubling. William Sweeney plays the ghost of King Hamlet, the player king, Fortinbras's captain, and the gravedigger. The doubling is obvious-and I get the impression that the ghost of the dead king is continually returning in different guises. The gravedigger disappears into his own grave-and reappears no more (in this production). Of course, the sex and gender changes are going to make this production controversial-even outside of Cincinnati (possibly the most conservative city in the US). As one publicity agent asked, "Is Cincinnati ready for this?" My answer is: Yes. Yours, Bill Godshalk P.S. I'm dramaturge for the show, so I'm not a disinterested commentator. I think it's a daring and strong interpretation of the script. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:36:51 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0922 TEMPEST in Washington DC MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0922. Friday, 12 September 1997. From: Jung Jimmy Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 14:10 -0500 Subject: TEMPEST in Washington DC I went to see The Tempest last night, as performed by The Shakespeare Theatre in Washington DC, and oddly enough, during a post show discussion, Ted van Griethuysen, who plays Prospero commented on how much more he liked this production than their 1990 version, in which he played the same role. Odd for me, in as much as that was possibly the first Shakespearean play I ever attended, definitely the first I'd seen with this company and a lot of the reason I now subscribe. This production is wonderful, worth seeing and if your memory goes back to the 1990 version, I would be curious to hear how you think they compare. I remember liking the old production, but the details have faded. In Washington's Shakespeare Theatre, Ted van Griethuysen holds the monopoly on pompous old men, and as Prospero, it serves him well. Prospero's moments of cruelty and his anger at himself come through much clearer in this faded old man who once had much power. You learn to appreciate his circumstance if not to like him so much. Wallace Acton gives us a very solid almost earthy Ariel, who flits only occasionally, injects some puckish style humor, gives us a real sense of his desire for freedom and truly illuminates Prospero's own struggle with his humanity. I assume that the slapstick of Stephano and Trinculo is similar to the schtick they used 400 years ago, but David Sabin and Floyd King make it funny all over again. And Caliban is played as the noble black savage by Chad Colemen. Coleman's Caliban was the character who touched me the most, but I should like to one day see how Caliban is played as a white monster, rather than a black slave. The three goddesses from the masque (Iris, Ceres, and Juno) were also cast with black actresses, and it was mentioned during the discussion that Ariel was also originally to have been black, but there was some sort of casting snafu. I admit, after the masque, I was wondering how this pale fairy ended up among all these darker native spirits. The masque is staged to highlight the hollowness of Prospero's art, dissolving from obvious theatrics, prompting laughter from the crowd, into an elaborate production, which Prospero then pulls apart. The set avoids entirely an "island" feel, with a surprising amount of the action occurring within a library; not a cell full of books, but something like an ivy league library. This later becomes a path that seems to stretch into infinity and in one of the most visually exciting moments, Prospero stands on this path delivering the "break my staff" speech, he looks completely like a wizard at the edge of the universe. Get there early, as there is some curious pre-show business that merits some consideration. jimmy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:42:06 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0923 Re: New Globe; Beatles Video MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0923. Friday, 12 September 1997. [1] From: Patricia Cooke Date: Friday, 12 Sep 1997 08:57:15 +1200 Subj: 8.0913 New Globe [2] From: Robert Linn Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 21:24:21 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0895 Q: Beatles Video [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patricia Cooke Date: Friday, 12 Sep 1997 08:57:15 +1200 Subject: 8.0913 New Globe I can't believe that Norm Holland and I saw the same production of Henry V at the Globe, but we did - 14 June, 3.00pm as part of the Festival of Firsts. I loved it and found Mark Rylance extremely moving and effective. Just a few errors to correct: each production is directed by a different person and Mark Rylance cannot take all the praise/blame for individual responses. The director of this production of Henry V was Richard Olivier (yes, son of Laurence). The Winter's Tale was directed by David Freeman. Rylance is the overall Artistic Director of the whole enterprise, but each production has autonomy to follow the cast and director's vision. Programmes at £1 were available and cushions were also £1. The actor who played Autolycus is called Nicholas Le Prevost (say PrevOH) and I agree that he was excellent in his use of the audience. Why was this more acceptable to Norm than the audience response to the French in Henry V, which seemed to me quite spontaneous and reflects the very English love-hate feeling they have for the "Frogs". The experience of being there was extremely moving to me, not because some wore dinner jackets or were famous people but because of the validation of Sam Wanamaker's idea. The place works, the plays take on a new life, even terrible productions such as I found The Winter's Tale to be, take on a new meaning because of the audience's involvement. I could go on, but I won't as I get timed out after 18 minutes anyway. Wish I could afford to go over there again and see all the plays in this wonderful new-old space. Patricia Cooke, Secretary & Editor Shakespeare Globe Centre New Zealand Inc 97 Elizabeth Street Wellington 6001 New Zealand PH/FAX 64 4 3856743 [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Linn Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 1997 21:24:21 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0895 Q: Beatles Video I have a tape with the Beatles doing Pyramus and Thisby. It is indeed titled "Fun With The Fab Four." It was produced by Goodtimes Home Video Corporation 401 5th Avenue New York, NY 10016 in 1986. This tape was given to me by a friend. I have no idea about its current availability. Bob Linn ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:50:48 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0924 CHARACTR BIBLIO and SPINOFF BIBLIO MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0924. Friday, 12 September 1997. From: Werner Habicht Date: Thursday, 11 Sep 97 22:20 MET DST Subject: Shakespeare the Character Bibliography [Editor's Note: Werner Habicht sent the message below to me for informational purposes, but it does provide me an opportunity to make a special plea. Both the files CHARACTR BIBLIO and SPINOFF BIBLIO on the SHAKSPER Fileserver are in need of updating. If anyone would like to volunteer to undertake this minor task, please let me know. Thanks, Hardy] May I make a suggestion or two towards a future updating of the "Shakespeare, the Character" bibliography? (1) The following items are listed (if not without misspellings) in the section "Unknown Medium": Leon Daudet, Le voyage de Shakespeare (1896) Konrad Haemmerling, Der Mann, der Shakespeare hiess (1938) Since both are novels, they would seem to belong to the FICTION category. So does Emma Severn, Anne Hathaway, or Shakespeare in Love (1845). (2) The presence of the above titles in languages other than English makes one wonder if more of these should be added. Fictions of Shakespeare the person are, after all, an international phenomenon. Here are a few German examples - all of them novels, stories or fictional biographies, hence FICTION: - A. E. Brachvogel, Hamlet (1876) (novel) - Alfred Günther, Der junge Shakespeare (1947) (fictional biography) - Ernst Hering, Sterne über England (1938) - G. Hicks, Shakespeare und Southampton, oder Die letzten Jahre der grossen Koenigin (1863) - Heinrich Koenig, Williams Dichten und Trachten (1839; revised edn. 1850; 5th edn. 1875) (biographical novel) - Heribert Rau, William Shakespeare (1864) (fictional biography) - Helmut Schrey, Mordaffaire Shakespeare (1988) (detective novel) - Eduard Stucken, Im Schatten Shakespeares (1929) (historical novel) - Ludwig Tieck, Dichterleben (1826-32) (novella) - Nicklas Vogt, Shakespeares Beruf und Triumph (1772) (There is also a good number of German plays and poems in which Shakespeare figures as either a character or a ghost. I'll list these some other time if you are interested as editor.) (3) Here is some FICTION in English that might be added: - Anthony Burgess, Shakespeare's Muse (1971) (short story) - Stephanie Cowell, The Players. A Novel of the Young Shakespeare (1997) - Stephanie Cowell, Nicholas Cooke, Actor, Soldier, Physician, Priest (1993) - Barbara Denz, "The Will", in Weird Tales of Shakespeare, ed. K. Kerr and M.H. Greenberg (1994) (short story) - Gregory Feeley, "Aweary of the Sun", in Weird Tales of Shakespeare, ed. K. Kerr and M.H. Greenberg (1994) (short story) - Laura Resnick, "The Muse Afire", in Weird Tales from Shakespeare, ed. K. Kerr and M. H. Greenberg (1994) - Robert Folkestone Williams, Shakespeare and His Friends (1838) Sincerely, Werner Habicht WHabicht@t-online.de ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 10:02:19 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0925 My Mistake MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0925. Friday, 12 September 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Friday, September 12, 1997 Subject: My Mistake Dear SHAKSPEReans, I just realized that I sent the most recent biography file to the entire membership rather than to the server as I had intended. Hardy========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:10:29 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0926 Re: Criticism on the Web MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0926. Monday, 15 September 1997. [1] From: William Williams Date: Friday, 12 Sep 1997 09:58:54 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0916 Re: Criticism on the Web [2] From: Valerie White Date: Friday, 12 Sep 1997 02:12:53 -0800 Subj: Re: Plagiarism and the WWW [3] From: R. G. Siemens Date: Saturday, 13 Sep 1997 09:52:50 -0600 Subj: Re: Criticism on the Web // EMLS [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Williams Date: Friday, 12 Sep 1997 09:58:54 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0916 Re: Criticism on the Web This is an interesting, and unavoidable, thread. The Web is there; students will/do use it; the quality of stuff on it varies widely. Some means must be found, and found quickly, to tag material according to its "refereedness" so that users, ALL users, can know what they are getting. This could be done in such a way as not to thwart free expression-a sort of truth in packaging regulation. Currently what we have in Shakespeare, and almost all else, is a rather undigested lump. The must be a problem that the physical scientists have confront and probably dealt with. How have they done it. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Valerie White Date: Friday, 12 Sep 1997 02:12:53 -0800 Subject: Re: Plagiarism and the WWW Another way to combat plagiarism and the net is through conversation with the student author. Many teachers/professors are incorporating an oral grade with their essay/research paper assignments in which the instructor and student author converse about the topic of the paper. This type of interaction should clear up suspicions of plagiarism. Of course on the high school level at least, this could create a time constraint. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: R. G. Siemens Date: Saturday, 13 Sep 1997 09:52:50 -0600 Subject: Re: Criticism on the Web // EMLS This thread has been quite interesting, particularly (for me) because of the ways in which distinction is being drawn between differing 'levels' (if we wish to call them that) of exchange and interchange, and the positive spirit of shared knowledge that informs the desire to make one's work public in this way. As editor of one of the resources that has been mentioned several times in the exchange, however, I hesitate to comment overly much, except to encourage those interested in such matters to browse the files at EMLS. Below, I have attached a list of what appears in our 'journal' section (that containing refereed materials); in addition to it, those who visit our site will find a wide range of materials in our Interactive EMLS section. As well, and as suggested in a posting some weeks earlier by Joanne Woolway, I should note that EMLS will be moving servers; the move will take place in the next few weeks, but EMLS will, throughout this period of transition, be able to be accessed via our PURL, at: http://purl.oclc.org/emls/emlshome.html Once the move is completed, we'll post another announcement, and will also publish our 3.2 (September 1997) issue. As always, we are interested in considering materials for our refereed publication, and for inclusion in our Interactive EMLS section. With best wishes, Ray Siemens ------ EMLS, Full Listing of Contents, 1995-7 ------ * Regular Series: + Volume 1: 1.1 (April 1995) | 1.2 (August 1995) | 1.3 (December 1995) + Volume 2: 2.1 (April 1996) | 2.2 (August 1996) | 2.3 (December 1996) + Volume 3: 3.1 (May 1997) * Special Issue Series: o Number 1: New Scholarship from Old Renaissance Dictionaries: Applications of the Early Modern English Dictionaries Database. Ian Lancashire and Michael Best, eds. (April 1997). ----------------------------------------------------------------- Articles (Alphabetical, by Author) * Best, Michael, University of Victoria, BC. From Book to Screen: A Window on Renaissance Electronic Texts. [EMLS 1.2] * Best, Michael, University of Victoria, and Ian Lancashire, University of Toronto. New Scholarship from Old Renaissance Dictionaries Applications of the Early Modern English Dictionaries Database. Editorial Preface. [EMLS Special Issue 1] * Buick, Stephen, University of Toronto. "That purpose which is plain and easy to be understood": Using the Computer Database of Early Modern English Dictionaries to Resolve Problems in a Critical Edition of The Second Tome of Homilies (1563). [EMLS Special Issue 1] * Carlson, David R., University of Ottawa. Skelton and Barclay, Medieval and Modern. [EMLS 1.1] * Catt, Mark, University of Toronto. Renaissance Dictionaries and Shakespeare's Language: A Study of Word-meaning in Troilus and Cressida. [EMLS Special Issue 1] * Davidson, Mary Catherine, University of Toronto. Did Shakespeare Consciously Use Archaic English? [EMLS Special Issue 1] * Doerksen, Daniel W., University of New Brunswick. Milton and the Jacobean Church of England. [EMLS 1.1] * Downs-Gamble, Margaret, Virginia Tech. New Pleasures Prove: Evidence of Dialectical Disputatio in Early Modern Manuscript Culture. [EMLS 2.2] * Godshalk, W.L., University of Cincinnati. The Texts of Troilus and Cressida. [EMLS 1.2] * Graham, Jean E., College of New Jersey. "Ay me": Selfishness and Empathy in "Lycidas." [EMLS 2.3] * Hagen, Tanya, University of Toronto. An English Renaissance Understanding of the Word "Tragedy," 1587-1616. [EMLS Special Issue 1] * Hale, John K., University of Otago. England as Israel in Milton's Writings. [EMLS 2.2] * Hopkins, Lisa, Sheffield Hallam University. "And shall I die, and this unconquered?": Marlowe's Inverted Colonialism. [EMLS 2.2] * Lancashire, Ian, University of Toronto. Understanding Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus and the EMEDD. [EMLS Special Issue 1] * Lancashire, Ian, University of Toronto, and Michael Best, University of Victoria. New Scholarship from Old Renaissance Dictionaries Applications of the Early Modern English Dictionaries Database. Editorial Preface. [EMLS Special Issue 1] * Lucking, David, University of Lecce, Italy. "The price of one fair word": Negotiating Names in Coriolanus. [EMLS 2.1] * MacIntyre, Jean, University of Alberta. Production Resources at the Whitefriars Playhouse, 1609-1612. [EMLS 2.3] * Martin, Randall, University of New Brunswick. Isabella Whitney's " Lamentation upon the death of William Gruffith.". [EMLS 3.1]. * O'Brien, Robert Viking, California State University, Chico. The Madness of Syracusan Antipholus. [EMLS 2.1] * Powers-Beck, Jeffrey, East Tennessee State University. 'Not Onely a Pastour, but a Lawyer also': George Herbert's Vision of Stuart Magistracy. [EMLS 1.2] * Razovsky, Helaine, Northwestern State University. Popular Hermeneutics: Monstrous Children in English Renaissance Broadside Ballads. [EMLS 2.3] * Roebuck, Graham, McMaster University. "This innocent worke": Adam and Eve, John Smith, William Wood and the North American Plantations. [EMLS 1.1] * Roth-Schwartz, Emma. "Colon and Semi-Colon in Donne's Prose Letters: Practice and Principle. [EMLS 3.1] * Schneider, Ben Ross, Jr., Lawrence University. King Lear in its Own Time: The Difference that Death Makes. [EMLS 1.1] * Sohmer, Steve. 12 June 1599: Opening Day at Shakespeare's Globe. [EMLS 3.1] * Sohmer, Steve. Certain Speculations on Hamlet, the Calendar, and Martin Luther. [EMLS 2.1] * van den Berg, Sara, University of Washington, Seattle. Marking his Place: Ben Jonson's Punctuation. [EMLS 1.3] * Vinovich, J. Michael, University of Toronto. Protocols of Reading: Milton and Biography. [EMLS 1.3] * Warren, Jonathan, University of Toronto. Reflections of an Electronic Scribe: Two Renaissance Dictionaries and Their Implicit Philosophies of Language. [EMLS Special Issue 1] * Williams, Andrew P., North Carolina Central University. Shifting Signs: Increase Mather and the Comets of 1680 and 1682. [EMLS 1.3] * Winson, Patricia, University of Toronto. "A Double Spirit of Teaching": What Shakespeare's Teachers Teach Us. [EMLS Special Issue 1] * Yachnin, Paul, University of British Columbia. Personations: The Taming of the Shrew and the Limits of Theoretical Criticism. [EMLS 2.1] Bibliography * Lakowski, Romuald Ian. A Bibliography of Thomas More's Utopia. [EMLS 1.2] Notes (Alphabetical, by Author) * Flannagan, Roy, Ohio University. Reflections on Milton and Ariosto. [EMLS 2.3] * Hale, John K., University of Otago, NZ. Milton and the Sexy Seals: A Peephole into the Horton Years. [EMLS 1.3] * Kahan, Jeffrey, Ambroise Paré's Des Monstres as a Possible Source for Caliban. [EMLS 3.1] * Kahan, Jeffrey, Reassessing the Use of Doubling in Marston's Antonio and Mellida. [EMLS 2.2] * Moon, Paul, Auckland Institute of Technology, NZ. Blending Popular Culture and Religious Instruction: Herbert's Outlandish Proverbs. [EMLS 2.1] * Stanwood, P.G., University of British Columbia. Affliction and Flight in Herbert's Poetry: A Note. [EMLS 1.2] Professional Notes (Alphabetical, by Author) * May, Steven W., Georgetown College. The Bibliography and First-Line Index of English Verse, 1559-1603. [EMLS 1.2] * Tolva, John, Washington University. The Shepheardes Calender Hypermedia Edition. [EMLS 1.2] * Waite, Greg (Editor in Chief), University of Otago. A Textbase of Early Tudor English. [EMLS 1.1] Reviews (Alphabetical, by Book Author) * Aston, Margaret. The King's Bedpost: Reformation and Iconography in a Tudor Group Portrait. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993. Andrew Stott, University of Hertfordshire. [EMLS 2.2] * Aughterson, Kate, ed. Renaissance Women: Constructions of Femininity in England. New York: Routledge, 1995. Carrie Hintz, University of Toronto. [EMLS 2.2] * Baumann, Uwe, ed. Henry VIII in History, Historiography and Literature. Bern: Peter Lang, 1992. (With Guy, John, ed. The Reign of Elizabeth I: Court and Culture in the Last Decade. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995.) Steven Gunn, Merton College, Oxford. [EMLS 2.1] * Bennett, Susan. Performing Nostalgia: Shifting Shakespeare and the Contemporary Past. New York: Routledge, 1996. Robert Grant Williams, Nipissing University. [EMLS 2.3] * Breitenberg, Mark. Anxious Masculinity in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. Stephen Longstaffe, University College of St Martin. [EMLS 3.1] * Brink, Jean R., and William F. Gentrup, eds. Renaissance Culture in Context: Theory and Practice. Aldershot: Scolar P; Brookfield, Vt: Ashgate Publishing Company, 1993. A.W. Johnson, åbo Akademi University, Finland. [EMLS 2.1] * Bushnell, Rebecca W. A Culture of Teaching: Early Modern Humanism in Theory and Practice. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1996. Charles David Jago, University of British Columbia. [EMLS 2.3] * Carroll, William S. Fat King, Lean Beggar: Representations of Poverty in the Age of Shakespeare. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1996. Michael Long, Oriel College, Oxford University. [EMLS 3.1] * Cerasano, S. P. and Wynne-Davies, Marion, eds. Renaissance Drama by Women: Texts and Documents. New York: Routledge, 1996. Patricia Ralston, Covenant College. [EMLS 3.1] * Chadwyck-Healey. English Verse Drama: The Full-Text Database. Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey, 1995. David L. Gants, University of Virginia. [EMLS 2.1] * Daniell, David. William Tyndale: A Biography. New Haven: Yale UP, 1994. Romuald I. Lakowski. [EMLS 1.3] * Davies, Stevie. Henry Vaughan. Wales: Seren, Poetry Wales Press, 1995. Jeffrey Powers-Beck, East Tennessee State University. [EMLS 1.2] * de Foigny, Gabriel. The Southern Land, Known. Trans. and ed. David Fausett. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse UP, 1993. (With Fausett, David. Writing the New World: Imaginary Voyages and Utopias of the Great Southern Land. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse UP, 1993.) James R. Burns, Oriel College, Oxford. [EMLS 2.2] * Dessen, Alan C. Recovering Shakespeare's Theatrical Vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. W.L. Godshalk, University of Cincinnati. [EMLS 1.3] * Donne, John. Pseudo-Martyr. Ed. Anthony Raspa. Montreal: McGill-Queen's UP, 1993. (With Flynn, Dennis. John Donne and the Ancient Catholic Nobility. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1995.) Elizabeth Hodgson, University of British Columbia. [EMLS 2.1] * Donne, John. The Variorum Edition of the Poetry of John Donne, Vol 6: The Anniversaries and the Epicedes and Obsequies. Gen. Ed. Gary A. Stringer. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1995. Claude J. Summers, University of Michigan, Dearborn. [EMLS 1.3] * Electronic Texts, File Formats, and Copyright: The Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Perry Willett, Indiana University. [EMLS 1.2] * Estrin, Barbara L. Laura: Uncovering Gender and Genre in Wyatt, Donne, and Marvell. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 1994. Nathan P. Tinker, Fordham University. [EMLS 2.2] * Fausett, David. Writing the New World: Imaginary Voyages and Utopias of the Great Southern Land. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse UP, 1993. (With de Foigny, Gabriel. The Southern Land, Known. Trans. and ed. David Fausett. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse UP, 1993.) James R. Burns, Oriel College, Oxford. [EMLS 2.2] * Findlay, Alison. Illegitimate Power: Bastards in Renaissance Drama. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1994. Sonia Nolten, Oriel College, Oxford. [EMLS 1.1] * Finucci, Valeria, and Regina Schwartz, eds. Desire in the Renaissance: Psychoanalysis and Literature. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1994. Thomas Luxon, Dartmouth College. [EMLS 2.2] * Fitter, Chris. Poetry, Space, Landscape: Toward a New Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. Garrett A. Sullivan, Jr., Pennsylvania State University. [EMLS 3.1] * Flynn, Dennis. John Donne and the Ancient Catholic Nobility. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1995. (With Donne, John. Pseudo-Martyr. Ed. Anthony Raspa. Montreal: McGill-Queen's UP, 1993.) Elizabeth Hodgson, University of British Columbia. [EMLS 2.1] * Gillies, John. Shakespeare and the Geography of Difference. Cambridge Studies in Renaissance Literature and Culture 4. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994. Patricia Badir, University of British Columbia. [EMLS 1.1] * Graham, Kenneth J. The Performance of Conviction: Plainness and Rhetoric in the Early English Renaissance. Ithaca and London: Cornell UP, 1994. Shannon Murray, University of Prince Edward Island. [EMLS 1.3] * Guy, John, ed. The Reign of Elizabeth I: Court and Culture in the Last Decade. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. (With Baumann, Uwe, ed. Henry VIII in History, Historiography and Literature. Bern: Peter Lang, 1992.) Steven Gunn, Merton College, Oxford. [EMLS 2.1] * Hagstrum, Jean H. Esteem Enlivened by Desire: The Couple from Homer to Shakespeare. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1992. Paul G. Stanwood, University of British Columbia. [EMLS 1.3] * Hall, Kim F. Things of Darkness: Economies of Race and Gender in Early Modern England. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1995. Bernadette Andrea, West Virginia University. [EMLS 2.2] * Hamlin, William M. The Image of America in Montaigne, Spenser, and Shakespeare: Renaissance Ethnography and Literary Reflection. New York: St. Martin's P, 1995. Donna C. Woodford, Washington University at St Louis. [EMLS 2.1] * Hansen, Melanie and Trill, Suzanne, eds. Voicing Women: Gender and Sexuality in Early Modern Writing. Renaissance Texts and Studies, Keele, Staffordshire: Keele UP, 1996. Elizabeth Hodgson, University of British Columbia. [EMLS 3.1] * Hart, Vaughan. Art and Magic in the Court of the Stuarts. London and New York: Routledge, 1994. Graham Parry, University of York. [EMLS 1.2] * Hinds, Hilary. God's Englishwomen: Seventeenth-Century Radical Sectarian Writing and Feminist Criticism. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1996. Mark Houlahan, University of Waikato. [EMLS 3.1] * Jarvis, Simon. Scholars and Gentlemen: Shakespearean Textual Criticism and Representations of Scholarly Labour, 1725-1765. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1996. Bryan N.S. Gooch, University of Victoria. [EMLS 2.3] * Johnson, A.W. Ben Jonson: Poetry and Architecture. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1994. Robert C. Evans, Auburn University at Montgomery. [EMLS 1.2] * Lancashire, Ian, ed. Certaine Sermons or Homilies appointed to be read in Churches, in the time of the late Queene Elizabeth of famous memory (1623). [Renaissance Electronic Texts 1.1]. U of Toronto: Centre for Computing in the Humanities, 1994. Ronald B. Bond, University of Calgary. [EMLS 2.2] * Lestringant, Frank. Mapping the Renaissance World: The Geographical Imagination in the Age of Discovery. Trans. David Fausett. Berkeley: U of California P, 1994. Garrett Sullivan, Pennsylvania State University. [EMLS 2.2] * Liebler, Naomi Conn. Shakespeare's Festive Tragedy: The Rituals Foundations of Genre. New York: Routledge, 1995. Jeffrey Kahan. [EMLS 2.3] * Lindley, David. The Trials of Frances Howard: Fact and Fiction at the Court of King James. New York: Routledge, 1993. Bryan N.S. Gooch, University of Victoria. [EMLS 3.1] * Love, Harold. Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1993. Margaret Downs-Gamble, Virginia Tech. [EMLS 1.1] * Luxon, Thomas H. Literal Figures Puritan Allegory & the Reformation Crisis in Representation. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1995. David Gay, University of Alberta. [EMLS 2.3] * Mallin, Eric S. Inscribing the Time: Shakespeare and the End of Elizabethan England. Berkeley: U of California P, 1995. Tony Dawson, University of British Columbia. [EMLS 2.1] * Manley, Lawrence. Literature and Culture in Early Modern London. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. (With Smith, David L., Richard Strier, and David Bevington, eds. The Theatrical City: Culture, Theatre and Politics in London 1576-1649. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995.) Emma Smith, All Souls College, Oxford. [EMLS 1.3] * Marlowe, Christopher. The Complete Works of Christopher Marlowe (Vol. 3): Edward II. Ed. Richard Rowland. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1994. Robert Lindsey, Oriel College, Oxford. [EMLS 1.1] * Maus, Katharine Eisman. Inwardness and Theater in the English Renaissance. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1995. Robert Appelbaum,University of California, Berkeley. [EMLS 1.2] * More, Sir Thomas. Utopia: Latin Text and English Translation. Eds. George M. Logan, Robert M. Adams and Clarence Miller. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. Romuald I. Lakowski. [EMLS 2.3] * Murrin, Michael. History and Warfare in Renaissance Epic. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1995. James Loxley, University of Leeds. [EMLS 2.1] * Norland, Howard B. Drama in Early Tudor Britain 1485-1558. Lincoln, Nebraska: U of Nebraska P, 1995. James C. Cummings, University of Leeds. [EMLS 2.2] * Parker, Patricia. Shakespeare from the Margins: Language, Culture, Context. Chicago: University of Chicago P, 1996. Mary Bly, Washington University, St. Louis. [EMLS 3.1] * Parr, Anthony, ed. Three Renaissance Travel Plays. [Revels Plays Companion Library 10]. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1995. Eric Wilson, Harvard University. [EMLS 2.2] * Parry, Graham. The Trophies of Time: English Antiquarians of The Seventeenth Century. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1995. F. J. Levy, University of Washington. [EMLS 2.3] * Raylor, Timothy. Cavaliers, Clubs, and Literary Culture: Sir John Mennes, James Smith, and the Order of the Fancy. Newark: U of Delaware P, 1994. K.E. Patrick, Headington School, Oxford. [EMLS 1.3] * S., W. "A Funeral Elegy for Master William Peter." Compact disk recording read by Harry Hill. Dir. Paul Hawkins. Text Ed. Donald W. Foster. Montreal: Concordia University, 1996. Sean Lawrence, University of British Columbia. [EMLS 2.3] * Sams, Eric. The Real Shakespeare: Retrieving the Early Years. New Haven: Yale UP, 1995. Bryan N.S. Gooch, University of Victoria. [EMLS 2.2] * Sawday, Jonathan. The Body Emblazoned: Dissection and the Human Body in Renaissance Culture. London: Routledge, 1995. Mary Bly, Washington University at St Louis. [EMLS 2.1] * SHAKSPER. "That Liberty and Common Conversation": A Review of the SHAKSPER Listserv Discussion Group. Sean Lawrence, University of British Columbia. [EMLS 2.1] * Silberman, Lauren. Forming Desire: Erotic Knowledge in Books III and IV of The Faerie Queene. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: U of California P, 1995. David Lindley, University of Leeds. [EMLS 1.3] * Smith, David L., Richard Strier, and David Bevington, eds. The Theatrical City: Culture, Theatre and Politics in London 1576-1649. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. (With Manley, Lawrence. Literature and Culture in Early Modern London. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995.) Emma Smith, All Souls College, Oxford. [EMLS 1.3] * Smith, Nigel. Literature and Revolution in England, 1640-1660. New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1994. Christopher Orchard, Lynchburg College, VA. [EMLS 1.1] * Snider, Alvin. Origin and Authority in Seventeenth-Century England: Bacon, Milton, Butler. Toronto: Toronto UP, 1994. Philip Edward Phillips, Vanderbilt University. [EMLS 1.2] * Strier, Richard. Resistant Structures: Particularity, Radicalism, and Renaissance Texts. Berkeley: U of California P, 1995. Mark Robson, University of Leeds. [EMLS 2.1] * Treip, Mindele Anne. Allegorical Poetics and the Epic: The Renaissance Tradition to Paradise Lost. Lexington: UP of Kentucky, 1994. C.D. Jago, University of British Columbia. [EMLS 1.3] * Weimann, Robert. Authority and Representation in Early Modern Discourse. Ed. David Hillman. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1995. Anthony Johnson, Åbo Akademi University. [EMLS 2.3] * Williams, Gordon. A Dictionary of Sexual Language and Imagery in Shakespearean and Stuart Literature 3 vols. London and New Jersey: Athlone P, 1994. Douglas Bruster, University of Texas, San Antonio. [EMLS 2.3] * Wills, Garry. Witches and Jesuits: Shakespeare's Macbeth. Oxford and New York: Oxford UP / NY Public Library, 1995. Michael T. Siconolfi, Gonzaga University. [EMLS 2.3] * World Wide Web Resources for Early Modern Studies, 1500-1700: A Survey of Select Textual Resources. Perry Willett, Indiana University. [EMLS 1.1] * Wroth, Lady Mary. Lady Mary Wroth: Poems. A Modernized Edition. R. E. Pritchard, ed. Keele, Staffordshire: Keele UP, 1996. Joyce Green MacDonald, University of Kentucky. [EMLS 3.1] Readers' Forum * Puritan Utopia in Herbert's Poetry: A Response to P.G. Stanwood's Affliction and Flight in Herbert's Poetry. Paul Moon, Auckland Institute of Technology. [EMLS 1.3] Forewords * Critical Shakespeare. Joanne Woolway, Oriel College, Oxford. [EMLS 2.1] * Evolution and Growth in On-line Resources for Early Modern Literary Studies. R.G. Siemens, University of British Columbia. [EMLS 1.3] * A Brief Look Backward and Forward from EMLS' Second Issue. R.G. Siemens, University of British Columbia. [EMLS 1.2] * Early Modern Literary Studies: An Editor's Prefatory Statement. R.G. Siemens, University of British Columbia. [EMLS 1.1] ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:15:45 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0927 Re: Ian McKellen *Macbeth* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0927. Monday, 15 September 1997. [1] From: R. Thomas Simone Date: Friday, 12 Sep 1997 09:04:56 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0911 Ian McKellen *Macbeth* [2] From: William Williams Date: Friday, 12 Sep 1997 10:18:10 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0918 Re: Ian McKellen *Macbeth* [3] From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Sunday, 14 Sep 1997 22:55:22 -0400 Subj: Re: Ian McKellen *Macbeth* [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: R. Thomas Simone Date: Friday, 12 Sep 1997 09:04:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0911 Ian McKellen *Macbeth* Bernice, It's avaiable from FILMS FOR THE HUMANITIES. I think it's about $90. They take films from the UK, transcribe them to NTSC and charge a lot more then if we were in England. But, available. Tom Simone [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Williams Date: Friday, 12 Sep 1997 10:18:10 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0918 Re: Ian McKellen *Macbeth* The McKellen-Dench performance is available for "human" prices only in PAL format. However, if the video is for instructional purposes I believe most good university libraries will convert a PAL to NSTC (I believe that is the term for US format) for the cost of the tape. They retain the original for copyright reasons. We got ours for L 10.95 and got it converted for $5.00. This certainly beats the US rip off companies which seem to exist to sell things to people who are not using personal budgets. William Proctor Williams [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Sunday, 14 Sep 1997 22:55:22 -0400 Subject: Re: Ian McKellen *Macbeth* Thanks to all the many people who responded to my request for info about the availability of the Nunn/McKellen/Dench *Macbeth*. Does anyone know if there is a VCR available-at a reasonable price-that can play British tapes? Joanna Walen points out, "If you can run the British video system, the RSC has the tape available for #10.99, or about $18-19." That's considerably less than the prices quoted from FFH and the Writing Co. Thanks again, Bernice W. Kliman ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 11:26:13 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0928 Announcements MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0928. Monday, 15 September 1997. [1] From: Curt L. Tofteland Date: Friday, 12 Sep 1997 09:40:24 -0400 (EDT) Subj: STAA [2] From: Harry Hill Date: Saturday, 13 Sep 1997 07:57:47 +0000 (HELP) Subj: The Original Shakespeare Company [3] From: Harry Hill Date: Saturday, 13 Sep 1997 08:30:41 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Moscow Arts Take on WT, A&C and Hamlet [4] From: Tim Richards Date: Sunday, 14 Sep 1997 09:02:52 +0800 Subj: Aboriginal Dream [5] From: Diane Campbell Date: Sunday, 14 Sep 1997 14:38:55 -0800 Subj: A Noise Within Theatre Company [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Curt L. Tofteland Date: Friday, 12 Sep 1997 09:40:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: STAA Greetings & Salutations, The Shakespeare Theatre Association of America was established to provide a forum for the artistic and managerial leadership of theatres whose central activity is the production of Shakespeare's plays; to discuss issues and share methods of work, resources, and information; and to act as an advocate for Shakespearian productions and training in the United States. If you are a member of a theatre or a group which performs the works of William Shakespeare, we invite you to join the membership (currently 50 theatres) of STAA. Founded in 1990, STAA is a diverse group of theatres with one uniting passion---the plays of William Shakespeare. Once a year we get together for a three day conference hosted by one of our membership. The planning for the 1998 STAA annual conference, January 8 - 10, hosted by the Georgia Shakespeare Festival in Atlanta is in full swing. I am very excited by the new format and the content of the panels & workshops. We will also have rooms reserved for breakout sessions during each of the three days. These breakout sessions can be focused around a topic or issue which comes up during the day and that a group of people would like to explore. Here is a teaser of some of the panels we are working on . . . Day One: Thursday, January 8th --- Education & Marketing Issues Education Theme: Developing a vital integration between education and the overall artistic mission of the organization. New, Daring, Innovative, Outrageous, & Successful Education Programs Successful Intern & Apprentice Programs Successful Techniques for the Continued Education of the Older Generation: Actors, Directors, Designers, Technicians, Administrators, and Audiences Marketing Theme: Marketing Shakespeare New, Daring, Innovative, Outrageous, & Successful Techniques for Marketing Shakespeare Day Two: Friday, January 9th --- Artistic Issues Artistic Theme: Give the people what they want or what they need? A Keynote Speaker --- Artistic Vision at the End of the 20TH Century/Is Shakespearian Theatre A Vehicle for Social Change? One Play Focus Festivals Sharing A Production --- A Case Study: Colorado Shakespeare Festival & Georgia Shakespeare Festival Passing & Receiving the Mantle of Artistic Leadership New Acting & Rehearsal Techniques Evening Performance Event & Cocktail Reception with the Board of Directors of the Georgia Shakespeare Festival Day Three: Saturday, January 10th --- Management Issues Management Theme: Can Art Pay More of its Own Way? A Keynote Speaker --- Applying Successful Techniques used in the Profit Driven world to the Not-for-Profit World Common Mistakes Every Managing Director Makes Crucial Board of Director Tips for the Savvy Managing Director BREAKOUT SESSIONS: - Academic & Shakespeare Festival Relationship I think you will agree that we have some exciting topics. We need your membership, attendance, and participation to keep STAA a viable organization. The membership dues are exceedingly cheap --- $100.00 per year. This allows even the smallest theatre or group to join. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me immediately (e-mail: tofter@aol.com or phone: 502/583-8738 or fax: 502/583-8751). I hope to see you in Atlanta . . . Warmest Regards, Curt L. Tofteland, President of Shakespeare Theatre Association of America Producing Director of Kentucky Shakespeare Festival [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Saturday, 13 Sep 1997 07:57:47 +0000 (HELP) Subject: The Original Shakespeare Company Louis Hancock, one of the founding members of Patrick Tucker's *Original Shakespeare Company* who performed this month at the new Globe, will be repeating his lecture and workshop on directions contained in the Folio texts for my class at Concordia University in Montreal in the latter part of October. Should anyone here be interested in engaging his services and hearing him talk about the relationship between script and movement as well as `interpretation', feel free to e-mail me at the above address. The sooner the likelier, of course. Harry Hill [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Saturday, 13 Sep 1997 08:30:41 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Moscow Arts Take on WT, A&C and Hamlet Alexander Marin from the M.A.T. will be addressing my Shakespeare class at Concordia in Montreal at the end of October. He has directed both *Winter's Tale* and *Antony and Cleopatra* for the Centaur Theatre here in Montreal, in very physical productions. As I am teaching *Hamlet* in the first half of this semester, he has agreed to discuss his postmodern approaches to this play too. He is a vivacious and eccentric young Russian man of the theatre, dedicated to the visual clarification of problematic textual moments, who receives consistently high and detailed praise from press and casts. Anyone on this list who might be interested in engaging him for similar classes might consider contacting me at the above address. Harry Hill Montreal [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Richards Date: Sunday, 14 Sep 1997 09:02:52 +0800 Subject: Aboriginal Dream I've just seen an item on our TV news in Australia about an all-Aboriginal production of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' which is to be performed as part of the next Festival of the Dreaming (an Aboriginal arts festival). They showed some film of the production, which looked quite interesting. It uses the usual text but with Aboriginal motifs in the set and costume design; one scene showed a character (not sure who) emerging from a giant Waratah, a native flower. I'll keep an eye out for further news of this production and post some comments here. Tim Richards. [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Diane Campbell Date: Sunday, 14 Sep 1997 14:38:55 -0800 Subject: A Noise Within Theatre Company A Noise Within theatre company, based in Glendale California, begins their 97-98 repertory season on September 19. Playing in rotating repertory during the winter half of the season are: King Richard III by William Shakespeare Sept 19-Nov 16, Design For Living by Noel Coward Oct 3-Nov 23, and The Learned Ladies by Moliere Oct 24-Nov 30. For the Holiday season A Noise Within will be reviving their production of Great Expectations by Charles Dickens Dec 4-21. A Noise Within is a 145 seat house located in downtown Glendale. For tickets and information please call 818-546-1924. Diane Campbell keltoi@net999.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 11:33:01 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0929 Re: New Globe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0929. Monday, 15 September 1997. [1] From: Suzanne Westfall Date: Friday, 12 Sep 1997 09:47:21 -0500 (CDT) Subj: RE: SHK 8.0913 Re: New Globe [2] From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Friday, 12 Sep 1997 12:48:22 CST6CDT Subj: SHK 8.0923 Re: New Globe [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Suzanne Westfall Date: Friday, 12 Sep 1997 09:47:21 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: SHK 8.0913 Re: New Globe In support of Norm Holland's response to the Hermione/bear transformation, I offer the quip rewriting Shax's famous stage direction, which I overheard from my (yes VERY uncomfortable) seat: "Exit Antigonus, chased by HER MOTHER???" Seemed to sum up the wrongheaded direction of all of WINTER'S TALE, though I do agree that the actor playing Autolycus (Nicholas Le Prevost) gave an inspiring and thought-provoking performance. Zanne [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Friday, 12 Sep 1997 12:48:22 CST6CDT Subject: SHK 8.0923 Re: New Globe Just a heartfelt thanks to Bill Godshalk, Jimmy Jung, and everyone who's posted about the productions at the New Globe. For those of us who can only travel in our imaginations, these reports are a godsend. I'll reciprocate later this season when the Guthrie stages _Much Ado_ and Theatre de la Jeune Lune (my favorite local theater company, but one that has only rarely does Shakespeare) produces _Twelfth Night_. Chris Gordon, still waiting for an unexpected inheritance in Minneapolis so she can spend her days traveling the world to see Shakespeare productions ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 11:45:24 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0930 Re: Locations; CSF; Scene; PAL MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0930. Monday, 15 September 1997. [1] From: Ian Munro Date: Friday, 12 Sep 1997 12:50:50 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0919 Play Locations [2] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 12 Sep 1997 15:03:40 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0921 CSF Hamlet (Again) [3] From: Larry Weiss Date: Friday, 12 Sep 1997 19:16:24 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0914 Scene for 1 m, 1f [4] From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Tuesday, 16 Sep 1997 01:10:44 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0927 Re: PAL and NTSC [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ian Munro Date: Friday, 12 Sep 1997 12:50:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0919 Play Locations > Have been trying to find work recently on the significance of "place" in > early modern drama. I know, for example, that Italy was considered the > home of all things nefarious and naughty, but was wondering if we could > be more specific. Would there be any reasons why a play would be set > in, say, Florence rather than Venice, Naples rather than Bologna? It doesn't have an Italian focus, but you might want to look at Leah Marcus's _Puzzling Shakespeare_, which explores the relationship between Vienna and London as settings (one stated, one implied) for _Measure for Measure_. Another interesting example is Ben Jonson's rewriting of _Every Man in his Humour_, which had a nominal Florentine setting before he changed it to a London comedy. Ian Munro [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 12 Sep 1997 15:03:40 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0921 CSF Hamlet (Again) I'd like to update my previous posting. The director of the CSF Hamlet is Jasson Minadakis, and the show is still in rehearsal and still evolving. Jasson sees the action of Hamlet as purgatorial (or purgative, if you wish) for the ghost of the old king. Hamlet senior asks for revenge, and instead he has to witness the demise of his entire family and the loss of his kingdom to his former enemy's son, young Fortinbras. (I compare The Spanish Tragedy where the ghost of Andrea must witness scenes that wrench his emotions.) And as of last night, the ghost of old King Hamlet does return in the final scene of this production. And, yes, there is no textual reason to bring him back, but the logic of this production seems to require it! Yours, Bill Godshalk [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss Date: Friday, 12 Sep 1997 19:16:24 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0914 Scene for 1 m, 1f Shaula Evans asked for: > Any suggestions for a 10-20 min scene, that works outside the > context of the play, for 1 male and 1 female player, each c. 40 y.o. I am astounded that no one suggested Mac I.vii Larry Weiss [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Tuesday, 16 Sep 1997 01:10:44 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0927 Re: PAL and NTSC In response to Bernice, In Australia now almost every reasonable VCR on sale (i.e. not the real bargain basement stuff but everything else) can play PAL, NTSC and Secam (the French system). This versatility seems to be less the case with machines on sale in the US from what I'm told, but at least one friend of mine in the US has bought a machine which can play PAL. It is possible. All the best, Adrian ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 11:51:28 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0931 Re: CHARACTR BIBLIO and SPINOFF BIBLIO MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0931. Monday, 15 September 1997. [1] From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Friday, 12 Sep 97 10:11:00 PDT Subj: Shakespearean Fiction [2] From: Andreas Schlenger Date: Monday, 15 Sep 1997 16:04:10 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0924 CHARACTR BIBLIO and SPINOFF BIBLIO [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Georgianna Ziegler Date: Friday, 12 Sep 97 10:11:00 PDT Subject: Shakespearean Fiction Werner Habicht's contribution leads me to mention that a new anthology has just appeared: "Shakespeare's Other Lives: An Anthology of Fictional Depictions of the Bard," ed. by Maurice J. O'Sullivan. Jefferson: McFarland, 1997. 223 pages. Cloth. List price, $39.95. I fully concur with Hardy that it would be wonderful for a couple of SHAKSPERIANS out there to volunteer a face-lift for those important lists of spinoffs about Shakespeare. Georgianna Ziegler Reference - Folger Library ziegler@folger.edu [Editor's Note: Christine Mack Gordon has volunteered. -HMC] [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andreas Schlenger Date: Monday, 15 Sep 1997 16:04:10 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0924 CHARACTR BIBLIO and SPINOFF BIBLIO May I add one very peculiar example of "fictional biography" to Prof. Habichts elaborate list: Terry Pratchett, Wyrd Sisters (1989). Here a dwarf named Hwel appears, who has unmistakable features of the Bard himself, writing for a theatre company in Ankh-Morpork, the discworlds capital, while they are building a theatre appropriately called "The Dysk". The have a young actor in their company who bears resemblance to Hamlet and Henry V, since his father was killed in circumstances reminiscent of _Macbeth_. I would have added this piece of writing earlier, but was not sure whether it belongs into the "character" or the "spinoff" list. Which reminds me: Is there a kind of taxonomy at all for fictional biographies? Something to tell facts from fantasy? Yours, Andreas ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 09:40:13 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0932 Re: Web Crit; PAL; Spinoffs; Locations MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0932. Tuesday, 16 September 1997. [1] From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, 15 Sep 1997 14:46:17 -0400 Subj: Re: Criticism on the Web [2] From: Stephen Orgel Date: Monday, 15 Sep 1997 09:13:01 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0927 Re: Ian McKellen *Macbeth* [3] From: Joanne Rochester Date: Monday, 15 Sep 1997 12:42:31 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0931 Re: CHARACTR BIBLIO and SPINOFF BIBLIO [4] From: Michele Marrapodi Date: Tuesday, 16 Sep 1997 11:07:50 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0919 Play Locations [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, 15 Sep 1997 14:46:17 -0400 Subject: Re: Criticism on the Web Mike Sirofchuck makes a point about the opportunities on the web to plagiarise information or whole essays. I don't think I participated in the discussion of plagiarism last year so would like to share a strategy I have used since before word processing was common . I expect students to hand in rough notes and at least two drafts of an essay. As far as I know it is not possible to buy the raw research and it is very difficult indeed (and not worth it) to try to fake rough notes and earlier drafts. Students with computer note books are told to print their rough notes and those with access to word processors (their own or in computer labs) are told to print every draft. As far as I can see, this strategy works against all but the 'friend' who supplies both essay and notes. I agree that forceful cautions about the web as source - plus supplying samples of good sites - is now part of teaching Shakespeare. Mary Jane Miller, Director of Dramatic Literature, Drama in Education and Theatre Studies Dept. of Film Studies, Dramatic and Visual Arts, Brock University [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Orgel Date: Monday, 15 Sep 1997 09:13:01 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0927 Re: Ian McKellen *Macbeth* Re Bernice Kliman's question about universal VCRs, I believe the only one available in the US that plays both PAL and NTSC (and Secam, which only the French use) is made by AIWA; the new model, HV-MX1, which we got this year, is really excellent, though pricy: lists at $699. This is, however, significantly better than the previous model-the European tapes look quite beautiful. Alternatively, many photo-processing places will convert tapes from PAL to NTSC, and this isn't at all expensive. Cheers, S. Orgel [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Rochester Date: Monday, 15 Sep 1997 12:42:31 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0931 Re: CHARACTR BIBLIO and SPINOFF BIBLIO > May I add one very peculiar example of "fictional biography" to Prof. > Habichts elaborate list: > > Terry Pratchett, Wyrd Sisters (1989). > > Here a dwarf named Hwel appears, who has unmistakable features of the > Bard himself, writing for a theatre company in Ankh-Morpork, the > discworlds capital, while they are building a theatre appropriately > called "The Dysk". The have a young actor in their company who bears > resemblance to Hamlet and Henry V, since his father was killed in > circumstances reminiscent of _Macbeth_. This is not an instance of fictional biography, but it is a spinoff of sorts. Terry Pratchett also makes reference to _Midsummer Night's Dream_ in his _Lords and Ladies_ (wherein the Diskworld is invaded by elves). A group of Ramtops villagers (rude mechanicals, in the fullest sense of the term) put on an unnamed "entertainment" which contains a number of references to asses heads, walls, and bottoms. It is performed in celebration of the wedding of King Verance III to Magrat Garlack, local witch, and is instrumental in opening the portal between the Diskworld and the realm of the Elves. Pratchett does this to a number of authors, so Shakespearians should not feel particularly offended. joanne rochester [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michele Marrapodi Date: Tuesday, 16 Sep 1997 11:07:50 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0919 Play Locations > Have been trying to find work recently on the significance of "place" in > early modern drama. I know, for example, that Italy was considered the > home of all things nefarious and naughty, but was wondering if we could > be more specific. Would there be any reasons why a play would be set > in, say, Florence rather than Venice, Naples rather than Bologna? One reason (indeed more than one) for the dramatic use of Italian locations or for stage topography in general may be found in _Shakespeare's Italy: Functions of Italian Locations in Renaissance Drama_, ed. Michele Marrapodi, A. J. Hoenselaars, Marcello Cappuzzo and Lino Falzon Santucci (Manchester: M. U. P., 1993). A revised paperback edition of this volume is scheduled for October 1997. Michele Marrapodi University of Palermo ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 09:43:15 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0933 F. Owen Chambers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0933. Tuesday, 16 September 1997. From: Edna Z. Boris <104757.652@compuserve.com> Date: Tuesday, 16 Sep 1997 08:25:47 -0400 Subject: F. Owen Chambers Does anyone know anything about F. Owen Chambers? His Hamlet promptbook for a 1900 production (Shattuck 129) in the Shakespeare Centre collection does some interesting things with "To be" and the nunnery scene. Aside from a few mentions in Shattuck, however, we were unable to find out anything about him. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:23:12 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0934 Re: F. Owen Chambers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0934. Wednesday, 17 September 1997. From: Louis C Swilley Date: Tuesdayy, 16 Sep 1997 09:25:27 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0933 F. Owen Chambers > Does anyone know anything about F. Owen Chambers? His Hamlet promptbook > for a 1900 production (Shattuck 129) in the Shakespeare Centre > collection does some interesting things with "To be" and the nunnery > scene. Aside from a few mentions in Shattuck, however, we were unable > to find out anything about him. Heavens! Don't keep us in suspense. Tell us, please, of the interesting things Chambers does with the "To be" speech and the nunnery scene. (Sorry, I can't help with the Chambers search you pursue.) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:25:48 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0935 Re: Spinoffs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0935. Wednesday, 17 September 1997. From: Hugh Howard Davis Date: Tuesday, 16 Sep 1997 22:34:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0932 Re: Spinoffs > This is not an instance of fictional biography, but it is a spinoff of > sorts. > > Terry Pratchett also makes reference to _Midsummer Night's Dream_ in his > _Lords and Ladies_ (wherein the Diskworld is invaded by elves). A group > of Ramtops villagers (rude mechanicals, in the fullest sense of the > term) put on an unnamed "entertainment" which contains a number of > references to asses heads, walls, and bottoms. It is performed in > celebration of the wedding of King Verance III to Magrat Garlack, local > witch, and is instrumental in opening the portal between the Diskworld > and the realm of the Elves. > > Pratchett does this to a number of authors, so Shakespearians should not > feel particularly offended. > > joanne rochester In _Good Omens_, by Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, reference is made to the rare "lost quartos" of Shakespeare, the three plays never reissued in folio and now lost to scholars: _The Comedie of Robin Hoode, or, The Forest of Sherwoode_, _The Trapping of the Mouse_, and _Gold Diggers of 1589_. --Hugh Davis ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:32:04 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0936 THE TEMPEST: an opera on NPR and WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0936. Wednesday, 17 September 1997. From: Mark Shulgasser Date: Tuesday, 16 Sep 1997 21:41:49 -0500 Subject: THE TEMPEST: an opera on NPR and WWW The Dallas Opera's production of Lee Hoiby's THE TEMPEST will be broadcast on NPR World of Opera on September 20, 1997 at 1:30 pm EST, and simultaneously, the libretto will be posted on G. Schirmer's web site. The web address is: http://www. schirmer. com/Tempest The libretto is up now, and will stay up through December. Both G. Schirmer and World of Opera are excited about this experiment. World of Opera thinks it may be a good thing to do for all their broadcasts. G. Schirmer has some trepidations over copyright issues but feels that the possibilities for promoting the opera were overridingly important. Moreover, it would seem the publisher's duty to provide the libretto in conjunction with any hearing of the work, when possible. Unfortunately, different local stations may broadcast the performance any time during the two week period following the feed. However most stations that carry will broadcast at feed-time, the same time as the live Metropolitan Opera broadcasts which World of Opera replaces in off-season. Many of the larger NPR stations are apparently happy to give opera a breather when the Met season ends. Nevertheless, NPR World of Opera has a large listenership all over the country. For further info feel free to contact me MARK SHULGASSER, librettist THE TEMPEST music by LEE HOIBY libretto after Shakespeare by Mark Shulgasser Dallas Opera came up with a winner in Lee Hoiby's mysteriously neglected 1986 The Tempest. . . a beautifully written modern masterpiece . . . Caliban's Act II "Be not afeard" may be the most beautiful aria written into an opera for nearly fifty years. OPERA NEWS (1996) Most of the principle roles have arias that are full of character and even haunting. There are extended moments of uncommon poignancy . . . and so many other moments are superbly singable and downright beautiful. CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Hoiby has fitted the work with advanced tonal harmonies, fascinating timbres, effective recitative and silken lyricism. His expressive range is complete, and from the tempestuous orchestral prelude to the transcending lyricism of Caliban's aria, "Be not afeard", his music continually heightens and colors the story. L'OPERA (Italy) Hoiby's unabashedly extravagant spectacle attests to the composer's passion for the genre and courage to preserve its cherished traditions. OPERA NEWS (1986) Where others have failed, Hoiby has suceeded. DES MOINES REGISTER A 3 1/2 hour evening at the theatre both memorable and all-too-short. OPERA CANADA . . . a lushly melodious, dramatically cogent setting of Shakespeare's lyric fantasy, a work of style and substance that ought, if there is any sense at all to the byzantine world of opera companies, to enter the repertoire and remain there. KANSAS CITY STAR The music began with orchestral sounds redolent of Das Rheingold and contained many moments when the influence of Richard Strauss was apparent. Even so the music was melodically, harmonically and musically pure Hoiby. OPERA (London) Mr. Hoiby writes as beautifully for three female voices as Richard Strauss (a major influence throughout) does in "Der Rosenkavalier". WALL STREET JOURNAL The real star of the show is Hoiby's music, always beautifully and colorfully orchestrated around a constant flow of melody. FORT WORTH STAR TELEGRAM The prelude to the opera is ... worthy of joining the renowned musical storms of Verdi and Rossini. . . . .The masque for Miranda's wedding is of such glowing warmth and power that it is often performed separately from the opera. NOTES The obvious complaint against Hoiby's music is his seemingly blissful refusal to acknowledge the very existence of musical Modernism. NEW YORK TIMES published by G. Schirmer, Inc. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:11:00 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0937 Re: McKellen Mac; New Globe; Spinoffs; Web Crit MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0937. Thursday, 18 September 1997. [1] From: Terry Craig Date: Wednesday, 17 Sep 1997 09:10:16 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Ian McKellen Macbeth [2] From: Franklin J. Hildy Date: Wednesday, 17 Sep 1997 18:13:07 -0400 Subj: New Globe [3] From: Matthew Gretzinger Date: Wednesday, 17 Sep 1997 10:41:07 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0935 Re: Spinoffs [4] From: Ron Ward Date: Thursday, 18 Sep 1997 21:29:59 +1200 (NZST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0916 Re: Criticism on the Web [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry Craig Date: Wednesday, 17 Sep 1997 09:10:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Ian McKellen Macbeth Anyone interested in the Ian McKellen *Macbeth* might try The Continental Shop in Santa Monica. Their catalog lists the film at $39.90 and I believe it's ready to play on American video systems (NTSC). Address and Phone: The Continental Shop 1619 Wilshire Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90403 (310)-453-8655 [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Franklin J. Hildy Date: Wednesday, 17 Sep 1997 18:13:07 -0400 Subject: New Globe It seems that many of us saw the same production at the new Globe this summer. For those of you who could not make it over there, do check out "Henry V at the Globe" which will be broadcast on PBS on Nov 5th as part of the Great Performances series. Let me add my voice to those who have noted that Mark Rylance did not direct the shows done at the Globe and is not directly responsible for their short comings. He did select the directors but his choices were rather limited for a variety of reasons. Like many of you on the list I was more impressed with the theatre than the productions this summer (enjoyed Henry V very much, found Winter's Tale embarrassing) but as one of those who worked on this project for the last 13 years I must say this was only to be expected. William Poel and Nugent Monck, the two men who blazed the trail in rediscovering Elizabethan staging conventions early in this century, always said they worked with armatures because professional actors were too set in their ways to be able to quickly adapt to the demands of this very different approach to performance. We saw this in the workshop season of 1995, in the prologue season last year, and in the shows this summer. But the more experienced the actors get with this space the better they are at using it and I understand from those who saw the productions in the final week of the run that they were much better by that time than they had been in June. Ironically there are probably a lot more actors in America who would understand how to use the Globe than there are in England but the real problem is the directors who still think in terms of proscenium arch theatre and TV frames and still refuse to allow anyone to help them with understanding the special qualities of that dynamic building. If you saw Damon and Pythias last year you know how successful a show can be when the director(Gaynor Macfarlane) consulted with someone who had a solid understanding of the building-in this case Rosalind King, who had been part of the 1995 Workshop Season. I hope Ms Macfarlane will be invited back again. By contrast, the director of Two Gents last year and the director of Winter's Tale this year were not receptive to assistance from those who understood the building and chose rather to embark on self indulgent rehearsal techniques that did not serve the actors in preparing them to take the stage in this building. They did their actors a disservice and I hope they will not be asked to work at the Globe again. The director of Henry V, Richard Olivier, did make an honest effort to understand the unique characteristics of the Globe and while I did not agree with his interpretation of the play there was clearly a keen intelligence at work in this production. Olivier seems to have understood that this was a laboratory that needed to be experimented with, not just another theatre like the Barbican or Drury Lane. I hope he will be back in the future. Modern designers are also a problem in this space. They are not use to factoring the decoration of a theatre when they conceive of their design. Henry V designer, Jenny Tiramani seems to really understand the nature of the work being attempted at the Globe and she is Mark Rylance's great find for the company. They designer for Winter's Tale, on the other hand, just didn't get it. He knew what the building would look like but seem to have had no clue as to how that would impact his design. It would have looked great at the Barbican Pit but at the Globe it just looked silly-one friend commented that the designer thought this was "Leontes,Prince of Tires," but you had to see all the steel belted radials on stage to get the joke. All those involved are learning and the more they learn the better they will get at using this stage-this was always the plan of the project. Globe performances are very different form those in the West End but I like the experience of going to the Globe and would not miss it. Standing seems to be the best way to experience these shows and for those who do not like the benches may I suggest the Gentlemen's Rooms-there are chairs there. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Gretzinger Date: Wednesday, 17 Sep 1997 10:41:07 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0935 Re: Spinoffs >In _Good Omens_, by Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, reference is made to the >rare "lost quartos" of Shakespeare, the three plays never reissued in >folio and now lost to scholars: _The Comedie of Robin Hoode, or, The >Forest of Sherwoode_, _The Trapping of the Mouse_, and _Gold Diggers of >1589_. In reference to Gaiman, I'd like to add _The Tempest_ issue of Sandman Comics, and an issue of the series "The Doll's House," in which Shakespeare figures briefly as a character "who'd bargain, like Kit's Faustus," for the "boon" of being able to write well. There's also _A Midsummer Night's Dream_, in which Oberon, Titania and the fairies watch a performance of the play in which (I think) W. S. himself takes a part. [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Ward Date: Thursday, 18 Sep 1997 21:29:59 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0916 Re: Criticism on the Web Billy Houck says > >What we need to do is teach our students to know crap when they read it. That requires thinking about. The expression is too loose to be sure whether his intention is to tell student what crap is and make sure they follow his guide lines. The faculty of good taste can not be taught. It is a part of an adult awareness, but can be covered over by rubbish acquired in many ways. So in a way you need to unlearn bad habits not learn new ones. That is an alternative view anyway. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:15:42 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0938 Qs: Helena's Entrance; A Midsummer Night Night's Wet Dream MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0938. Thursday, 18 September 1997. [1] From: Ed Pixley Date: Wednesday, 17 Sep 1997 12:45:05 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Helena's Entrance [2] From: Richard A Burt Date: Wednesday, 17 Sep 1997 15:38:44 -0400 (EDT) Subj: A Midsummer Night Night's Wet Dream [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pixley Date: Wednesday, 17 Sep 1997 12:45:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Helena's Entrance Last night, as my cast and I began text work for our upcoming production of MND, using the New Folger as our basic script, we were surprised by the gloss on Helena's entrance (I.1.183). Lysander announces the entrance: "Look, here comes Helena." Hermia has the next line, "Godspeed, fair Helena. Whither away?" The Folger glosses "Godspeed" as "a conventional greeting." Since Helena does make an entrance and since Lysander even announces her entrance, a greeting would seem to be in order. One of my undergraduates, however, challenged that, pointing out that "Godspeed" is usually a shortened way of saying "God speed you on your way," a farewell rather than a greeting. Moreover, "whither away?" seems to ask "where are you going," not "where are you coming from?" >From this, we concluded that Helena is not coming to join Hermia and Lysander, but is on her way to some other place, and Hermia's line interrupts her in her progress, giving an entirely different dynamic to Helena's first line, "Call you me fair?" She must abandon whatever intention was carrying her to another destination so as to respond to Hermia's perhaps unwelcome adjective. I've checked all the other editions I have on hand and none of them gives any gloss to the line (except to identify Elizabethan perceptions of "fair"). Nevertheless, I couldn't help wondering whether there is an editorial assumption that Helena is making an entrance with the intention of joining Lysander and Hermia. There must be other directors out there who have dealt with this. Does anyone care to respond? Or am I just belaboring the obvious? While I'm at it, Hermia's vow to join Lysander in the woods (in the speech immediately preceding this) is sworn on a series of pretty unreliable things, including "all the vows that men have ever broke." Is she telling him that she is taking an incredible risk in promising to join him-that she is, in fact, really trapped into a situation over which she has no control? Shakespeare's women, with good cause, do not have a lot of confidence in their men's ability to hold up their ends of bargains. Yet over and over again they seem to have little choice but to place themselves at risk on the promises their men have made. Cheers, Ed Pixley [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A Burt Date: Wednesday, 17 Sep 1997 15:38:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: A Midsummer Night Night's Wet Dream Does anyone know anything about the director or production history of a film (on video) called A Midsummer Night's Wet Dream? Does anyone have a copy? Thanks Richard ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 08:36:30 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0939 Re: Chambers; Helena; DC Tempest; Spinoffs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0939. Friday, 19 September 1997. [1] From: Edna Z. Boris <104757.652@compuserve.com> Date: Thursday, 18 Sep 1997 04:30:02 -0400 Subj: F. Owen Chambers [2] From: Roger Gross Date: Thursday, 18 Sep 1997 16:23:24 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0938 Q: Helena's Entrance [3] From: Harry Teplitz Date: Thursday, 18 Sep 1997 16:39:26 -0700 (PDT) Subj: DC Tempest -- another review [4] From: Joanne Gates Date: Thursday, 18 Sep 1997 13:55:06 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Queries on Other Shakespeare Spin-Off Films [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edna Z. Boris <104757.652@compuserve.com> Date: Thursday, 18 Sep 1997 04:30:02 -0400 Subject: F. Owen Chambers To answer Louis Swilley's question about F. Owen Chambers' handling of "To be" and "nunnery," I must first explain that I've been looking for evidence of stagings of Hamlet's monologue with Hamlet shown as aware of the presence of Polonius and Claudius spying on him. If anyone knows of any such productions, PLEASE let me know. Anyway, F. Owen Chambers has Polonius place Ophelia in an Oratory upstage left where there is a book that is chained to a table, and that is the book that she is to look at. The King and Polonius then exit right center and Hamlet immediately enters from left center with a manuscript of the play scene. After the first line, "To be, or not to be, that is the question," the directions say that Hamlet "goes to Curtains C & pulls them aside tosses Ms away to L & comes down to seat R.C." ; then later just after Hamlet asks Ophelia where her father is but before she answers, the directions say that he "looks up & sees Polonius & king disappear behind curtains R. Entrance"-twice Hamlet draws his sword and exits in pursuit of the King & Polonius, the first time at "farewell" and the second time at "a nunnery, go"; his final "To a nunnery go! go! go!" is said with Hamlet standing with sword drawn. Chambers' making Hamlet so active in pulling the curtains aside and in twice drawing his sword and running off stage is different from most other productions I've looked at. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Gross Date: Thursday, 18 Sep 1997 16:23:24 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0938 Q: Helena's Entrance Ed Pixley inquires about Helena's entrance in 1.1. There isn't enough textual info to compel any choice we might make. My choice has always (in 3 productions) been to assume that Helena was looking for Hermia (or perhaps just looking for a good place to cry) when she stumbles upon Hermia and Lysander in the midst of a bit of coochie-coo. She does an abrupt about face, hoping to escape without being seen. But she fails. Roger Gross U. of Arkansas [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Teplitz Date: Thursday, 18 Sep 1997 16:39:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: DC Tempest -- another review I, too, saw both the recent version of the Tempest by the DC Shakespeare theater and their production 7 years ago. My memory of the previous show is a little dim, but from what I recall the new one is much improved. For one thing, they now have the benefit of a much larger and more modern space. The old show was set on a raked stage where the floor had the design of a clock. The library setting this time seems to inform the text more clearly. In fact, the design elements are really the star of the new show. It is a beautiful production, from the sunset lighting of the rear screen to the movable walls of the library. The acting in the show is very good, as is usual for the company. The actor playing Prospero (in both shows) is strong and clear. He is a little reserved for my taste, however, showing only hints of an inner struggle. My major complaint with the show is that I found Prospero's character arc difficult to follow. The events of the play were clear, but not their motivation. Ariel was clever and physical; I agree he was a "Puck-like" spirit. Caliban was intense, though his accent seemed a little unstable. He also suffered from being the centerpiece of a concept that was not fully realized. Stephano and Trinulo steal the show in each of their scenes. The various lords (King of Naples, Duke of Milan, etc. ) are well played but a little indistinct. Their costumes are very similar, as is their bearing, and I wonder if those not familiar with the script can really tell them apart. Conceptually, the show is in a bit of a muddle. As another post mentioned, most of the spirits are played by African-American actors. Certainly the Caliban scenes suggest that this was intended to be an important theme-Caliban is not monstrous, only "primitive". In his final scene, Prospero describes him as deformed, though he is in perfect shape; the scene is staged with Caliban surrounded by fancily dressed white actors, while Ariel watches from the side. I think the show would have done better to go further with the concept or otherwise not bother. One final note-after the breaking of the staff, the stage lights are turned off and the work lights are turned on, eliminating the "magic" or the theater and illuminating some of the audience. I was particularly fond of this effect, having done a similar trick in a production of Hamlet this summer. [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Gates Date: Thursday, 18 Sep 1997 13:55:06 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Queries on Other Shakespeare Spin-Off Films The review of a new Verdi Macbeth in the Wall Street Journal reminded me to ask: PBS aired a spectacular Verdi Macbeth in the early '80s. Scene changes were done as erector-set constructions, magically dissolving and growing, changing dimension. Big duet between Lady Macbeth and Macbeth took place on a human size chess board with her knocking over chess pieces. Does anyone know if this film is available? Also, a "cats" special, I think on A&E gave brief mention to an Italian director who had filmed a Cat version of Romeo & Juliet. He chose for his animal cast a breed of cats that could swim, and there was a brief clip of a white cat plunging into water (the balcony scene??). I'm interested to know if anyone else has heard of such a film. Joanne Gates ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 08:41:38 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0940 Calls for Papers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0940. Friday, 19 September 1997. [1] From: Rachana Sachdev Date: Thursday, 18 Sep 1997 22:11:26 -0400 Subj: CFP: Undergraduate Shakespeare Conference [2] From: Michelle Haslem Date: Friday, 19 Sep 1997 13:14:45 +0000 Subj: CFP: Nature and Artifice in Renaissance Poetry [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rachana Sachdev Date: Thursday, 18 Sep 1997 22:11:26 -0400 Subject: CFP: Undergraduate Shakespeare Conference Call for Papers Undergraduate Shakespeare Conference: Cultural Performances Susquehanna University invites you to send students from a Shakespeare/ Renaissance Drama / Early Modern Literature class to participate in the Third Annual Undergraduate Shakespeare Conference to be held in Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania (about 50 miles north of Harrisburg) on November 21 and 22. Papers, workshop discussions and performances dealing with Romeo and Juliet, A Midsummer Night's Dream, As You Like It, The Merchant of Venice, Othello, King Lear, and Richard III would be especially welcome. We solicit papers dealing with all aspects of these plays, though the main focus of the conference is on live performances (including opera) and films based on Shakespeare's plays. Papers should be about 7-9 pages long (reading time about 15-20 minutes), and should preferably have an interesting or original take on either the plays themselves or the performances. Detailed abstracts of papers will be due by November 7. It is understood that the papers and performances will be largely works in progress. Our main purpose for the conference is to create a greater awareness of the seriousness of all intellectual enterprises. We also hope to establish a community of undergraduate students who are able to converse about academic subjects with increasing excitement, confidence, and fluency. In past years, we have witnessed a dramatic increase in the students' willingness to take themselves and their work seriously as a consequence of the conference. The conference will begin at 2:00 on Friday afternoon, and will include a plenary speaker and some brief live performances by the Theater and Music departments at Susquehanna University on Friday evening. On Saturday, we hope to schedule both regular presentation sessions as well as workshops on individual plays. Workshops will require about 5 minutes of prepared materials by each participant. We will conclude with a post-conference party early Saturday evening, though participants could leave around 4:00 on Saturday. Please announce the conference to your students. For further information, contact Dr. Rachana Sachdev English Department 514 University Avenue Susquehanna University Selinsgrove, PA 17870-1001. Ph: (717) 372-4200 Fax: (717) 372-4310 e-mail: rsachdev@susqu.edu [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michelle Haslem Date: Friday, 19 Sep 1997 13:14:45 +0000 Subject: CFP: Nature and Artifice in Renaissance Poetry Dear Shakespereans, The next meeting of the Northern Renaissance Seminar Group will be at University College Chester on Sat 15th November. Papers of 20-30 mins reading time are still welcome on the subject of Nature and Artifice in Renaissance Poetry - submit a short abstract by email or by post to the address below. Anyone wishing to attend can contact us for further info. Michelle Haslem mhaslem@chester.ac.uk or Graham Atkin c/o English Dept University College Chester Cheyney Road CHESTER========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 08:43:23 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0941 Re: Helena's Entrance MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0941. Monday, 22 September 1997. [1] From: David M Richman Date: Friday, 19 Sep 1997 12:10:07 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0938 Q: Helena's Entrance [2] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 19 Sep 1997 16:34:17 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0939 Re: Helena [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Friday, 19 Sep 1997 12:10:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0938 Q: Helena's Entrance "My legs are longer though to run away." (Quoting from memory). We staged Helena as always running; always in pursuit, or pursued. For her first entrance, she was running in pursuit of Demetrius. (She didn't know where he was. Hermia's line stopped her. There are, of course, myriad ways to stage this entrance. Good luck. David Richman [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 19 Sep 1997 16:34:17 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0939 Re: Helena Roger Gross writes: >There isn't enough textual info to compel any choice we might make. My >choice has always (in 3 productions) been to assume that Helena was >looking for Hermia (or perhaps just looking for a good place to cry) >when she stumbles upon Hermia and Lysander in the midst of a bit of >coochie-coo. She does an abrupt about face, hoping to escape without >being seen. But she fails. In Q, though not in F, Helena enters with Egeus, Hermia, Lysander, and Demetrius in the play's first scene (TLN 24). No exit is marked-which isn't that unusual. So she may exit almost anytime and then return. But is it possible that she lurks around the borders of the scene until she is spotted by Lysander and greeted by Hermia (TLN 190-192)? Perhaps she is leaving the scene when she is stopped. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:00:09 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0942 Qs: Devils and Witches; Tmp Opera; Changling Video MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0942. Monday, 22 September 1997. [1] From: John Cox Date: Saturday, 20 Sep 1997 10:51:18 -0400 Subj: Devils and Witches [2] From: Stephen Orgel Date: Sunday, 21 Sep 1997 22:05:02 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0936 THE TEMPEST: an opera on NPR and WWW [3] From: Peter L Groves Date: Monday, 22 Sep 1997 18:28:09 +0000 Subj: Video [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cox Date: Saturday, 20 Sep 1997 10:51:18 -0400 Subject: Devils and Witches On a posting to PERFORM four years ago, Meg Twycross did some thinking out loud about witches in early English drama. She could not think of any before the 1590s. Continuing her thoughts, I wonder if that makes Shakespeare's Joan la Pucelle the first witch on the English stage. Can anyone verify that? If Joan is the first, then she is doubly striking because of her explicit pact with devils. Keith Thomas points out that witchcraft was identified in the popular mind with *maleficium*, i.e., mischief to neighbors, not with a pact with the devil, which was a continental notion and did not enter the English legal and judicial record until after the act of 1604. If Thomas is right, then Joan is quite an innovation-not only the first witch on the English stage but also the first English witch of any kind who is associated with the continental idea of a pact with the devil. As I've mentioned before, I'm writing a history of devils on the English stage, so this kind of detail is important to me, and I'd be grateful for any response. Thanks in advance, John Cox [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Orgel Date: Sunday, 21 Sep 1997 22:05:02 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0936 THE TEMPEST: an opera on NPR and WWW Pure frustration: there are two NPR stations in the San Francisco area, but neither is classical-music-friendly, the Berkeley station is too flaky to bother with an opera of The Tempest, and the Sacramento station, which broadcasts the Met, didn't do the Dallas Tempest this weekend-anyway, it doesn't come in clearly enough way down here. (We get our Met broadcasts on a commercial station.) SO: did anyone tape Hoiby's Tempest who would be willing to copy it for me, or loan it to me to make a copy of? I hasten to assure Mark Shulgasser that I have no commercial intentions whatever; I just want to hear the piece. Eagerly awaiting, etc. S. Orgel [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter L Groves Date: Monday, 22 Sep 1997 18:28:09 +0000 Subject: Video I realise this query isn't strictly Shakespearean, but SHAKSPER seems like the best place to ask. About 20-25 years ago there was a splendid version of shown on British TV (ITV, I think), with Helen Mirren as Beatrice-Joanna and Stanley Baker as DeFlores. Does anybody have any idea whether this is available on video (and if so, where)? Peter Groves, Monash University ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:11:44 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0943 Re: Web Crit; God Speed; BBC MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0943. Monday, 22 September 1997. [1] From: Peter Nockolds Date: Friday, 19 Sep 1997 09:49:06 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0916 Re: Criticism on the Web [2] From: John Velz Date: Friday, 19 Sep 1997 22:29:08 -0500 (CDT) Subj: GOD SPEED [3] From: Tanya Gough Date: Saturday, 20 Sep 1997 09:06:12 -0400 Subj: BBC Distribution Petition: a Reminder [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Nockolds Date: Friday, 19 Sep 1997 09:49:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0916 Re: Criticism on the Web May I raise the question of plagarism from a different angle? I'd love to share more of my ideas on the net, through papers from my word processor and verbally. I'm not that interested in finding my way into refereed journals, it takes time and effort, and anyway I'd like to retain copyright. My only problem is, how do I establish priority? Sending material to oneself in a registered envelope isn't very foolproof. You would need to show you hadn't tampered with the envelope and you would need reliable witnesses when you opened it. The second and possibly the first of these problems applies to material left in solicitors' safes and in bank vaults. Is there a printed journal, with appropriate circulation, where for a modest sum I could place brief synopses, even keywords, of my findings? Or does anyone have any other suggestions? If there's a solution to this problem it could only increase the amount of good ideas on the web. Peter Nockolds [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Friday, 19 Sep 1997 22:29:08 -0500 (CDT) Subject: GOD SPEED Ed Pixley's student is mistaken about "God speed". It means "may God bring you success" [at whatever you do]. But like "Goodbye", which is from "God be with you," it long before our time lost its original meaning, and is, indeed, in this context just what the Folger edn. says it is: "a conventional greeting" Tell your student to look at a concordance to Shak. and note that many of the "speed"s clearly mean "succeed". Cheers (and good speed) John W. Velz [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tanya Gough Date: Saturday, 20 Sep 1997 09:06:12 -0400 Subject: BBC Distribution Petition: a Reminder For those of you who might have missed my first posting, I am in the middle of composing a petition to BBC to convince them to start distributing their Shakespeare titles for home video use in NTSC format. At the moment, none of their titles are available at a reasonable rate, and I need as many requests for their titles as we can muster. So send me your wish lists (send requests directly to me at yorick@cyg.net ), and spread the word around - the more responses, the more sway we will have as a group. Tell your colleagues, your students, your third cousins-twice-removed. I hope to submit a master list to BBC within the next week or so, and I will be going to NYC in November to follow up. Many thanks to the people who have already submitted their names and titles to the petition. For all of you who made requests for alternate Renaissance titles (i.e., those not specific to Shakespeare), thank you too. Tanya Gough ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:15:39 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0944 Computers & Texts 15 Online & Call for Articles MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0944. Monday, 22 September 1997. From: Mike Fraser Date: Sunday, 21 Sep 1997 12:18:15 -0400 Subject: Computers & Texts 15 Online & Call for Articles I am pleased to announce that Computers & Texts 15 is now available online. Computers & Texts is the journal/newsletter of CTI Textual Studies. The URL is: http://info.ox.ac.uk/ctitext/publish/comtxt/ TABLE OF CONTENTS Michael Fraser, Dearing & IT: Some Reflections Stan Beeler, World Wide Web Teaching in a Northern Environment James Davila, Enoch in Cyberspace Murray Weston, The BUFVC and Legal Deposit Lou Burnard, SGML on the Web: Too Little Too Soon, or Too Much Too Late? Michael Popham, Metadata for Electronic Texts and Linguistic Corpora Jean Chothia, Review: The Arden Shakespeare CD-ROM Tim Unwin, Review: CD-ROM Descartes: Vie, Philosophie et Oeuvre Claire Warwick, Review: The Annotated Bibliography for English Studies COMPUTERS & TEXTS 16: Call for Articles and Reviews Articles and reviews are invited for the next issue of Computers & Texts, the newsletter of CTI Textual Studies. Articles may concern any aspect of the use of computers in the teaching of the disciplines we support (literature in all languages, linguistics, theology, classics, philosophy, film studies, theatre arts and drama). We especially welcome reviews and case studies of computer resources currently being used in the classroom (especially within UK higher education). Reviews of relevant books and conference reports are also welcome. All contributions for Computers & Texts 16 should reach the Centre by November 8th 1997. Submissions may be made by electronic mail to ctitext@oucs.ox.ac.uk or mike.fraser@oucs.ox.ac.uk. Submissions on paper should be sent to the Centre together with an electronic version of the document (and any image files) on a 3.5" disk. Articles should not normally exceed 2,500 words and reviews should be between 800-1,500 words. If you feel it necessary to exceed these limits please contact the Centre prior to submitting your work. Please note that we reserve the right to edit contributions where necessary. Contributions will appear in both the print and electronic editions of Computers & Texts. Sarah Porter CTI Centre for Textual Studies Fax: +44 1865 273 275 Humanities Computing Unit Tel: +44 1865 283 282 University of Oxford Email: ctitext@oucs.ox.ac.uk 13 Banbury Road http://info.ox.ac.uk/ctitext/ Oxford OX2 6NN ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 08:29:21 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0945 Re: Devils and Witches MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0945. Tuesday, 23 September 1997. [1] From: Thomas L. Berger Date: Monday, 22 Sep 1997 09:21:17 EDT Subj: Re: Devils and Witches [2] From: Megan L Isaac Date: Monday, 22 Sep 1997 09:51:05 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0942 Qs: Devils and Witches [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas L. Berger Date: Monday, 22 Sep 1997 09:21:17 EDT Subject: Re: Devils and Witches Concerning devils and witches, might I refer researchers to AN INDEX OF CHARACTERS IN ENGLISH PRINTED DRAMA TO THE RESTORATION? There are "witches" in MOTHER BOMBIE and ALPHONSUS OF ARAGON, both "before" (but just) 2 HENRY VI. There are more devils and demons before 2 HENRY VI too. But see AN INDEX . . . . . [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Megan L Isaac Date: Monday, 22 Sep 1997 09:51:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0942 Qs: Devils and Witches The question of when the first witch makes an appearance on the English stage probably can only be answered by defining the term "witch." In Gammer Gurton's Needle (early 1550s) two old women look suspiciously like the social figures stereotyped as witches. Not only do they use the word "witch" to insult each other, but they are alone, keep cats, are involved in petty battles of revenge, etc. At one point in the play two other characters even attempt to "conjure up a sprite" by drawing a circle in the dirt and reciting a charm. Although these are comedic figures rather than menacing ones, I'd certainly argue that witchcraft was being played at on the stage long before Shakespeare. Megan Isaac ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 08:32:21 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0946 New Electronic Edition of Marlowe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0946. Tuesday, 23 September 1997. From: Greg Crane Date: Monday, 22 Sep 1997 10:13:05 -0400 Subject: New Electronic Edition of Marlowe NEW SITE FOR CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Texts/Marlowe.html Editor: Hilary Binda (hbinda@perseus.tufts.edu) Last spring we released an edition of Doctor Faustus that interlinked the A and the B texts along with the English Faust Book. This month we would like to announce an electronic edition of the rest of Marlowe's works. This edition is of interest, in part, because it collates many earlier editions of the plays: for instance, users may select the 1590 Octavo version of Tamburlaine the Great, Part 1 or view instead Robinson's 1826 collation. By selecting from the pop-up menu above each text, viewers may choose between approximately twenty versions of each of Marlowe's works. We anticipate that every text will be available for viewing with textual variants within the next couple of weeks. PLEASE RE-POST ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 08:39:25 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0948 Re: God Speed and Helena's Entrance MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0948. Tuesday, 23 September 1997. From: Ed Pixley Date: Monday, 22 Sep 1997 15:11:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0943 Re: God Speed > Ed Pixley's student is mistaken about "God speed". It means "may God > bring you success" [at whatever you do]. But like "Goodbye", which is > from "God be with you," it long before our time lost its original > meaning, and is, indeed, in this context just what the Folger edn. says > it is: "a conventional greeting" > > Tell your student to look at a concordance to Shak. and note that many > of the "speed"s clearly mean "succeed". Dear Professor Velz: How gently you lay the fault to my student without attributing the fault to me, where it properly lies. Off-list, James Marino with equal gentleness directed me to OED, which I should, of course, have consulted instead of assuming a definition which I had come by in some long-forgotten circumstances. As one anonymous respondent suggested, however, our audience is more likely to connect to the term as a farewell rather than a greeting, in keeping with modern usage, whether valid or not. Therefore, I am equally grateful to the several imaginative suggestions on staging that came from David Richman, Roger Gross, W. L. Godshalk, and A. J. Koinm. One of the greatest pleasures of producing Shakespeare is in exploring visual possibilities for giving immediacy to the words in the theatre. Thanks for the benefit of your wisdom, Ed Pixley ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 08:36:02 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0947 Qs: Pronunciation of Petruchio; Shakespeare's Vocabulary MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0947. Tuesday, 23 September 1997. [1] From: Kathleen Campbell Date: Monday, 22 Sep 1997 08:36:15 -0600 Subj: Pronunciation of Petruchio [2] From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Monday, 22 Sep 1997 13:19:07 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Shakespeare's Vocabulary [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Campbell Date: Monday, 22 Sep 1997 08:36:15 -0600 Subject: Pronunciation of Petruchio A note following the list of Dramatis Personae in the Arden edition of The Taming of the Shrew states that the name Petruchio should be pronounced with a ch as in the English much, never with a k. The guide to Italian pronunciation I have, provided by a member of our language department, gives only the k pronunciation for the ch in Italian. I've looked at a number of tapes of performances and have heard the k as much or more than the ch. Does anyone know the reason for the insistence on the ch pronunciation? Kathleen Campbell Dept. of Communication Arts Austin College [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Monday, 22 Sep 1997 13:19:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Shakespeare's Vocabulary Can anyone supply me with the approximate number of words in Shakespeare's vocabulary, as evidenced in the extant works? Roger Schmeeckle ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 08:42:21 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0949 BBC tapes are nice, how about the others? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0949. Tuesday, 23 September 1997. From: Abigail Quart Date: Monday, 22 Sep 1997 17:58:43 -0400 Subject: Re: BBC tapes are nice, how about the others? While the petition is circulating to release some of the BBC treasures to videotape, there are some American ones I'd like to free as well: The American Conservatory Theatre production of Taming of the Shrew, starring Marc Singer; and the New York Shakespeare Festival production of Much Ado About Nothing, starring Kathleen Widdoes and Sam Waterston, directed by A.J. Antoon. Both appeared on PBS stations, and Much Ado was also shown on CBS. It's been explained to me that current union contracts prevent release because of compensation agreements, which were scaled for large broadcast release. Is there anyone working to redraw these contracts to include narrowcast release, small sales over longer periods of time? We have the technology to allow collectors to possess every Hamlet of their generation, but contracts don't reflect the existence of that market. Is it possible (I've been told it isn't, but I'm asking again) for regional theatres to eventually at least partially endow themselves with a library of their past productions (like MGM, for instance) available on tape? Is it possible for regionals to share their productions with the nation or the world, through, say, videotape clubs? (Last week, a friend in Britain saw a regional Measure for Measure I would eat bricks to have seen.) Is it possible for a New Yorker or a New Zealander to see a season at the Guthrie without leaving home? Technically, it now is. So, why can't we? Authors get small royalties because they expect their books to bring in money over years and years. Theatrical productions have many people to compensate immediately at much higher rates because productions are considered to have short-term appeal. Also, the initial outlay for physically taping, re-rehearsing, and restaging the production for quality release is considered prohibitive. The electric tension between audience and actors can never be equaled or even approximated by tape. But a performance, a turn of phrase, the staging of difficult business, can be enjoyed. Right now, only places like the Lincoln Center Library for the Performing Arts maintain such tapes, for scholarly viewing. Isn't something more possible, if we try? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:02:24 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0950 Re: BBC tapes are nice, how about MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0950. Wednesday, 24 September 1997. [1] From: Jeffrey Myers Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 09:25:11 -0400 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0949 BBC tapes are nice, how about the others? [2] From: Tanya Gough Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 10:03:18 -0400 Subj: BBC and Beyond [3] From: Ed Pixley Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 11:10:48 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0949 BBC tapes are nice, how about the others? [4] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 12:43:18 -0400 Subj: SHK 8: 0949 Tapes [5] From: Mike Jensen Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 18:14:08 +0100 Subj: SHK 8.0949 BBC tapes are nice, how about the others? [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeffrey Myers Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 09:25:11 -0400 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0949 BBC tapes are nice, how about the others? >the New York Shakespeare Festival production > of Much Ado About Nothing, starring Kathleen Widdoes and Sam Waterston, > directed by A.J. Antoon. Both appeared on PBS stations, and Much Ado was > also shown on CBS. My favorite production of my favorite play, probably the reason I'm a Shakespearean today (don't hold that against it). When I tried to get it from NYSF for my class, I was told there was only one print, in very bad shape that could be rented for an outrageous fee, but they wouldn't guarantee it would last an entire showing. When I asked why they didn't just sell it on videotape, I was told they were afraid of piracy. They really sounded like a bunch of paranoids that couldn't be bothered with the public. Jeff Myers [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tanya Gough Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 10:03:18 -0400 Subject: BBC and Beyond Abigail Quart wrote: >Is it possible (I've been told it isn't, but I'm asking again) for >regional theatres to eventually at least partially endow themselves with >a library of their past productions (like MGM, for instance) available >on tape? This is precisely what I hope to accomplish. I'm starting with the BBC because their tapes represent what I consider to be the foundation of modern Shakespeare classroom work and the series covers the largest range of Shakespeare's plays. I plan to work on the Papp (New York Shakespeare Theatre) productions next. Both of these projects require a large support base to give the rights owners a reason to listen, but at the same time, I have been and continue to solicit regional theatres for their own videotaped productions for exactly the reason Ms. Quart desires. Anyone who can assist me or who has legal rights to videos of their theatre productions should contact me directly. >It's been explained to me that current union contracts prevent release >because of compensation agreements, which were scaled for large >broadcast release. Is there anyone working to redraw these contracts to >include narrowcast release, small sales over longer periods of time? I am beginning to investigate the legal ramifications of these deals myself, and I would be happy, nay grateful, to set up correspondence with anyone who wished to hash out these legal conflicts. Tanya Gough [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pixley Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 11:10:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0949 BBC tapes are nice, how about the others? > While the petition is circulating to release some of the BBC treasures > to videotape, there are some American ones I'd like to free as well: The > American Conservatory Theatre production of Taming of the Shrew, > starring Marc Singer; and the New York Shakespeare Festival production > of Much Ado About Nothing, starring Kathleen Widdoes and Sam Waterston, > directed by A.J. Antoon. Both appeared on PBS stations, and Much Ado was > also shown on CBS. I can't help you, Abigail, but I would like to add to your list the New York Shakespeare Festival "King Lear," which starred James Earl Jones as Lear and also featured the late Raul Julia as Edmund. I don't know who directed it, but it had some of the most memorable staging of that show that I have ever seen. Ed Pixley [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 12:43:18 -0400 Subject: SHK 8: 0949 Tapes Dear Abigail Quart: The characteristic -and often most welcome- feature of so-called 'live' performance is that it is ephemeral. Why on earth should 'we' (as you put it) wish to negate that redeeming quality by the use of videotape? Amnesia is discernment's best revenge. In respect of most productions, stone dead hath no fellow. Moreover, I have always assumed that one of the advantages of being a New Zealander is that one cannot be expected to undergo Shakespearean renderings at what you call 'the Guthrie'. Terence Hawkes [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Jensen Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 18:14:08 +0100 Subject: SHK 8.0949 BBC tapes are nice, how about the others? Abigail Quart's plea for regional theater productions to become available to all interested, will probably remain unrealized for the foreseeable future. The reason I was given by theater professionals in Oregon, California, and Utah, is that they do not want their work seen that way. While most regional theaters would love for PBS or CBS to properly tape and broadcast their productions - if it could be done in the Live From Lincoln Center style - that doesn't happen very often. Many (most?) theaters tape their productions for archival purposes only. This is usually done with one camera covering the entire stage. It is not aesthetically pleasing. Nothing comes over well. Theaters do not want tapes available to the public. These tapes give a false impression of their work and would make them look bad, or at least worse. Unless something unexpected changes, I suspect it will be a very long time before reputable theaters want their archival work available to the public. Best, Mike Jensen ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:24:23 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0951 Re: Pronunciation of Petruchio MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0951. Wednesday, 24 September 1997. [1] From: Maria Concolato Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 15:32:03 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0947 Q: Pronunciation of Petruchio [2] From: Hayley Grill Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 11:03:01 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0947 Q: Pronunciation of Petruchio [3] From: Roger Gross Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 13:00:21 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0947 Q: Pronunciation of Petruchio [4] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 14:44:44 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0947 Qs: Pronunciation of Petruchio [5] From: Catherine Fitzmaurice Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 15:04:15 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0947 Q: Pronunciation of Petruchio [6] From: Barbara Silverstein Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 15:38:11 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0947 Q: Pronunciation of Petruchio [7] From: Charles Edelman Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 12:42:01 +8/00 Subj: Petruchio [8] From: J. Kenneth Campbell Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 00:46:57 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0947 Q: Pronunciation of Petruchio [9] From: Bill Gelber Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 22:34:21 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0947 Q: Pronunciation of Petruchio [10] From: Peter L. Groves Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 08:58:08 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0947 Pronunciation of Petruchio [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maria Concolato Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 15:32:03 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0947 Q: Pronunciation of Petruchio I imagine that the insistence on the 'ch' pronunciation depends on the Italian usage: Petruchio is akin to the Italian 'Petruccio', a diminutive of Peter. Maria Concolato- Napoli [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hayley Grill Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 11:03:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0947 Q: Pronunciation of Petruchio As I understand it, the ch was intendended by Shakes. to be pronounced as ch and not K. He was an Englishman poking a little fun at the Italians. It was a subtle joke that only the educated would pick up on, but a joke nonetheless. I have also read another theory that proposes that it was the actors who originally made the pronunciation stick. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Gross Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 13:00:21 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0947 Q: Pronunciation of Petruchio Kathleen Campbell asks about the pronunciation of Petruchio. Arden has no firm evidence to dictate the ch (much) pronunciation. It probably is a carryover from the typical 19th century pronunciation. It also fits with one of the basic British rules of pronunciation: never pronounce a name the way the foreigners pronounce it. Shakespeare usually follows this rule, but not consistently when using Italian names. He, like the Italians, typically gives one syllable to the 'io' endings of names. We can say with confidence that Petruchio is a three-syllable name (except when it is the last word in a verse line...and even one of those is 3-syll). The more common pronunciation in our time is peh-TROOK-yo. It doesn't really matter much whether you say ch or k. If you don't say yo, you ruin the verse. If you are asking this question because you are doing the show, may I point out that ALL of the io-ending names follow that pattern (GREHM-yo, GRUM-yo, TRAN-yo, etc.). Only Vincentio is excepted because it appears only as the last word in a verse line. One more bit of unsolicited help: Padua = PADGE-wuh and Milan = MILL-uhn. Oh yes...Kate is, of course, CAT. The evidence for all of these assertions is found in the form of the verse. Roger Gross Univ. of Arkansas [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 14:44:44 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0947 Qs: Pronunciation of Petruchio Ann Thompson provides an answer in her New Cambridge edition of Taming, pp. 44-45, note on Petruchio. Gascoigne spelled the name Petrucio. "Shakespeare presumably put in the 'h' to show that he intended the 'ch' to be pronounced as in 'church'." Thompson feels that the confusion has arisen from the modern Italian pronunciation of ch. Thompson, of course, may be wrong, but she does push this argument when talking with students. Yours, Bill Godshalk [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Catherine Fitzmaurice Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 15:04:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0947 Q: Pronunciation of Petruchio The "ch" is an anglicisation of the Italian "cci" - to encourage the "ch" as in "church" in "Petruccio" which might otherwise be read as "Petrukio." But usage is a demanding influence too - and "Petrukio" we (educated in Italian ways) continue to say. Catherine Fitzmaurice [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Silverstein Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 15:38:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0947 Q: Pronunciation of Petruchio Presumably, Shakespeare used "ch" to duplicate the Italian pronunciation of a name that would almost surely have been spelt "Petruccio" in Italy. With such a spelling, an Italian speaker would indeed pronounce the "c"'s as "ch"'s. Barbara Silverstein [7]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Edelman Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 12:42:01 +8/00 Subject: Petruchio Kathleen Campbell asks how to say 'Petruchio.' Is the 'ch' as in 'much' or as a 'k?' Well, you pays your money and you takes your cherce. The problem lies in the chaotic nature of Early Modern spelling, especially words taken from another language. Your Italian professor is correct (of course) in saying that 'ch' in Italian is always 'k' - so if we say the name as spelled it must be 'Petrukio.' But . . . the name Petruchio is actually PETRUCCIO, a common nickname for Pietro (Peter) - in English our hero's name would be 'Pete' or 'Petey.' And in 'Petruccio,' the double c is pronounced, as all double c's are, like the 'ch' in 'church.' So you are both right and wrong, whichever pronunciation you adopt. Regards, Carlo (Charles) Edelman Charles Edelman English Department, Edith Cowan University, [8]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: J. Kenneth Campbell Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 00:46:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0947 Q: Pronunciation of Petruchio Ms. Campbell The name Petruchio (little Peter) is pronounced (pe-trooch-i-o) by Horace Howard Furness Jr. F.F. Mackay has it pe-troo-keo, Margaret Anglin, Julia Marlowe, Otis Skinner and E. H. Sothern all pronounce it pe-troo-shio Ada Rehan pe-trooch-eo, Charles Douville Coburn, pa-troo-cheo. Because the play contains so much Italian I like, pa-troot-tcho. Con tutto il cuore ben trovato, may I say But as you see there are lots of variations. [9]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Gelber Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 22:34:21 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0947 Q: Pronunciation of Petruchio I thought that perhaps the "ch" pronunciation of Petruchio had to do with the attempt to anglicize the Italian names (just as sometimes the French names are pronounced with English sounds in "Henry V"). I've always preferred Pretuchio with a "k" sound myself, just because of the hard sound it makes when the character pronounces it. [10]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter L. Groves Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 08:58:08 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0947 Pronunciation of Petruchio Kathleen Campbell asks why "A note following the list of Dramatis Personae in the Arden edition of states that the name Petruchio should be pronounced with a ch as in the English , never with a k." Speakers of English have always been notorious for adapting or 'anglicizing' foreign pronunciations (we say "Othello", for example, with a fricative that doesn't even exist in Italian) but here it may be just a quirk of the particular editor, since Daniel Jones' , recording the conservative educated "Received Pronunciation" of sixty years ago, gives the /k/ version of "Petruchio" first and lists the /ch/ version merely as an alternative. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:31:34 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0952 Re: Shakespeare's Vocabulary MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0952. Wednesday, 24 September 1997. [1] From: Curt L. Tofteland Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 10:29:51 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Shakespeare's Voc [2] From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 16:24:00 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0947 Q: Shakespeare's Vocabulary [3] From: Skip Nicholson Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 15:06:55 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0947 Q: Shakespeare's Vocabulary [4] From: Steven Marx Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 15:08:59 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0947 Q: Shakespeare's Vocabulary [5] From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 19:31:40 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: Shakespeare's Vocabulary [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Curt L. Tofteland Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 10:29:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Shakespeare's Voc In his wonderful book, THE MIRACLE OF LANGUAGE, Richard Lederer credits Will with a vocabulary of 20,138 basewords with over 1700 of them as first usage. Curt L. Tofteland [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 16:24:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0947 Q: Shakespeare's Vocabulary I've heard the number 30,000 [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Nicholson Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 15:06:55 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0947 Q: Shakespeare's Vocabulary For Shakespeare's vocabulary--- Marvin Spevack in his 1973 _Harvard Concordance to Shakespeare_ lists slightly over 29,000 different words. Newer technology could provide a precise number, but for general purposes, 29-30,000 would be accurate. Skip Nicholson South Pasadena (CA) HS [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Marx Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 15:08:59 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0947 Q: Shakespeare's Vocabulary General Introduction to Norton Shakespeare says 25 000 words (p.63) [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 19:31:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Shakespeare's Vocabulary To Roger Schmeekle: According to Martin Spevack ("Preface," *The Harvard Concordance to Shakespeare* [Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard U P, 1973], v), his concordance includes 29,066 different words. Regards, Evelyn Gajowski University of Nevada, Las Vegas ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:36:45 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0953 Christopher Sly MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0953. Wednesday, 24 September 1997. From: Julia Spriggs Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 14:29:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Christopher Sly A couple years ago, I remember reading The Taming of the Shrew for an English class. Unlike most of the other students, I rather enjoyed it, although one part had always bothered me. The Taming of the Shrew is famous for being a play inside a play. At the beginning, they're talking of that drunken slob who the Lord (if I correctly recall) convinced Christopher Sly that he was the Lord, and then the actual Lord got his page to dress up as Christopher Sly's wife. Then that traveling acting company comes through and puts on The Taming of the Shrew. But Shakespeare never once went back and told whatever happened to Christopher Sly! I have questioned my English teachers ever since then about that. The teacher who I had read it under told me that despite of Shakespeare's incredible writing skills he was also horrendously sloppy. My English teacher from last year had no comment. Indeed, I don't believe she's ever read The Taming of the Shrew. She's the type of person who derives all her ideas from Cliff Notes. She didn't care for me so much as I would argue with her constantly on my own interpretations, like when we were reading The Iliad. And she also didn't seem so pleased when we were to read Great Expectations I came up to her and told her I had already read that several years ago. "Then read A Tale of Two Cities!" She was even considerably more displeased when I told her that I had already read that as well. But I digress.... I asked my English teacher of this year, and he said that he felt it was to keep the reader, or spectator more or less interested. And I can see his point because this particular play has always intrigued me. I'm wondering, is there anyone else with any other theories why Shakespeare may have done this? Julia Spriggs ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:45:32 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0954 Re: God Speed; Oberon/Titania; Witches MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0954. Wednesday, 24 September 1997. [1] From: John Velz Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 15:28:17 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0948 Re: God Speed and Helena's Entrance [2] From: Dale Lyles Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 18:00:22 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0948 Re: God Speed and Helena's Entrance [3] From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 19:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0945 Re: Devils and Witches [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 15:28:17 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0948 Re: God Speed and Helena's Entrance Dear Ed P., The second play I ever directed was in 1967, a liturgical Everyman, using mass for the dead and a choir of 11 voices around the throne of God, who was enthroned on his own small stage apart from the mainstage. (Done in Elizabethan baronial hall sort of chamber). The key line in the play is relevant to our present inquiry. After successive failures Everyman finally "gets it" "I think that I shall never speed / Until I get to my Good Deed". But because he speeds as he goes a journey to the divine throne in this play the line is right in the middle of your two alternatives. The Banns of the N Towne Cycle end with a conventional tag "And God now be your spede." Which I suppose means very loosely "See you there," as the speaker has been itemizing the plays to be presented and then says that the production will begin at 6 a.m. on such a day in N. Towne. It somehow seems fitting that Everyman should talk of speeding in the success sense when Death has come to send him on a pilgrimage. Go forth young man. And succeed while you are doing so. Nice to hear from you. John Velz [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 18:00:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0948 Re: God Speed and Helena's Entrance Ed Pixley writes: "One of the greatest pleasures of producing Shakespeare is in exploring visual possibilities for giving immediacy to the words in the theatre." I like the quote, and I forget who said it, that the best thing about producing Shakespeare is that "he's dead, and you're not." BTW, I have an answer to our recent queries on the effectiveness of switching Oberon and Titania as an experiment to test the purely patriarchal intent of the play. Last week, in rehearsal, we played through all the T/0 scenes with the fairy rulers reversed. Not only was it funny, it was illuminating in several ways. Oberon hinted more than strongly that this pregnant Indian queen bore *his* child. Several women, who objected to a mere patriarchal reading of the play, pointed out that we could now object to Titania as the conniving bitch-goddess, so that as long as you pursued that path, you were doomed to that path. The whole experiment gave a new potency to our explorations of the themes of "dream" and "desire" in the text. It also gave permission for an amazing rehearsal the following night. Since we're still just playing and experimenting, there is no solid blocking, and when Demetrius awoke, the first thing he saw-indeed, direct eye contact-was Lysander. Rather than flinch and avoid it, the actors flew with it. Demetrius pursued Lysander, and Lysander had to abandon his pursuit of Helena. Suddenly Helena was once again left out in the cold, and her lines took on an acid irony. "A trim exploit, a manly enterprise!" When Hermia entered and found her Lysander underneath the huskier Demetrius, she launched herself atop Demetrius, creating a pile of limbs that Helena could only watch enviously. I called a break at that point, and after break reoriented everyone's sexuality to the traditional text. This time, the only way Hermia and Helena could get in their Girl Moment was to sit on the obstreperously libidinous boys, aided by the fairies. The chaos continued throughout the scene, and when we finally got all four on the ground, asleep, the silence was deafening. Our challenge now is to decide what to do with our discoveries. Dale Lyles<---having an incredible amount of fun Newnan Community Theatre Company Newnan, GA [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 19:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0945 Re: Devils and Witches Concerning witches, might I refer Shakespeareans to Deborah Willis's recent book, *Malevolent Nurture: Witch-Hunting and Maternal Power in Early Modern England* (Ithaca and London: Cornell U P, 1995), which deals with *1, 2, and 3 Henry 6*, *Richard 3* and *Macbeth*? Regards, Evelyn Gajowski University of Nevada, Las Vegas ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:48:11 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0955 In and Out Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0955. Wednesday, 24 September 1997. From: Richard A. Burt Date: Tuesday, 23 Sep 1997 22:52:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: In and Out Shakespeare Those interested in films that cite Shakespeare will probably want to see the new comedy In and Out, a comedy about the appropriation of gayness and coming out by heterosexuals (in a Spartacus like moment near the end of the film, everyone declares "I'm gay" at a high school graduation.) Shakespeare is aligned both with a gay teacher (Kevin Kline) and his heterosexual, jilted bride (Joan Cusack) who ends up hooking up with a former student turned movie star (Matt Dillon). It's an inventive film, even if the ending (which pulls back from the tease of a gay wedding) isn't very Shakespearean. Best, Richard ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 08:49:10 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0956 Re: Pronunciation of Petruchio MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0956. Thursday, 25 September 1997. [1] From: Robert M Zimmer Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 15:46:14 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0947 Q: Pronunciation of Petruchio [2] From: Dale Coye Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 22:27:51 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0951 Re: Pronunciation of Petruchio [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert M Zimmer Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 15:46:14 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0947 Q: Pronunciation of Petruchio For a thought-provoking and very funny discussion of the pronunciation of "Petruchio" see Random Cloud's "Shakespeare Babel" in a forthcoming collection of essays *Reading Readings: Essays on Shakespeare Editing in the Eighteenth Century* edited by Joanna Gondris and soon to be published by Associated University Presses for Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Coye Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 22:27:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0951 Re: Pronunciation of Petruchio For my forthcoming book "Pronouncing Shakespeare's Words: A Guide from A to Zounds" (Greenwood) I surveyed professors of Shakespeare from the UK, Canada, and the US as well as some actors in order to ascertain what practitioners are actually using today (so we don't have to go back to Furness and Daniel Jones). The results show that in all three countries the /k/ pronunciation is favored over the /ch/ by a 2 to one ratio. However, there can be little doubt, I think, that Shakespeare meant to indicate /ch/ as in match, for the reasons others have given. The publishers of the folios and quartos knew that most people in the 17th century would not be familiar with the orthography of Italian and would read ch as the sound of match. My survey also showed that Borachio is almost always /ch/, but a few profs make it /k/- erroneously. If only we hadn't all read Pinnochio we wouldn't be in this mess. Dale Coye Dept. of Eng. The College of New Jersey ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:01:23 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0957 Re: Christopher Sly MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0957. Thursday, 25 September 1997. [1] From: Imtiaz Habib Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 97 13:27:06 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0953 Christopher Sly [2] From: Kristen L. Olson Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 13:53:12 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Christopher Sly [3] From: Lauren Bergquist Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 14:58:16 -0400 Subj: Christopher Sly [4] From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 20:27:35 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0953 Christopher Sly [5] From: Ed Peschko Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 03:33:38 -0600 (MDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0953 Christopher Sly [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Imtiaz Habib Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 97 13:27:06 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0953 Christopher Sly Do you think it could have something to do with the way that Elizabethan drama inevitably implicates "art" in the perceptions of "life" itself? Do you think, as in the case of Chaucer's famous "incompleteness" in the Canterbury Tales, the fact that Sly and co's watching of the Taming of the Shrew is never completed so to speak, could have something to do with the performativity of life itself? A good question, and one that I just finished discussing in one of the upper div Shakespeare classes that I teach. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kristen L. Olson Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 13:53:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Christopher Sly Julia Spriggs wonders what becomes of Christopher Sly, the character for whom _The Taming of the Shrew_ is allegedly performed, the central question being: should we wonder what becomes of a "play-within-a-play" if we're never shown the audience again at its conclusion? While in most "present" editions of the play Sly disappears after the opening, reference source I quickly checked notes his fuller presence in quarto editions of _Shrew_: "Although Sly's story ends abruptly after 1.1 in the oldest edition of _The Taming of the Shrew_, in the First Folio of 1623 it is complete in _The Taming of A Shrew_, believed to be a Bad Quarto version...containing Sh's original rendition of Sly's adventure: in three further interludes, Sly remarks on the play, eating and drinking all the while. In a fifth episode, he has fallen asleep, and the LORD [from Act I] orders him returned to the spot [outside the tavern] where he had been found. In a 23 line epilogue...Sly is discovered by the tavern owner who warns him that Sly's wife will be angry that he's stayed out all night. Sly replies that he need not fear his wife for he has had a dream that has taught him how to deal with her." (Charles Boyce) It's not so much that Shakespeare was "sloppy", as your teacher suggested, it's probably more accurate to say that the entire procedure of theatre production and the eventual print appearance of dramatic texts was not structured or regulated in the way that we might imagine it to have been. There were likely to be many incarnations of a particular play, and comparing different versions can be a very intriguing exercise...or career. Anyway, for an interesting overview of the process I'd recommend Peter Blayney's _The First Folio of Shakespeare_ (Folger Library Publications, 1991), if you can get your hands on it. Possibly more readily available is the section of the Into. to the _Riverside Shakespeare_ on " Shakespeare's Text". (See also in this edition Anne Barton's reference to Folio/Quarto versions of Sly in her Intro. to the play.) Each "version" of the play, however, provides you with a compelling set of questions. For instance, the premise that the play itself is a "joke" played on Sly raises an interesting set of problems; if Sly considers it a "dream"-you might compare the Bad Quarto epilogue to Puck's lines at the close of _A Midsummer Night's Dream_--what problems or possibilities does that raise? What sense of irony might Sly's pronouncement of his new competence produce? Comparing the differences (and/or similarities) suggested by each version (questions like how is a joke different from or similar to a dream? On whom is the audience's attention focused and what are the consequent effects?) might give you interesting things to think about. It sounds to me like you're onto a really good paper topic here...depending on whose class you're in this year. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lauren Bergquist Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 14:58:16 -0400 Subject: Christopher Sly In response to Julia Sprigg's query regarding the purpose of the induction (the Christopher Sly episode) in The Taming of the Shrew, I quote from Stanley Wells book,Shakespeare A Life in Drama (W.W. Norton & Company, 1995): "Nevertheless the Sly episodes are thematically very relevant to this story of a man, Petruccio, who uses imagination, words, and action to transform a woman, Kate, from a shrew to an obedient and loving wife. To omit them is to strip the play of an important, and humanizing, dimension." (page 47) Petruccio employs various techniques (words, game, action, costume) to create a new reality and role for Kate; through his innovations, she is transformed from wench to wife. Similarly, the Lord in the induction uses game (role-playing), words, action, and costumes to transform Christopher Sly, a mere tinker, into a Lord. Imagination can create (and maybe overcome) reality, and perhaps that is why the induction melts into the play-within-a-play, never to reappear. Hope this helps! Also, notice how Wells spells "Petruccio"-I guess, therefore, the "cc" would be pronounced as "ch" (like in "church"). This is in response to another question that has been posted recently. Lauren Bergquist [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 20:27:35 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0953 Christopher Sly Regarding Julia Spriggs' question about the purpose of the Induction in SHREW, I'm quite fond of (my former professor) Dr. J. Dennis Huston's thoughts in "Enter the Hero: the Power of Play in THE TAMING OF THE SHREW," collected in his 1981 book _Shakespeare's_Comedies_of_Play (Columbia U. Press). He sees the Induction as setting up the drama as an essential practice of play-making (in several senses of the word). "Although the Induction may be incomplete, it is not incoherent, since its themes foreshadow those of the main play. Many of its concerns-uncertain and imposed identity, change of dress, violence, war between the sexes, and an insistent focus, in Anne Righter's phrase, on the idea of the play- reappear in the Bianca and shrew-taming plots." (p. 64) On the more practical "why does Sly disappear?" thread, I've often heard it supposed that it's to set up a small timebomb in the heads of the audience, so that on their way home they suddenly realize that the plot they've just seen completed wasn't the whole of it, rekindling interest and discussions of what it all meant (as we see here). Others think SHREW is just a sloppy play, and point out assorted textual cruxes and so forth. For what it's worth, the only production I've ever been involved in (as Grumio, some ten years ago), while using some of Huston's ideas about the Petruchio-Kate relationship as one of "learning to play", also incorporated several of the passages from the contemporaneous and much-debated THE TAMING OF _A_ SHREW. Audiences seemed to like it, but critics were divided. [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Peschko Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 03:33:38 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0953 Christopher Sly > comment. Indeed, I don't believe she's ever read The Taming of the > Shrew. She's the type of person who derives all her ideas from Cliff > Notes. She didn't care for me so much as I would argue with her > constantly on my own interpretations, like when we were reading The > Iliad. And she also didn't seem so pleased when we were to read Great > Expectations I came up to her and told her I had already read that > several years ago. "Then read A Tale of Two Cities!" She was even > considerably more displeased when I told her that I had already read > that as well. But I digress.... I asked my English teacher of this how about Martin Chuzzlewit ? > year, and he said that he felt it was to keep the reader, or spectator > more or less interested. And I can see his point because this > particular play has always intrigued me. I'm wondering, is there anyone > else with any other theories why Shakespeare may have done this? I saw a production once at Stratford upon Avon, where it must have bugged the director some - because he had the Lord drug Christopher Sly's drink, have him fall unconscious, and then have Sly marvel at the vividness of his 'dream' (Now I know how to tame a shrew... he says about his wife). It kind of bothers me too, but I don't know why Shakespeare did it. Kind of like playing do re mi fa sol la ti on a keyboard. You just have to hit 'do'. Ed (PS: ironically, Taming of the Shrew reminds me of 'Godel Escher Bach' by Douglas R. Hofstader. In the above respect, that is. His two characters - Achilles and the Tortoise, are given a 'pushing potion' and a 'popping potion' which let them slip in (push) and out (pop) of paintings. In that particular essay I think they ended up popping more than they pushed, and causing all sorts of problems. Interesting book.) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:08:06 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0958 Re: Ophelia; Videos; Vocabulary MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0958. Thursday, 25 September 1997. [1] From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 13:02:20 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0901 Re: Ophelia and Clau [2] From: Ed Pixley Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 12:56:54 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0950 Re: BBC tapes are nice, how about [3] From: Eric Armstrong Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 14:18:35 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0952 Re: Shakespeare's Vocabulary [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 13:02:20 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0901 Re: Ophelia and Clau On the matter of Ophelia's songs. From a naturalistic perspective it is useful to recall a couple of features of early modern English life by contrast with ours. First, that people lived closer together, physically and socially. Houses tended to be clustered together; most country folk lived in villages, or in large farmhouses housing not just the farm family but their domestic servants and farm laborers, while city houses opened onto crowded streets and shared walls with neighbors on either side. The exceptions were large mansions that housed, again, not just the owner's family but servants and other dependents. Aristocrats like Ophelia shared domestic space with the menials who emptied the chamberpots and groomed the horses; a young girl might well wander into the scullery or the stableyard at a time when somebody was singing a bawdy song, or hear it at night from somebody out in the street reeling home from the tavern. the likelihood grows in a society as devoted to singing as early modern English society appears to have been. But we might also look at it from dramatic perspective. As our Welsh Harrier never tires of reminding us, Ophelia is a complicated figure of speech, not a person, and need not be accounted for by anything in particular outside the text. If that figure becomes more moving and pertinent by singing lewd songs the songs need no other explanation. Dave Evett [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pixley Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 12:56:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0950 Re: BBC tapes are nice, how about > Abigail Quart's plea for regional theater productions to become > available to all interested, will probably remain unrealized for the > foreseeable future. > > The reason I was given by theater professionals in Oregon, California, > and Utah, is that they do not want their work seen that way. While most > regional theaters would love for PBS or CBS to properly tape and > broadcast their productions - if it could be done in the Live From > Lincoln Center style - that doesn't happen very often. Many (most?) > theaters tape their productions for archival purposes only. This is > usually done with one camera covering the entire stage. It is not > aesthetically pleasing. Nothing comes over well. > > Theaters do not want tapes available to the public. These tapes give a > false impression of their work and would make them look bad, or at least > worse. Unless something unexpected changes, I suspect it will be a very > long time before reputable theaters want their archival work available > to the public. > > Best, > Mike Jensen Mike, Your point makes sense as a general principle. However, the productions Abigail refers to, as well as the "King Lear" I ask for, and the Guthrie "School for Scandal" (c. mid-70s) that I would also like to see again and use in my classroom, were all broadcast on nationwide television. Despite Terence Hawkes' satisfaction at not being subjected to them, I am still able to draw on the directing choices in all of those productions for my teaching of Shakespeare, Sheridan, and Rostand in the theatre. I had no opportunity to see any of them in live production (though the Lear was shot before a live audience at the Delacort), and I cannot imagine any advantage to be gained from having missed them on television. Kathleen Widdoes' drenched (and later "stuffed") Beatrice is the most memorable I have ever seen; James Earl Jones' exit to prison handling his chains as reins and Raul Julia's rude gesture on "Phht!" are as clear to me today as though I had seem them last night; Lady Sneerwell's sudden loss of her wig when her plotting is exposed is as vivid a tying together of word and action as the theatre can provide. Unfortunately, I believe the problem is legal. Too many contracts were involved in the original broadcast, and sorting out of them for rebroadcast is almost impossible. So for those who privately taped those original broadcasts, and whose tapes have long since become unusable, hope that our TV executives will renew their interest in making new productions (as brilliant as those were) available to those of us who do not have such ready access to the great theatre companies of the world. Ed Pixley [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 14:18:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0952 Re: Shakespeare's Vocabulary For an interesting take on Shakespeare's "mammoth" vocabulary compared to our "wee" ones, read Stephen Pinker's exceptional _Language Instinct_ in which he shows how difficult it is a. to prove how big someone's vocabulary is and b. how our personal vocabularies are really incredibly huge because we have the ability to understand words developed out of their component parts. He uses this 30,000 word vocabulary as a unit of measurement ("8 Shakespeares"), much to my delight. Eric Armstrong ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:10:33 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0959 Q: Macbeth Witches MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0959. Thursday, 25 September 1997. From: Curt L. Tofteland Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 10:32:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Macbeth Witches Greetings, We are producing MACBETH for our 38th season of free Shakespeare in Louisville, Kentucky --- I am interested in research materials regarding the witches --- I do have Garry Wills' excellent book WITCHES & JESUITS --- I have also been recommended Deborah Willis' book MALEVOLENT NURTURE: Witch-Hunting & Maternal Power in Early Modern England Please forward your resource suggestions to my e-mail address --- tofter@aol.com Thanks for the help, Curt L. Tofteland Producing Director Kentucky Shakespeare Festival ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:14:04 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0960 UMabatha and adaptations MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0960. Thursday, 25 September 1997. From: Jung Jimmy Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 1997 16:25 -0500 Subject: UMabatha and adaptations UMabatatha, which is subtitled "The Zulu Macbeth" just left Washington DC, apparently bound for California, New York, New Jersey and Ohio, at least that's what the T-shirts in the lobby said. I was wondering what other "cultural adaptations" of Shakespeare are out there. Somehow I began visualizing a Kabuki Lear (knowing nothing about Kabuki, including how to spell it). Oddly enough, I saw the Zulu Macbeth right after finally locating and reading Bohannan's "Shakespeare in the Bush," where she highlights the difficulty in translating meaning into the West African Culture. But Umbatha does a remarkable job of using and retaining the story, while making it wholly African. That being said, seeing UMabatha for the Shakespeare I assume is roughly like seeing Verdi's Otello; unless you speak Italian, you better enjoy the music. Unless you speak Zulu, you better enjoy drums and dancing. If you do enjoy drums and dancing then you will be amazed, blow away even. But the subtitles provide little more than a synopsis of the scenes; any poetry is lost. There may have been poetry, the translated script on sale in the lobby looked interesting, but exceeded my budget and there definitely was drama. Macbeth/Mabatha and Lady Macbeth/KaMadonsela's deliver monologues that argue for some human moments that transcend culture; likewise when Macduff/Mafudu learns of his family's death. On the other hand the first appearance of the ghost seems almost comedic and KaMadonsela's urging of Mabatha seems almost like nagging, without being able to understand the words. jimmy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:07:39 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0961 Re: Christopher Sly and Shrew Queries MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0961. Friday, 26 September 1997. [1] From: Carl Fortunato Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 97 20:46:00 -0400 Subj: Re: Sly [2] From: Sean Kevin Lawrence Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 11:04:26 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0957 Re: Christopher Sly [3] From: Virginia Byrne Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 16:06:08 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0953 Christopher Sly [4] From: Shaula Evans Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 15:45:25 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Another Shrew Question [5] From: Carol A. Cole Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 20:30:30 -0400 Subj: Shrew Ending [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carl Fortunato Date: Wednesday, 24 Sep 97 20:46:00 -0400 Subject: Re: Sly To: Julia Spriggs JS> A couple years ago, I remember reading The Taming of the Shrew for an JS> English class. Unlike most of the other students, I rather enjoyed JS> it, although one part had always bothered me. JS> The Taming of the Shrew is famous for being a play inside a play. At JS> the beginning, they're talking of that drunken slob who the Lord (if I JS> correctly recall) convinced Christopher Sly that he was the Lord, and JS> then the actual Lord got his page to dress up as Christopher Sly's JS> wife. Then that traveling acting company comes through and puts on JS> The Taming of the Shrew. But Shakespeare never once went back and told JS> whatever happened to Christopher Sly! I have questioned my English JS> teachers ever since then about that. Others will probably mention this, but there is an Elizabethan play called the "Taming of *A* Shrew," that for many years was considered an immediate source the "The Taming of *The* Shrew." However, some people think it may be a bad reconstruction of "The Taming of the Shrew." Anyway, "*A* Shrew" features Christopher Sly (same name) throughout the play, and it ends with him dumped back in the alley where he started, telling the Tapster ("A Shrew's" version of the "Hostess") about the dream he had. The wrap-up goes like this: TAPSTER I marry but you had best get you home, For your wife will course you for dreming here to night, SLIE Will she? I know now how to tame a shrew, I dreamt upon it all this night till now, And thou hast wakt me out of the best dreame That ever I had in my life, but Ile to my Wife presently and tame her too And if she anger me. TAPSTER Nay tarry Slie for Ile go home with thee And hear the rest that thou hast dreamed to night. *Exeunt Omnes* Some scholars feel that this may be an inaccurate version of "The Taming of The Shrew," reported by the actor who played Sly. (NOTE: There are a lot of problems with the theory that they are the same play. Despite the similarities, there are also some large differences. I don't actually endorse the view, but nobody has ever figured out exactly what "A Shrew" is, and exactly what its relationship is to "The Shrew." However, if that theory *is* accurate, then it seems likely that Sly's lines may have some claim to accuracy.) I have heard that sometimes the "extra" Sly scenes are lifted from "A Shrew" and acted in some modern productions of "The Shrew," although I have never seen one. If you have any interest in "A Shrew," the full text is in the first volume of Geoffrey Bullough's "Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare" (Library of Congress Number 57-9969), which is probably available in your local library. - Carl (carl.fortunato@moondog.com) [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Kevin Lawrence Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 11:04:26 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0957 Re: Christopher Sly Dear All, The recent thread on Christopher Sly seems to miss something I think essential to looking at the induction's place in the play as a whole: the number of 'plays' in this play (therefore the number of levels of 'realities'), and their tendency to cross over. The lord's 'practice' must be considered to itself be included within the frame of the induction, and to include the whole of the trick on Sly, including main plot, presented for his benefit. In this case, though, the play threatens to become overliteralized and collapse as Sly demands to go to bed. Similarly, Tranio identifies the entry of Baptista, Katherina, Bianca, and Hortensio as "some show to welcome us to town." At first they stand aside to observe it, but then enter into the action, violating the distinction between the show which welcomes them and their own position as audience. The pedant plays the role of Vincentio, but overplays it, almost getting everyone into a mess. And this is not to touch upon the many roles played by Petruchio, or foisted upon Katherine, that are made literal. Playing, in this drama, seems to represent a force of instability, threatening not only social and gender roles, but also sense of self (Kate's and Sly's); moreover, it threatens our own sense of reality, bolstered by our containing the play as something remote and enclosed. Efforts (by Pope, for instance, who revived the final induction scene) to enclose the play by tacking on a final induction, playing it matched with _The Tamer Tamed_ or contextualizing it in sociological / political terms seem to betray our uneasiness with it, our desire to keep it in its place and to keep it from subverting our own enlightenment prejudices. Ultimately, the play itself, the play which violates metaphysical and ontological categorization, is the shrew that we all too often attempt to tame. Cheers, Sean Lawrence [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia Byrne Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 16:06:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0953 Christopher Sly Julia keep on truckin' despite teachers just finished teaching Taming to a group of Senior citizens...I think the best theory is that Shakespeare wrote it fairly quickly, started out with an interesting gimmick and was rushed to get it staged and dropped the Sly story...the other theory is similar and that is that actors were doubling and he just decided not to continue to story because it put too much stress on them... [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shaula Evans Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 15:45:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Another Shrew Question First off, many thanks to everyone who some weeks ago responded to me request for scene suggestions for one female and one male actor. We have wound up going with the meeting scene of Katherine and Petruchio from Shrew (2.1)...so I am immensely enjoying all the Shrew discussion going on right now (and trying desperately to decide how we will pronounce P's name....) A point of interest: has anyone else remarked how Katherina states quite plainly in our scene that while Petruchio insists on calling her Kate, her name is Katherine...and yet all of *us* call her Kate as well? Somehow the feminist in me noticed how tradition has carried on Petruchio's power of naming Katherine, rather than reflecting her own wishes. Interesting. And a question: early in 2.1, Petruchio lists of an enumeration of names, including Kate of Kate-hall. Hmmm I have stretched my limited resources, and haven't found an explanation of what Kate-hall means, or to what it might refer. Any takers? Thank you Shaula Evans sevans@silk.net Shakespeare Kelowna [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carol A. Cole Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 20:30:30 -0400 Subject: Shrew Ending Julia's recent question about Taming of the Shrew is prompting me to ask one of my own. This summer I saw the play performed at Stratford, Ontario, where it was set in a 1950s Italian immigrant community in "New Padua," aka New York. What took me by surprise was the ending. After Katherine's submission in 5.2 that wins Petruchio's bet (and doubles her dowry), they cut to another scene showing Katherine and Petruchio in bed together gleefully counting their loot and throwing it around. It looked like the bet and submission scene were all a setup that they had planned together ahead of time. If any of you saw this production, did you take it this way too? Have any of you interpreted this scene as a setup? I should add that in this production, at the end of 5.1, where Kate kisses Petruchio, Kate and Petruchio clearly realize that they love each other. Carol ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:10:12 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0962 Black bile and Medical History MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0962. Friday, 26 September 1997. From: A. G. Bennett Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 11:05:46 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Black bile and Medical History Dear SHAKSPERians, Last week in the graduate course I'm teaching, our discussion revolved around the issues of biology and representation in early modern England. I explained to them the theory of the four humours and some of its implications for conduct etc., including the point that those deemed to be sanguine in humour were frequently bled to relieve this imbalance. One my students then wondered that if rectifying a humour imbalance was so crucial, where or how did one eliminate an excess of black bile (melancholy)? What physical outlet was employed? I've looked around, but can't find anything terribly informative. Any medical historians out there who can shed some light? Thanks, Alexandra Bennett abennett@vax2.concordia.ca ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:13:02 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0963 Shakespeare in Berlin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0963. Friday, 26 September 1997. From: Martin Zacks Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 07:08:23 -0700 Subject: Shakespeare in Berlin My wife will be in Berlin, Germany for the first week in October. Does anyone know of any plays of Shakespeare that will be playing then in Berlin? Please respond directly to me. Thanks in advance, Martin Zacks lalalib@ix.netcom.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:46:06 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0964 Re: Adaptations MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0964. Friday, 26 September 1997. [1] From: Kathleen Jo Powell Hannah Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 09:08:06 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0960 UMabatha and adaptations [2] From: Joshua D Thigpen Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 16:08:59 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0960 UMabatha and adaptations [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Jo Powell Hannah Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 09:08:06 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0960 UMabatha and adaptations Another cultural adaptation you might want to take a look at is Aime Cesaire's _A Tempest_, a Maartinican version ot _The Tempest_. Katie Hannah khannah@english.as.ua.edu [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joshua D Thigpen Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 16:08:59 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0960 UMabatha and adaptations You indeed did spell Kabuki correctly, and along this vein, I was wondering if anyone out there in computer land knew anything about the Thai adaptations of Shakespeare. Thank you Joshua Thigpen Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:55:46 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0965 Impermanent Permanence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0965. Friday, 26 September 1997. From: Norm Holland Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 97 11:54:05 EDT Subject: Impermanent Permanence Pat Galloway's comments on scholarship "sub specie aeternitas" pushed one of my buttons. Belatedly, I fear, I am coming to recognize a geological shift in our attitudes toward permanence in scholarship. Perhaps this will seem oldhat to others, but I am just learning it as I look back over forty years in the scholarly game. When I entered the profession in the mid-50s, we held scholarly ideals like those of Pat's monks and indeed Pat herself, who seeks to write "sub specie aeternitas" and feels she has fallen short if she doesn't. Back in the '50s, we thought we were making permanent "contributions to knowledge," as our dissertation instructions asked us to do. Increasingly, I think we are no longer concerned with the long term but with the now, the new, the immediate, recognizing that what we do will be here today and gone tomorrow and feeling no discomfort about that. What counts today is the size of the splash one can make, the amount of publicity, the number of people who hear about what you do. I'd say we are witnessing a shift from permanence to broadcasting. A few instances from the hundreds one could marshall: Under previous editors, the _New Yorker_'s aim was to publish writing of such quality that it could be read anytime in the indefinite future. In the last few years, driven by falling circulation, the aim has become to cover at length the most recent craze. To cover very well, to be sure, but who will be reading today's _New Yorker_ writers the way we read John McPhee or E. B. White? This week's change in the _New York Times_ from the good gray "newspaper of record" to a brightly colored imitation of _U.S.A. Today_, again, chasing a lost market. Our Dean has this year begun a list in his monthly newsletter giving high prominence to those faculty mentioned in the media, greater prominence than to those who publish this or that. Peter Gay subtitles his great biography of Freud, "A Life for our Time." Would a 19C biographer have done so? When I read current criticism or theory (not, to be sure, medieval or Renaissance scholarship), I rarely see any references cited that are more than ten years old. It is as though the scholars and critics who led the field in the '50s, '60s, and '70s have simply vanished. In my own lifetime as a critic, I have the witnessed the following "waves" of scholarly orthodoxy: philology; intellectual and literary history; the New Criticism; theory; critical studies (politics). That's a lot, surely, for forty years. Do they reflect real changes in ideas or simply a need to do something new, more "visible"? I'm particularly interested in publication on the Internet as marking the change, because I edit a peer-reviewed e-journal, PSYART, only one of many peer-reviewed journals online. When you publish an article on the Net, you expose it to an audience, potentially, of millions (not that millions would be interested in your reading of Donne, but they have access). To the extent that people learn of your ideas, you achieve a kind of permanence, the kind that a memorable broadcast, like Orson Welles' Halloween hoax, does: lots of people carry it in their minds. To the extent that people download your essay and treasure it in their files, you achieve another kind of permanence. But in exchange, you give up traditional "library" permanence. URLs disappear or move or become unavailable. An Internet article is not irrevocable; it can be updated easily. It can be moved, copied, deleted, changed, plagiarized, melded with another essay-whatever-to a far greater degree than could an article in the heavy bound volumes sitting on our shelves. Yet the advantages of e-publication in cost and convenience and, yes, wide audience, are overwhelming. One more example: our university president wants radical cuts in the budget for print journals and a corresponding increase in budget for electronic media, and he's right. Why such a change from repository permanence to the temporary permanence of broadcasting? I would nominate the usual suspects: the media, notably television; the constant consumerist push to have something new and different; the commercial need for more and more sales; the pressure on faculty to publishing anything and everything; simply the technological change in the speed with which we do things over the course of the century, radio vs. letters, air vs. train, word processor vs. typewriter. I don't mean to sound like a disgruntled, aging walrus. I will confess to some discomfort with this shift in our idea of permanence, but frankly I am more curious about its sources and its future than regretful. I do not think it makes sense to judge this shift good or ill, better or worse than the previous state of mind. I think one simply has to recognize it as a change in the _Zeitgeist_, a very profound change in one of our fundamental psychological traits, our sense of time or continuity or permanence. What is interesting to me, and a bit amusing, is that it should have started in the frenzies of New York and Washington and Hollywood (and Bollywood!) but percolated quite rapidly, all things considered, to the formerly quiet groves of academe. Lots of luck, everybody --Norm ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 11:00:42 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0966 Re: Ophelia; Pronunciation of "th"; Macbeth Witches MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0966. Friday, 26 September 1997. [1] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 11:06:28 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0958 Re: Ophelia [2] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 17:11:38 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0956 Re: Pronunciation of "th" [3] From: Thad Q. Alexander Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 07:57:44 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0959 Q: Macbeth Witches [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 11:06:28 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0958 Re: Ophelia > But we might also look at it from dramatic perspective. As our Welsh > Harrier never tires of reminding us, Ophelia is a complicated figure of > speech, not a person, and need not be accounted for by anything in > particular outside the text. If that figure becomes more moving and > pertinent by singing lewd songs the songs need no other explanation. > > Dave Evett I agree. My question should not have concerned the *source* of her songs (although your explanation of that was certainly sound), but the *fact* of them: what does it say of her character - and of the play - that she should have these at hand and use them in her madness? L. Swilley [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 17:11:38 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0956 Re: Pronunciation of "th" Since we apparently have moved on more generally to Shakespeare's pronunciation, I wonder about the use of "th" in such words as "murther" and "burthen" where the "th" is usually a "d." Was "th" always a digraph in 16th-17th century printing? Or was it sometimes pronounced as a "t" followed by an almost voiceless "h"? I haven't done my homework on this, but I happened to be gazing at TLN 530 of T&C ("importlesse burthen") just before reading this posting, and the question was on my mind. Yours, Bill Godshalk [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thad Q. Alexander Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 07:57:44 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0959 Q: Macbeth Witches > We are producing MACBETH for our 38th season of free Shakespeare in > Louisville, Kentucky --- I am interested in research materials regarding > the witches --- I do have Garry Wills' excellent book WITCHES & JESUITS > --- I have also been recommended Deborah Willis' book MALEVOLENT > NURTURE: Witch-Hunting & Maternal Power in Early Modern England > > Please forward your resource suggestions to my e-mail address --- > tofter@aol.com T.A.: Curt Tofteland and others. Please either send me a copy of this research list or post it on the list server. Good luck and wish I could attend your production. Thank you Thad Q. Alexander (rattler@inreach.net) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 11:03:46 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0967 Announcements MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0967. Friday, 26 September 1997. [1] From: Marilyn Mosher Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 19:26:22 -0300 Subj: Great Performances-Henry V at the Globe [2] From: Richard Nathan Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 06:14:17 +0000 Subj: "The Scottish Tale" - New Film Parody [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marilyn Mosher Date: Thursday, 25 Sep 1997 19:26:22 -0300 Subject: Great Performances-Henry V at the Globe Great Performances (on PBS) will be showing Mark Rylance's Henry V at the Globe Theatre, on Nov 5, according to a friend. Not as good as being there, but close! Marilyn [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Nathan Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 06:14:17 +0000 Subject: "The Scottish Tale" - New Film Parody In the DAILY VARIETY for Thursday September 23, there is an article about the films that will be playing at the fifth Hamptons International Film Festival, which runs from October 14-19 in East Hampton, N.Y. The article describes one of the films as follows: "THE SCOTTISH TALE," Mackenlay Polhemus' whimsical comedy that is loosely based on Shakespeare's Macbeth. If anyone has any further information on this film, I would very much like to hear it. Thank you.========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 08:53:02 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0968 Re: Adaptations and Spoof MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0968. Monday, 29 September 1997. [1] From: Nick Clary Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 11:14:37 -0400 Subj: Adaptations [2] From: Skip Nicholson Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 17:29:22 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0964 Re: Adaptations [3] From: Richard A Burt Date: Saturday, 27 Sep 1997 15:01:16 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Austin Powers R & J Spoof [4] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 27 Sep 1997 22:40:44 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0964 Re: Adaptations [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Clary Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 11:14:37 -0400 Subject: Adaptations In the fall of 1991, The Tokyo Globe Company brought three plays to London I was fortunate enough to see the Kabuki version of Hamlet at the Mermaid Theatre. It was quite impressive indeed. Casting included the doubling of Claudius and the Ghost, which is not entirely unprecedented, but also the tripling of Hamlet, Ophelia, and Fortinbras, for which I know no precedent. The program notes provided a brief history of Kabuki, which "got its start in 1603 when a foxy little nun by the name of Okuni left her life of nunnery at Izumo Grand Shrine behind and went to the big city of Kyoto with a group of like-minded fellow nuns to become a star of the riverbed." Interesting indeed. The company offered a modern version of King Lear as well as a Kyogen version of Falstaff (The Braggart Samurai). Unfortunately, I did not see these other two productions. Nick Clary [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Nicholson Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 17:29:22 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0964 Re: Adaptations Hanagumi Shibai, a Tokyo "neo-Kabuki" company, does a stunning "Arashi nochi Hare" (Sunshine after the Storm-it's _The Tempest_). Fans of historical parallel will enjoy knowing that this group returns to many of the original conventions of Kabuki (16th century), including the all-male cast. Skip Nicholson South Pasadena (CA) HS [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A Burt Date: Saturday, 27 Sep 1997 15:01:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Austin Powers R & J Spoof In case anyone's interested, here's a spoof of the balcony scene with Jenny McCarthy as Juliet and Mike Meyers as Romeo in the film comedy _Austin Powers_. Cheers, Richard [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 27 Sep 1997 22:40:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0964 Re: Adaptations There was a fine lecture last year at the University of Illinois, given by Andrew Gurr's counterpart at the Tokyo Globe. He went into some detail about adaptations of The Tempest for Bunraku puppet theatre. The first thing that has to happen, apparently, is that the cast is cut down to a handful of characters-it takes a crew of three men to handle one puppet, so imagine what it would look like with the usual cast of 12-15! The Prospero character was given a puppet head which was familiar to Japanese audiences as an exile from the Tales of Heiki (Heiki-biwa, for the initiated). Other central characters were similarly drawn from other Japanese legends; the story line, understandably, underwent quite a few changes. Andy White Arlington, VA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 09:13:51 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0969 Re: Sly and Shrew MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0969. Monday, 29 September 1997. [1] From: Mike Jensen Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 17:24:46 +0100 Subj: SHK 8.0961 Re: Christopher Sly and Shrew Queries [2] From: David Evett Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 12:53:06 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0961 Re: Christopher Sly and Shrew Queries [3] From: David Skeele Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 14:54:11 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0961 Re: Christopher Sly and Shrew Queries [4] From: Cora Lee Wolfe Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 19:21:58 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0961 Re: Christopher Sly and Shrew Queries [5] From: Larry Weiss Date: Sunday, 28 Sep 1997 15:11:00 -0400 Subj: Taming of the Shrew [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Jensen Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 17:24:46 +0100 Subject: SHK 8.0961 Re: Christopher Sly and Shrew Queries Oh, that Sly Shrew. The debate is endless because the questions are currently unanswerable. I doubt that Fletcher's play The Tamer Tamed can shed light on this issue, but let's at least take a look. I do not have a copy at hand so we are going on my creaky memory here. For any who don't know, Fletcher was a principle dramatist for The King's Men after Shakespeare's retirement. They even collaborated on two or three plays (that is debated). The Tamer Tamed is Fletcher's sequel to Shrew. As I recall Christopher Sly is not in the play, nor is the framing device used. Could it be that the device did not work as hoped on stage? Could it have been dropped whilst Shrew was in production, or during a rewrite before a revival? Since we don't REALLY know what the folio text is based on, it is difficult to know how well if reflects the intent of the author and producers. I am not saying I believe this suggestion. I don't. I do think the question is worth raising, tossing into the mix, and letting others see if anything can be made of it. I've taken it as far as my imagination permits. Two other thoughts: 1) Though I personally find Jonathan Miller's approach to the play the most rewarding, and there is certainly justification for it in the text, my first impression of The Tamer Tamed (I have read it only once) is that it is the kind of knockabout play that Miller (and I) find so dull. Since Fletcher was closer to the original production than we are, could that be a clue as to how the King's Men enacted Shrew? 2) I long wondered why some enterprising theater company didn't mount Shew and Tamed in rep. Seems like a great idea for a double bill. Then I read The Tamer Tamed. It's pretty awful. And repetitious. And unimaginative. Now I understand. Cheers, Mike Jensen [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 12:53:06 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0961 Re: Christopher Sly and Shrew Queries Sean Lawrence is right on to place playing as a recurrent feature of *Shrew* whose ubiquity makes it an urgent if not often an explicit theme. His list of instances should include Bianca playing submissive maiden, Baptista and Vincentio playing patriarch, the masters Lucentio and Hortensio playing tutor-servants, and of course Tranio the servant playing the master Lucentio. Sean might also have observed that playing destabilizes what passes for reality on and off the stage in ways that allow for the construction of new and more generous versions-though as often in Shakespeare these may well involve the resumption of old roles in revised attitudes. Ludic-rously, Dave Evett [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 14:54:11 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0961 Re: Christopher Sly and Shrew Queries > What took me by surprise was the ending. After >Katherine's submission in 5.2 that wins Petruchio's bet (and doubles her >dowry), they cut to another scene showing Katherine and Petruchio in bed >together gleefully counting their loot and throwing it around. It >looked like the bet and submission scene were all a setup that they had >planned together ahead of time. If any of you saw this production, did >you take it this way too? Have any of you interpreted this scene as a >setup? I should add that in this production, at the end of 5.1, where >Kate kisses Petruchio, Kate and Petruchio clearly realize that they love >each other. This is exactly the kind of approach to SHREW that makes my stomach turn. I can respect any production which dares to look the Kate/Petruchio relationship right in the face-either historicist treatments which explore it in terms of Elizabethan sexual/social mores or more contemporary readings which examine it in the light of contemporary sexual politics-but the Stratford treatment, as described above, sounds like utter avoidance of any of the gender issues raised by the play. Though it probably was intended to make the play more commercially palatable to the tour-bus crowd, I would think revealing the whole plot as a set-up would make most audience members feel a little ripped-off: like having Macbeth, at the end of the play, wake to the adoring face of Lady Macbeth and say "Oh, darling, what a terrible dream I just had." Having said all this, I remind myself that I recently chided a fellow SHAKSPERean for criticising production concepts that he had not himself seen in action. Thus, I would welcome having my view of this one attacked or corroborated by those who were actually there. Shrewishly, David Skeele [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cora Lee Wolfe Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 19:21:58 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0961 Re: Christopher Sly and Shrew Queries When my senior class did Taming we set it in late 19th century Mexico. My school is just a few miles from the border, and many of my students were from Mexico. It provided us with a nice colorful set and allowed for some colorful simple costumes. It was one of my favorite productions. My students did not want Katherine's spirit destroyed, and suggested that we play it so that she was obviously somewhat attracted to Petruchio in spite of herself. In the end she begins to enjoy the game and delivers the final speech in that spirit. I liked it, and that interpretation is certainly in keeping with most of the rest of Shakespeare's women, strong willed and capable, in control. [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss Date: Sunday, 28 Sep 1997 15:11:00 -0400 Subject: Taming of the Shrew (1)Pronunciation of "Petruchio": The spelling of "Petrucio" in the Italian speech at I.ii.25 (Riverside lineation) strongly suggests to me that "Petruchio" is intended as a transliteration in which "ch" is pronounced as in "China." (2) "mistress"/"masters": At line 18 in the same scene, Grumio is taking a beating from Petruchio and pleads (according to F1): "Help, mistress, help, my master is mad." Since Theobald, editors have amended "mistress" to "masters", as there is no female character on stage. Or is there? Remember the page in the gallery dressed like a lady, pretending to be Sly's wife. It seems to me a highly risible bit of business for a clown to plead for help from a well-dressed member of the audience, and it is one that is still used today. Player-audience interaction was certainly common on the Elizabethan stage, as WS showed us in LLL, MND and even Hamlet. The staging of HenV at the New Globe makes good use of the practice. I think it would be great fun to have the complete T/S played this way at the Globe, perhaps with the addition of the Sly scenes in "A Shrew" which are omitted from F1. Mark Rylance, help! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 09:25:11 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0970 Re: Black Bile and Medical History MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0970. Monday, 29 September 1997. [1] From: Rick Jones Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 11:57:16 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0962 Black bile and Medical History [2] From: Derek Wood Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 15:37:35 -0300 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0962 Black bile and Medical History [3] From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 17:32:28 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0962 Black bile and Medical History [4] From: Joseph Tate Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 15:14:34 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0962 Black bile and Medical History [5] From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Sundayy, 28 Sep 1997 21:28:23 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0962 Black bile and Medical History [6] From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 20:28:19 +1000 Subj: More on black bile [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 11:57:16 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0962 Black bile and Medical History I don't have an answer to Alexandra Bennett's question, but I'd bet she could find one in Lawrence Babb, _The Elizabethan Malady: A Study of Melancholia in English Literature from 1580-1642_, Michigan State, 1951. Rick Jones [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Derek Wood Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 15:37:35 -0300 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0962 Black bile and Medical History Lawrence Babb's Elizabethan Malady remains helpful on questions like this one and is very readable, also. Since too much thinking could produce an excess of melancholy, this question is especially relevant for our profession, more so since poverty and a bad diet worsened the condition of scholars. Certainly, your student would also enjoy looking into Burton' Anatomy of Melancholy, I would think. Derek Wood. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 17:32:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0962 Black bile and Medical History I believe purging was used. Do you remember Steve Martin's famous skin on Theodoric, Medieval Physician on Sat Nite Live-they kept bringing him patients who he dosed, bled, purged etc.-suddenly he stops-"This isn't right, we treat everyone the same without listening or looking-we should take notes, make observations, collect symptoms then make proper diagnoses, then form medical schools" so forth so forth-then he stops- "NAH!!!" -- and gets on with the bleeding and purging. [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Tate Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 15:14:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0962 Black bile and Medical History "The cures for melancholy properly combined physical and mental therapy. Since diet was thought to be a cause of the distemper, diet, as in choler, was an obvious mode of treatment, suggested by Boorde [*Dyetary*, London, 1542], Barrough [*Method of Phisicke*, London, 1583], and Laurentius [*Discourse of the Preservation of the Sight*, tr. R. Surphlet, London, 1599] and others ... Boorde advises a melancholy man to avoid wines, but Lemnius [*Touchstone of Complexions* tr. T. Newton, London, 1565] thinks them at least sometimes medicinal ... Since sedentary study was often a cause, Bright [*Treatise on Melancholy*, London, 1586] advises moderate exercise ... Laurentius urges music ... Sleep was a more generally accepted treatment ... Lemnius advises that one both "cherrishe" the body and relieve "that inconvenience which distepereth the minde." For this purpose, diversions, games and "Moderate myrthe and banqueting" were prescribed." --taken from *The Humors and Shakespeare's Characters* by John Draper (New York: AMS Press, 1965) 77-8. Hope this is useful, Joseph Tate Graduate Student U. of Washington, Seattle [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Sundayy, 28 Sep 1997 21:28:23 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0962 Black bile and Medical History To Alexandra Bennett I'm no authority on specifically Elizabethan medicine, but in the late medieval treatise "The Governance of Health", extant in a large number of fourteenth- and fifteenth-century manuscripts and then printed by Caxton so presumably representing some kind of commonplace or mainstream knowledge, the main technique for redressing imbalance in humours is diet. Certain foodstuffs were considered to make one more choleric, or more phlegmatic, etc. Also exercise, and there are other techniques which we might now call lifestyle changes, but I'd need to check my notes. (I've studied this reasonably interesting text, but a long time ago.) I doubt that mainstream medical science in Elizabethan England had changed its mind significantly on these matters since the late 15th century. Adrian Kiernander [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 20:28:19 +1000 Subject: More on black bile. To Alexandra Bennett I've checked "The Governance of Health" (which interestingly advises against blood-letting, preferring exercise as a treatment.) The principle involved in redressing imbalances is allopathic-excesses are to be cancelled out by their opposite. The crucial passage concerning diet reads: "...þe complexioun of man schold be loked to, as, if it be tempred, kepe it so wiþ like metes and drinkes, and if it be distempred, by his contrary bryng it a yen litel and litel in temperure. For whi to sangweyn men distempred yeue melancoliows metes, and to melancoliows men sangweyn metes, and to flematik men coleryke metes. For every euel complexion may be brough to temprure but if necessaries of liflode lette it." The treatise also gives a wonderful range of "spices" of exercise including (in addition to the conventional walking, riding, running, wrestling, etc.) carrying stones from one side of the house to another, holding the breath, and the advice that ("for yong men that ben lusty") "tempred flescly companyng with womman is gode and helply in governing of helþe to hem þat may haue it be Goddis lawe." (Interestingly this MS reading is amplified in Caxton's printing to specify not just any woman, but a young brown woman in winter and a young white woman in summer. Allopathy again.) Adrian Kiernander ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 09:29:48 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0971 Re: Pronunciation of "th" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0971. Monday, 29 September 1997. [1] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 27 Sep 1997 22:44:09 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Pronunciation of "th" [2] From: Peter L Groves Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 12:20:20 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0966 Re: Pronunciation of "th" [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Saturday, 27 Sep 1997 22:44:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Pronunciation of "th" This brings to mind one of my pet theories, which is that the canon sounds by far the most authentic in highland Scots, which still uses this pronunciation for words like "murther", etc. It is also the only dialect I can identify which rhymes "move" with "love", uses "an" to mean "if", etc. Anybody have the same impression? Andy White Arlington, VA [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter L Groves Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 12:20:20 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0966 Re: Pronunciation of "th" > Since we apparently have moved on more generally to Shakespeare's > pronunciation, I wonder about the use of "th" in such words as "murther" > and "burthen" where the "th" is usually a "d." Both words had a /dh/ sound (as in "bathe" or "then") in OE and ME, and thus presumably also for Shakespeare; the change to /d/ in these words in Early Modern English (as also in Lear's "pudder" for "pother") may be by analogy with the regular change /dh/ -> /d/ before continuants like /l/, /m/, /n/ and /r/ in Middle English. Peter Groves, Monash ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 09:42:10 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0972 Announcements MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0972. Monday, 29 September 1997. [1] From: Martin Elsky Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 12:58:00 -0400 (EDT) Subj: CUNY Renaissance Schedule [2] From: Western Canon University Date: Sunday, 28 Sep 1997 12:08:21 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Western Canon University & The WWW Literary Renaissance [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Elsky Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 12:58:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: CUNY Renaissance Schedule [With apologies for cross-listings] The following is the Fall 1997 SCHEDULE OF CUNY RENAISSANCE AND EARLY MODERN EVENTS. Admission is free and open to the public. CUNY Graduate School Martin Elsky, Coordinator Renaissance Studies Program 212-642-2346 (Phone) 33 West 42 Street 212-642-2205 (Fax) New York, NY 10036 For more information, consult ******************************************* http://web.gc.cuny.edu/dept/renai/ren.htm ******************************************* Thursday September 25 Bernice W. Kliman (Nassau Community College), "Language and Gender in Henry V." 7:00-9:00 p.m. Room 202, Graduate School (Sponsored by the Society for the Study of Women in the Renaissance; for further information on SSWR events, contact Betty Travitsky <2095890@mcimail.com> or Susan O'Malley ) Thursday October 30 PAMELA ALLEN BROWN (Columbia University), "From Jest to Earnest: Women as Players." 7:00-9:00 p.m. This event to take place at The Gallatin School, NYU, 715 Broadway, 6th floor conference room. (Sponsored by the Society for the Study of Women in the Renaissance) Wednesday November 5 PAOLO FASOLI (Hunter College), "Against Love: Anti-erotic Treatises in the Renaissance." 6:30-8:30p.m., Room 40-18, Grace Building (Sponsored by The Graduate Colloquium in Comparative Literature and Italian Studies) Thursday November 20 BETTY TRAVITSKY (Center for the Study of Women and Society, CUNY), "Author and Subordinate: The Case of Elizabeth Egerton." 7:00-9:00 p.m. Room 202 Graduate School (Sponsored by the Society for the Study of Women in the Renaissance) Friday November 21 CUNY Renaissance Studies Colloquium Series: RENAISSANCE AND EARLY MODERN CULTURAL GEOGRAPHY: THE PLACES OF IDENTITY, 1500-1700 Fall colloquium NATION AND DYNASTY: ENGLAND AND THE HABSBURG EMPIRE 4:00-6:00p.m. 3rd-Floor Studio Graduate School. THOMAS KAUFMANN (Princeton University), " Nation and Ethnicity vs. Dynastic Identity in Early Modern Central Europe" MALCOLM SMUTS (University of Massachusetts-Boston), "Rituals of Power and National Identities in Seventeenth-Century Britain" Reception to follow [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Western Canon University Date: Sunday, 28 Sep 1997 12:08:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Western Canon University & The WWW Literary Renaissance Western Canon University is now seeking tutors: http://westerncanon.com Join the world's greatest conversation: http://killdevilhill.com The WWW Literary Renaissance THE JOLLY ROGER Sign aboard The World's Largest Literary Frigate: http://www.jollyroger.com We would also like to invite you to sail on by a couple more websites affiliated with the online literary renaissance. WESTERN CANON UNIVERSITY http://www.westerncanon.com The World's Largest Literary Cafe KILL DEVIL HILL http://killdevilhill.com At these sites you'll find over 300 discussion rooms devoted to the Great Books of the Western Canon. And too, there are many other interactive literary features. You can send someone a Shakespearean Sonnet Greeting at http://jollyroger.com/beaconway/shakespearethoughts.html Or sign up for the poem of the day at http://killdevilhill.com From The Western Canon University Convocation Speech . . .Thomas Jefferson's original ideal conception of the University of Virginia consisted of an institution where attendance would not be taken, where there would be no formal classes, and where scholars and students would be free to come and go during a perpetual conversation centered about the Greats. His ideal assumed a noble view of man's natural intellectual inclinations, and we share Jefferson's fundamental philosophy. We believe men are taught far more effectively by inspiration than by coercion, and that the greatest teachers are not those who prostelytyze, but rather those who write the Great Books, or humbly point us in their direction. . . At Western Canon University we look forward to having volunteer tutors preside over the discussion forums, lead the debates, and suggest passages, works, and volumes of criticism which might be of particular interest to scholars of the Western Soul. We hope that you utilize our over one hundred lecture halls and precept areas as supplements to your college assignments. You can come to our campus throughout your entire life for your education . . .If you would like to become a tutor at Western Canon University, please let us know with which author or work your passions lie, and we'll let you captain a Lecture Hall. Drop us a line at mobydick@westerncanon.com, and we'll provide you with a password that will allow you to moderate the discussion. Your primary duty will be to enjoy yourself. . . http://jollyroger.com http://westerncanon.com http://killdevilhill.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 09:51:34 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0973 Re: H5; Mac Ending; Ophelia; Impermanent Permanence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0973. Monday, 29 September 1997. [1] From: David Evett Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 13:26:52 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0967 Announcements [2] From: Tim Richards Date: Saturday, 27 Sep 1997 10:48:03 +0800 Subj: Shrew Ending and Macbeth Ending [3] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 28 Sep 1997 16:39:30 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0966 Re: Ophelia [4] From: Dale Lyles Date: Sunday, 28 Sep 1997 22:01:50 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0965 Impermanent Permanence [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 13:26:52 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0967 Announcements > Subj: Great Performances-Henry V at the Globe How nice that the H5 at the Globe is scheduled for performance on Guy Fawkes night-had no idea the folks at PBS were so witty. Explosively, Dave Evett [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Richards Date: Saturday, 27 Sep 1997 10:48:03 +0800 Subject: Shrew Ending and Macbeth Ending People's comments about the inconclusive ending to the Sly story have reminded me of my similar feelings about the witches in Macbeth. I remember studying the play as a kid and thinking that it was asymmetrical; that having initiated and guided events, the witches should have appeared again at the conclusion of the play to view the results of their handiwork. When I appeared in the play earlier this year this feeling resurfaced. As we were using an Elizabethan style theatre with balconies etc., I would have had them appear at the upper galleries, laughing madly as the opposing troops ploughed into each other. Has anyone seen the witches included in this or any other way near the conclusion of the play? Tim Richards. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 28 Sep 1997 16:39:30 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0966 Re: Ophelia Dave Evett's suggestion that Ophelia "is a complicated figure of speech, not a person, and need not be accounted for by anything in particular outside the text" seems to be based on a rather minimalistic vision of reading and interpretation. In fact, readers are not (and probably never have been) circumscribed by the texts they are reading. Readers actively add a great deal to texts, and we all make assumptions about characters that have no textual foundation. We assume that Ophelia had a mother. Don't we? Or, when we go to see Hamlet, do we merely appreciate the verbal construct that is Ophelia? Does Ophelia have no dimension beyond the rhetorical? Since I have recently been involved in the rehearsal and production of Hamlet, I'd say that a good actor (like Jill Westerby in the Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival's production) transcends the lines, and, in fact, uses them to create the appearance of a real woman, and not, no not, a complicated figure of speech. Yours, Bill Godshalk [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Sunday, 28 Sep 1997 22:01:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0965 Impermanent Permanence To Norm Holland and others who are feeling a groundshift in "contributions to knowledge," I would like to recommend A. S. Byatt's novel, *Possession: A Romance*. I picked it up on a whim in the bookstore the other night, and it is consuming far more of my time than it ought. It is quite simply breath-taking, and I do not use to exaggerate. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 09:53:52 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0974 Two Questions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0974. Monday, 29 September 1997. From: Tracey A Sedinger Date: Friday, 26 Sep 1997 16:04:29 -0600 (MDT) Subject: misc. I have two requests. (1) Can someone please direct me to a good book on early modern pronunciation? I'm trying to follow up on a suggestion that Shakespeare's "nothing" would have sounded not much different from "noting." (2) Has anyone heard the following? Several of my students have told me that they have been taught the following: a line of poetry (iambic pentameter) ending on an unstressed syllable suggests that the speaker/persona is lying. I've never heard this, but I got my education in an era in which scansion was no longer fashionable. Thanks, Tracey Sedinger University of Northern Colorado ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:17:09 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0975 Re: Two Questions; Pronunciation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0975. Tuesday, 30 September 1997. [1] From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 11:36:35 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0974 Two Questions [2] From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 15:23:49 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0971 Re: Pronunciation of "th" [3] From: Eric Armstrong Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 12:55:19 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0974 Two Questions [4] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 14:13:43 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0971 Re: Pronunciation of "th" [5] From: Peter L Groves Date: Tuesdayy, 30 Sep 1997 18:07:14 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0974 Two Questions [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 11:36:35 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0974 Two Questions Unstressed final pentameter [feminine/weak ending] means lying? Not necessarily, but lying to oneself I'd agree. Look at Lear's opening statement on the division of powers and all its weak endings, like *Land of Hope and Glory* being played on a honky-tonk. Harry Hill [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 15:23:49 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0971 Re: Pronunciation of "th" The always bright Andrew Walker White is right about Highland pronunciation, although I think perhaps he is-rightly again-more impressed by the *diction*, which renders all consonants and all the subtle variations in vowel pattern audible. But I'm uncertain which particular Highland accent would rhyme `move' with ' love. Harry Hill [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 12:55:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0974 Two Questions Early Pronunciation: A Way with Words by Gert Ronberg has a good section on pronunciation, and uses a variety of Elizabethan and Renaissance texts to prove its point. Eric Armstrong [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 14:13:43 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0971 Re: Pronunciation of "th" Well, there goes one of my pet theories shot down by a few simple historical acts! Thanks for the information. Yours, Bill Godshalk [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter L Groves Date: Tuesdayy, 30 Sep 1997 18:07:14 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0974 Two Questions > I have two requests. (1) Can someone please direct me to a good book on > early modern pronunciation? Fausto Cercignani, (Oxford: OUP, 1981) > (2) Has anyone heard the following? Several of my students > have told me that they have been taught the following: a line of poetry > (iambic pentameter) ending on an unstressed syllable suggests that the > speaker/persona is lying. Intriguing nonsense. Peter Groves, Monash. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:22:47 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0976 In-the-round Performance of Tamburlaine I MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0976. Tuesday, 30 September 1997. From: Norm Holland Date: Monday, 29 Sep 97 09:59:18 EDT Subject: In-the-round Performance of Tamburlaine I Forgive me another long posting, but this is on an altogether different topic. Saturday night, wife Jane and I went to a Way-Off-Broadway production of Marlowe's Tamburlaine the Great, Part I (1587). Something we read said that this play had not been given in New York in fifty years. So we went. The American Theatre of Actors were staging it in an outdoor playground space back of a community center and police station. The lighting and staging were monotonous, the costuming makeshift, the fight scenes unconvincing, the actors' voices strained, their talents, to put it tactfully, undeveloped. To make matters worse, it was cold and the only seating was two single rows of benches. Sirens, auto horns, and trucks beep-beeping as they backed up often overpowered the actors. All in all it was a hard night at the theater. Jane and I talked about the staging and acting afterwards, comparing it to our more vivid experience at the restored Globe this summer. This theater-space was rectangular. A platform at one end allowed for thrones, and most of the action took place there. The 20-person audience filled two single benches facing each other, extending away from the platform. Thus, they outlined a rectangular open space between the benches. In it, some of the action, all the fighting, and the one belly dance took place. The far end of the space was blank, and there Bajazet suffered in his cage and there was occasional swordplay. The actors played Marlowe's declamatory style as one would in a modern illusionist theater. That is, if a speech was not directed to another character, the actor would talk it to the far wall, to the sky, or just off. I take it the premise was that we were watching someone make a speech to the world at large or overhearing someone talking to himself. In other words, it was the premise of the fourth-wall stage, the invisible audience, although this was anything but. We looked right through the actors to our fellow-sufferers across from us. At one point the actors did address us in the audience. Brandishing swords, they shouted a series of vows and menaces. They marched along our row of benches, and as they did so, they made strong eye contact with each and every one of us as they proclaimed some threat or other. The effect was electrifying, unnerving, scary, really, the actors being only a few feet away from us. It was the one strong moment in the production-for me, anyway. By contrast, we watched Bajazet suffering in his cage, shouting his curses and threats, sometimes at Tamberlaine at the other end of the space, on the throne, often just to the heavens. Jane and I thought how much more effective he would have been had he addressed his soliloquies frankly to us, the audience. As the actors had done with their earlier threats. As, say, a modern political speaker would: talking to the crowd, even pointing to someone in the crowd as if he were singling someone out from the multitudes. Is there a mode here for Globe-style or theater-in-the-round productions of Renaissance plays? To abandon the illusionist premise for doing asides, soliloquies, and declamations? To replace it with a frank talking to the audience? A recognition that the audience is there, thereby perhaps engaging the audience in the play as a mutual performance, as we saw (on occasion) at the Globe in London? --Best, Norm ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:28:09 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0977 Re: Stratford Shrew MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0977. Tuesday, 30 September 1997. [1] From: Helen Ostovich Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 10:32:07 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0969 Re: Sly and Shrew [2] From: Tanya Gough Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 11:04:08 -0400 Subj: Stratford Shrew [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 10:32:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0969 Re: Sly and Shrew Re Dave Skeele's question: The Stratford Ontario production had no redeeming features I could see, and the ending did indeed feel like a slap in the face of any one in the audience who was trying to see if a mind lurked behind the production concept. As for Kate and Petruchio being "really in love" in Act 5 -- nonsense! I've rarely seen a _Shrew_ with less animal magnetism. The production had no gender concepts at all. Helen Ostovich Department of English / Editor, _REED Newsletter_ McMaster University [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tanya Gough Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 11:04:08 -0400 Subject: Stratford Shrew I only saw the Stratford "Taming of the Shrew" in dress rehearsal, but I found the ending contrived and dissatisfying. Tour bus crowd-pleaser indeed. The production made use of unnecessary slapstick and bizarre group sequences for no apparent reason (they certainly didn't contribute anything to my understanding of the production). I also interpreted the ending as a "set up," and was very dissatisfied. Perhaps part of the problem was that there was nothing prior to the "sell-out" to indicate why or when Kate and Petruchio joined forces. I also find the implications of this version very disturbing, although the New York Times reveled in the idea of sex-as-commerce (perhaps the director heightened these elements after I saw it, for there were no real indications of it before the ending). I preferred the non-bardic "Equus," "Death of a Salesman" and "Oedipus Rex" this year. Incidentally, next year's schedule hasn't been announced yet, but for the curious among you, here's part of the short list (as far as memory serves): Winter's Tale, Two Gentlemen of Verona, Julius Caesar, Much Ado, a revival of last year's Waiting for Godot, Moliere's The Miser, Man of La Mancha. Tanya Gough ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:38:36 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0978 Re: Adaptations MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0978. Tuesday, 30 September 1997. [1] From: Tanya Gough Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 11:05:15 -0400 Subj: Japanese Adaptations [2] From: John W. Mahon Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 18:00:27 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0968 Re: Adaptations and Spoof [3] From: Werner Habicht Date: Monday, 29 Sep 97 19:54 MET DST Subj: SHK 8.0960 Adaptations [4] From: Jerry Bangham Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 20:05:36 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0968 Re: Adaptations - Caesar Trilogy [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tanya Gough Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 11:05:15 -0400 Subject: Japanese Adaptations On the topic of Japanese adaptations of Shakespeare, there is an independent troupe in Nagoya which specializes in "Rock-Kabuki" - a modernized theatrical technique which employs modern slapstick, pop culture references and rock music, integrated with traditional Kabuki movement. As far as I know, they are the only troupe in Japan to perform Kabuki in this manner (they are also radical in their use of female performers). I've seen Merchant of Venice performed this way. I've also heard tell of a Butoh version of Macbeth. Of course, Akira Kurosawa's films "Throne of Blood" and "Ran" spring to mind, as well. Tanya Gough [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John W. Mahon Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 18:00:27 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0968 Re: Adaptations and Spoof There is a slip, surely, in Nick Clary's communication of 26 Sept about Adaptations. He refers to a Kabuki version of HAMLET in which there is tripling of the roles of Hamlet, Ophelia, and Fortinbras. Since Hamlet and Ophelia engage in at least two conversations, one of them, of course, "private," how can these roles be played by the same performer? Puzzled in New Rochelle, John Mahon [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Werner Habicht Date: Monday, 29 Sep 97 19:54 MET DST Subject: SHK 8.0960 Adaptations An adaptation of The Tempest that originated and was performed in Papua New Guinea, entitled "Tawarina: Island of Spirits", is described (in English) by its author, Rosalie Everest, in *Shakespeare Jahrbuch*, 1993, p.323-328. The play makes use of material (fairy tale, magic, etc.) current in its area. Werner Habicht [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Bangham Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 20:05:36 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0968 Re: Adaptations - Caesar Trilogy There was a brief note in the August 18th Theatre Record which mentions the "Julius Caesar Trilogy" at the Riverside 3, a suburban London theatre, 16-19 July. A production was a joint effort of the Theatre du Sygne & Haiyu-Za Theatre Companies. The trilogy comes from Julius Caesar, Antony & Cleopatra and Life of Julius Caesar by Plutarch. The Theatre Record reprints British theatre reviews, but there were evidently no reviews of this production. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:50:31 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0979 Re: Bile; Ophelia MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0979. Tuesday, 30 September 1997. [1] From: Derek Wood Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 12:20:56 -0300 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0962 Black bile and Medical History [2] From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 15:26:44 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0973 Re: Ophelia [3] From: David Evett Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 13:55:08 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0973 Re: Ophelia [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Derek Wood Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 12:20:56 -0300 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0962 Black bile and Medical History Lawrence Babb's Elizabethan Malady remains helpful on questions like this one and is very readable, also. Since too much thinking could produce an excess of melancholy, this question is especially relevant for our profession, more so since poverty and a bad diet worsened the condition of scholars. Certainly, your student would also enjoy looking into Burton' Anatomy of Melancholy, I would think. Derek Wood. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 15:26:44 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0973 Re: Ophelia Bill Godshalk: don't you think Dave Evett is whizzing an ironic arrow at False Cardiff Himself when he says Ophelia is a figure of speech? Harry Hill [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 13:55:08 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0973 Re: Ophelia Bill Godshalk writes: "Dave Evett's suggestion that Ophelia "is a complicated figure of speech, not a person, and need not be accounted for by anything in particular outside the text" seems to be based on a rather minimalistic vision of reading and interpretation." I said "need not," not "could not" or "should not"-otherwise I'd be even more inconsistent than I actually am, having just accounted for some elements of the Ophelia material by means of things outside the text in that same post. I might more accurately have written that Ophelia _begins_ as a complicated figure of speech; readers do, of course, interpret what they read, in manifold ways, and actors, of course, do, too. But some kinds of interpretation seem more productive than others. In general, I think it more productive to work on the things that are present in texts than those that are absent-e.g. bawdy songs vs. an account of how the singer learned them, or (Bill having written that "We assume that Ophelia had a mother") mothers in the text (Gertrude) vs. mothers not in the text (not only Ophelia's, but also Polonius', and Claudius', and Rosencrans', and Gildenstern's, and the Player King's . . .). The repeated absence of mothers from the Shakespearean texts has been noticed (only some of them-hundreds of such absences merit no attention), and study of the phenomenon has proven critically useful. Study of the absence of an accounting for Ophelia's knowledge of bawdy songs might be useful. But it doesn't seem to have much urgency-I don't think anybody has yet shown that the absence of such accounts as regards other Shakespearean song-singers has much interpretative significance: it's the fact that she does utter them that seems to matter. But I may be wrong-was the question about where she learned them one the Cincinnati actors addressed to their dramaturg Raised independently by him as a matter worth thinking about? A recurrent feature of rehearsals of that scene in productions of the play? Characteristically, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 10:04:14 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0980 Many Queries MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0980. Tuesday, 30 September 1997. [1] From: Jodi Clark Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 17:48:15 +0200 (IST) Subj: Re: High School Curriculums [2] From: Eduardo del Rio Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 12:51:23 -0500 Subj: CUNY Announcement [3] From: Patricia Palermo Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 14:05:08 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Itilpa and Shalum [4] From: Carl Fortunato Date: Monday, 29 Sep 97 22:40:00 -0400 Subj: Malvolio [5] From: Jung Jimmy Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 0:06 -0500 Subj: Laughing and Crying, you know it's the same release [6] From: Hiroyuki Todokoro Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 18:20:33 +0900 Subj: merry or weary? [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jodi Clark Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 17:48:15 +0200 (IST) Subject: Re: High School Curriculums Greetings. I am currently student teaching at a high school which actually has a drama program. So, I am looking to try to do some scene work with Shakespeare, as they have had little to no exposure to it, excepting in English class. Right now, their grasp on the language is minimal, at best. They have that very typical disdain for that "old stuff" instilled, I imagine by very boring English classes. The only thing they have read for me so far is Hamlet's "To be, or not to be. . ." speech. But they even had a hard time with that. Does anyone have some curriculum materials they would be willing to share, or lesson plan ideas that they have used to great success? I will probably only have two weeks to work on this, with 5 class sessions. I would really like the students to work on a scene and present it in performance in class at the end of the unit. Each class period is about 50 minutes. Also, which plays would you recommend using? Thank you very much in advance. Most Sincerely, Jodi Clark Emerson College [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eduardo del Rio Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 12:51:23 -0500 Subject: CUNY Announcement I just noticed that in CUNY's announcement for fall events it says Renaissance _and_ Early Modern. Is there some significance to this? i.e. is this a way out of the "dilemma"-to use both terms? I'm curious to hear if anyone else is resorting to this as a way of placating both camps? [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patricia Palermo Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 14:05:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Itilpa and Shalum The epilogue to an obscure 18C play alludes to a lovesick couple named Itilpa and Shalum who lived in "days of old." I have checked all the usual sources but have come up empty. Does anyone recognize the allusion? Private responses are probably best-- Many thanks, P. Palermo ppalermo@drew.edu [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carl Fortunato Date: Monday, 29 Sep 97 22:40:00 -0400 Subject: Malvolio I just finished directing my first play: William Shakespeare's *Twelfth Night*, wherein I also played Feste and my wife played Olivia. The production was not bad, in my opinion (although there were many things I would like to do over again:).) We did 2 shows in Central Park and 3 in a small 50-seat theatre on Broadway. The ones in the Park were the better ones (a *lot* more energy), but it was almost like doing two different plays, which I wasn't ready for. One thing that bothered me. After the last show (in the theatre) an audience member told me that she felt *so sorry* for Malvolio during the imprisonment scene. This was not my intention! I very much wanted to keep Malvolio from casting a pall over the play, I very much wanted to avoid *any* feeling that he was a tragic figure, and I wanted the scenes to be almost *purely* comic, with the sole exception of his appearance at the end of Act V, when it would be okay to feel sorry for him. I *think* I avoided this in the park, where we had his "prison" the underside of a picnic table, on which he bumped his head a few times. But in the theatre, we just placed him in a blue spot (no actual walls) with a blindfold, and I'm afraid that it might have made it too dark an atmosphere. Has anybody seen any productions where Malvolio's imprisonment was *in no way* tragic, and if so, how was it pulled off? [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jung Jimmy Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 0:06 -0500 Subject: Laughing and Crying, you know it's the same release. I was wondering if anyone had suggestions on criticism focused on how Shakespeare handled the same material in a Comedy versus a Tragedy/History. This notion is undeveloped but the followng examples came to mind: Return of soldiers in Macbeth versus Much Ado Infidelity in Othello versus Merry Wives Overthrown ruler in Tempest or As You Like It versus the Richards and Henrys What's the difference between Iago and Don John There must be better examples, or perhaps more subtle ones, (Viola's duel with Aguecheek compared with Hal and Hotspur? is Lady Macbeth just a Shrew gone over board?) I was originally thinking in terms of stories or plot elements that go in different directions because one is tragic and the other comic, but I'll take any thoughts or suggestions at this point. [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hiroyuki Todokoro Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 18:20:33 +0900 Subject: merry or weary? In the Folio version of AYL, Rosalind says on arriving at the Forest of Arden, O Jupiter, how merry are my spirits! I can't find any flaw in the text, but almost all the editors emended 'merry' following Theobald into 'weary' without any plausible reason. For example, The New Penguin says, 'Rosalind can hardly be pretending to be merry, to encourage Celia...' in its note (p.157). Really? Is it so unnatural that Rosalind should counterfeit to be merry to encourage Celia? Rosalind herself says soon after that I could find in my heart to disgrace my man's apparel, and to cry like a woman, but I must comfort the weaker vessel...' She says 'I could' (in subjunctive mood), so, if she really complains of her weariness, as many editors wanted to act, then she is quite illogical, isn't she? Here she behaves as Ganymede (Jupiter's page), and she tries to be brave. She says her spirits are merry, in spite of the facet that her spirits ARE weary, but isn't that what the brave do? What's your opinion? Cheers, from todok whose spirits are merry! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 10:09:24 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0981 Re: Macbeth MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0981. Tuesday, 30 September 1997. [1] From: Jung Jimmy Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 16:10 -0500 Subj: Good and Bad in the Scottish Play [2] From: John M Boni Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 16:21:08 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0973 Re: Mac Ending [3] From: Skip Nicholson Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 18:49:56 -0700 Subj: Re: Mac Ending [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jung Jimmy Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 16:10 -0500 Subject: Good and Bad in the Scottish Play My mind wanders and I was wondering what would happen if Macbeth's adversaries were played as more evil and less heroic. If Duncan, Banquo and Malcolm were lound noisy oafish soldiers and Macbeth was the slightly ambitious hero. What if at Duncan first appearance he marches on to a field of bleeding dying men, kicks one, grabs him by the hair and says : DUNCAN What bloody man is that? He can report, As seemeth by his plight, of the revolt The newest state. Would it ruin the play? Has it ever been performed that way? [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John M Boni Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 16:21:08 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0973 Re: Mac Ending Tim Richards asks if anyone has seen a production of *Macbeth* depicting the witches as finally watching triumphantly over Macbeth's demise, etc. It seems to me that I recall one such production but cannot place it as to location, date, or other details. What I do recall is a negative reaction-it all seemed too obvious. But then, I have trouble with the witches in the play anyhow. Sorry about that. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Nicholson Date: Monday, 29 Sep 1997 18:49:56 -0700 Subject: Re: Mac Ending I hope some director, somewhere has brought the witches back to enjoy the final bloodletting in Macbeth as Tim Richards suggests might be fun. I've never seen it done, BUT Polanski's movie of Macbeth ends, as I recall, with everyone heading off to Malcolm's investiture. Everyone, that is, except Donalbain, who rides into the landscape used for the witches' big scenes while the soundtrack reprises the theme music associated with the weird sisters. The suggestion is strong that paddock, Graymalkin & Co. have more work to do before they sleep! Skip Nicholson South Pasadena (CA) HS========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 08:19:27 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0982 Re: Impermanent Permanence; AYL; Theatre Space MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0982. Wednesday, 1 October 1997. [1] From: Chris Fassler Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 08:05:09 -0400 Subj: Impermanent Permanence [2] From: Abigail Quart Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 19:45:38 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0980 Many Queries [3] From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 07:24:08 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0976 In-the-round Performance of Tamburlaine I [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Fassler Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 08:05:09 -0400 Subject: Impermanent Permanence I've been away from SHAKSPER for a few days, so I'm lucky I happened to read Norm Holland's recent post in its entirety. Thanks, Dr. Holland. I hope (without much reason) to be able to respond thoughtfully soon. Cordially, --Chris [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Abigail Quart Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 19:45:38 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0980 Many Queries Rosalind is genuinely merry on reaching the Forest of Arden. The place she has left was unnatural, brother turning against brother. Why did she leave? Because when the usurping Duke Frederick spoke to his daughter and his niece, Rosalind answered first, as if she were still first lady of the land. In the next scene he abruptly exiled Rosalind, warning Cecilia that "she robs thee of thy name." Even I ii, the scene always performed as a merry exchange between playful young girls, can be read as a careful warning from Cecilia to Rosalind not to let her true feelings show. Not a really fun, happy environment. On being released from the fear of such a place, wouldn't a bubble of mirth rise in your soul? Wouldn't freedom feel giddy? Wouldn't physical exhaustion matter very, very little? [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 07:24:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0976 In-the-round Performance of Tamburlaine I Our theatre space is much as the one Norm Holland describes: long and rectangular. We have on occasion arranged the audience along both sides, specifically for Henry VI, Part 3, and for at least part our current Midsummer. But I beat actors who try to play to a fourth wall. There's the audience: tell *them*! Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 08:24:50 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0983 Re: Adaptations MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0983. Wednesday, 1 October 1997. [1] From: Nick Clary Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 10:16:05 -0400 Subj: Adaptations [2] From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Wednesday, 01 Oct 1997 14:28:24 +1000 Subj: Re: Japanese Adaptations [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Clary Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 10:16:05 -0400 Subject: Adaptations John W. Mahon writes, "There is a slip, surely, in Nick Clary's communication of 26 Sept about Adaptations. He refers to a Kabuki version of HAMLET in which there is tripling of the roles of Hamlet, Ophelia, and Fortinbras. Since Hamlet and Ophelia engage in at least two conversations, one of them, of course, "private," how can these roles be played by the same performer?" Actually, I was reporting correctly. In this version of Hamlet, adapted for Kabuki from the repertoire of the puppet theatre, there are other unexpected elements. There is choric singing, as well as other musical effects, and there other elements that represent deviations from the story familiar to us. In addition, there are, as the program notes, "a number of incidental elements of the performance" that "draw on the wider range of kabuki conventions": Hamlet kills a spy sent by Polonius at the end of the first 'ghost scene' and the man's somersault indicates that he is dead....in Gertrude's closet the spirit of Hamlet's father is a flame" and "in the duel Laertes wears the white costume of an avenger." Perhaps I should have insisted more on the extent of this adaptation. Nick Clary [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Wednesday, 01 Oct 1997 14:28:24 +1000 Subject: Re: Japanese Adaptations Tanya Gough says: "I've also heard tell of a Butoh version of Macbeth." She may be referring to a production by a company called Zen Zen Zo, performed in Kyoto in May 1995. Zen Zen Zo are a company led by Australians Lynne Bradley and Simon Woods (both graduates of the University of Queensland). They have spent considerable time studying and performing theatre in Japan, as well as back in their home base of Brisbane. They are curently in Brisbane, and recently revived one of their Kyoto productions, entitled _The Cult of Dionysos_, based on _The Bakkhai_, to sell-out houses and huge critical acclaim at the most recent Brisbane Festival. Adrian Kiernander ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 08:56:53 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0984 Re: Macbeth MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0984. Wednesday, 1 October 1997. [1] From: John Ramsay Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 10:47:20 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0981 Re: Macbeth [2] From: Matthew Gretzinger Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 11:53:03 -0400 Subj: Witches Triumphant [3] From: David Hale Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 97 11:33:30 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0973 Re: Mac Ending [4] From: Hilary Zunin Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 09:23:52 -0700 Subj: Macbeth Ending [5] From: Michael E. Cohen Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 10:38:40 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0981 Re: Macbeth [6] From: Leslie Soughers Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 07:20:57 -0800 Subj: Re: Fwd: SHK 8.0981 Re: Macbeth [7] From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 16:26:23 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0981 Re: Macbeth [8] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 17:01:13 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0981 Re: Macbeth [9] From: Ed Peschko Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 17:19:21 -0600 (MDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0981 Re: Macbeth [10] From: Abigail Quart Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 20:07:44 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0981 Re: Macbeth [11] From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 21:48:28 -2900 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0981 Re: Macbeth [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Ramsay Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 10:47:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0981 Re: Macbeth If I recall correctly, the Orson Welles film version of MACBETH had the witches seen, from time to time, toying with a doll. When Banquo caught up with Macbeth and his sword started to cut towards Macbeth's neck the film cut to the doll, which was decapitated. The kindest cut of all? John Ramsay Welland, Ontario, Canada jramsay@freenet.npiec.on.ca [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Gretzinger Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 11:53:03 -0400 Subject: Witches Triumphant One answer to Tim Richard's question: Orson Welles' various productions of Macbeth on stage & screen all hinged on unhinging the original text and re-ordering scenes, particularly those with the witches. I think his version expands the role of Hecate and ends with the line "Peace! the charm's wound up." His adaptation has been published and is generally available, though I can't remember the title (something like, _Orson Welles on Shakespeare_). If I remember rightly from the recent _Battle Over Citizen Kane_, the "Voodoo" _Macbeth_ incorporated scenes of Hecate exultant over Macbeth's final defeat. -MG [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Hale Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 97 11:33:30 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0973 Re: Mac Ending Witches at the end of "Macbeth" There are a number of film and television performances of the play which include the witches and/or some other potentially destabilizing character at the end. Among the simple approaches are the 1976 BBC production and the 1982 Lincoln Center production which have them appear at or near the final scene. The witches and their male familiars have an extensive on-stage presence in the 1981 Bard production, both during the battle and weaving unseen through the new thanes at the end. Polanski's film concludes with Donalbain's visiting the witches, inaugurating another round of political intrigue and violence. The witches and Fleance appear in act 5 of both Welles's film (1948) and Gold's 1983 BBC version. There are historical problems with having either Donalbain or Fleance show up at the end of the play, although they could be regarded as surrogates for Lugtake (or Lulach), Lady Macbeth's son from her first marriage (she has "given suck") who opposed King Malcom III. David Hale SUNY Brockport [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hilary Zunin Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 09:23:52 -0700 Subject: Macbeth Ending The usually fine Berkeley Rep put together a rather unsatisfying *Macbeth* earlier this year, but the witches proved interesting. Bald, nearly naked, and bodies powdered grey, the witches lay still on the dark stage as we were seated. They seemed vulnerable and in some kind of suspended animation. Slowly, spots of soft light poured down from above along with thin streams of sand - as in an hourglass. The light and sand formed pools around each witch. As they finally rose in slow motion, they were clearly a primeval force, but not necessarily a malevolent one. The director eliminated "Double, bubble..." (as cliched, we were later informed) and had the witches come back at the end to strew the body of Macbeth with flowers (and escort his "spirit" offstage? My memory's not clear on this point.) Then they returned to their opening poses on the stage and the return of the falling sands. Two men and a woman played the roles. [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael E. Cohen Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 10:38:40 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0981 Re: Macbeth Jung Jimmy asked >My mind wanders and I was wondering what would happen if Macbeth's >adversaries were played as more evil and less heroic. If Duncan, Banquo >and Malcolm were lound noisy oafish soldiers and Macbeth was the >slightly ambitious hero. I've never seen an actual production done that way, but when we were producing the Macbeth CD-ROM at Voyager, actor Roger Rees (who played Malcolm in the Trevor Nunn production that we used) visited David Rodes' Shakespeare class at UCLA, and David asked Rees (following upon a student's suggestion that Malcolm may not have been the innocent he is so often played as) to do Malcolm's final speech, playing Malcolm as a cynical manipulator. As Rees read these lines, his voice was cold, impatient, and he added a final bit of business that, for all its triviality, made it somehow especially cold-blooded: This and what needful else That calls upon us, by the grace of Grace We will perform in measure, time, and place. So, thanks to all at once and to each one, [glances impatiently at his watch] Whom we invite to see us crowned at Scone. I can't say that an entire production would be able to sustain this reading of Malcolm successfully, but, for a brief moment, I could imagine it. Michael E. Cohen [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Leslie Soughers Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 07:20:57 -0800 Subject: Re: Fwd: SHK 8.0981 Re: Macbeth Mike Sirofchuck writes: >It seems to me that I recall one such production but cannot place >it as to location, date, or other details. Re: the witches in Macbeth. Several years ago in Ashland, Oregon, Hecate was played by a man. He was often seen just at the edge of the action. At the end he was in the top floor of the outdoor theater watching the action. Several times he was in the midst of a crowd of soldiers. It was very effective-added sort of a brooding evil overtone. [7]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 16:26:23 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0981 Re: Macbeth The Polanski does indeed suggest a cycling back to civil war with witches. My memory of a not all that successful Robin Phillips/ Maggie Smith/Douglas Rain Macbeth at Stratford Ont. is that the witches were always unnoticed servants of the court or camp or army until their scenes started - and then they would take focus and get on with it. Startling at first but more and more persuasive as the play went on. My memory is that, as the triumphant army left the stage to go to the crowning of the new king, they were now visibly part of Malcolm's train - more subtle than Polanski and to different purpose. The premise that 'witches' are always among us, working evil if we cooperate, seemed to me at the time to address the skepticism of a contemporary audience . That was in the 70s. Perhaps audiences are less skeptical in the run up to the millennium?? Mary Jane [8]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 17:01:13 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0981 Re: Macbeth > My mind wanders and I was wondering what would happen if Macbeth's > adversaries were played as more evil and less heroic. If Duncan, Banquo > and Malcolm were loud noisy oafish soldiers and Macbeth was the > slightly ambitious hero. > > What if at Duncan first appearance he marches on to a field of bleeding > dying men, kicks one, grabs him by the hair and says : > > DUNCAN > What bloody man is that? He can report, > As seemeth by his plight, of the revolt > The newest state. > > Would it ruin the play? > > Has it ever been performed that way? I have never seen it so, but the good character of Macbeth - whatever there is of that - certainly needs the help that such a contrast would give. And I can see no reason why such a savage context would be disallowed by the rest of the play. I have had similar thoughts about Shylock and Polonius. Once I was able to influence a director to present Shylock as solemn 19th century gentleman, aloof from the simian so-called Christians barking about him. His dignity was a welcome relief from the usual bowing, hand-wringing Uriah Heep that we usually see (even Olivier, of all people, used this insulting presentation!), and it was a revelation! Again, Polonius is the first minister of state; he is no doddering fool (What would that say of the efficient Claudius to listen to such a man?!!). When Polonius says "What was I saying?" to his secretary, it is not the plea of a doddering victim of Alzheimer's (again, as in Olivier's Hamlet), but the command of a minister who has others standing by to take care of such mundane matters as remembering. (Branagh's film got close to this with its Polonius, but the character was still not strong enough for my taste. In general, I think it at least an excellent exercise to read the character absolutely against the grain of the usual interpretation. One never knows what wonderful new dimension may turn up. [L. Swilley] [9]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Peschko Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 17:19:21 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0981 Re: Macbeth > Has it ever been performed that way? Well.. this was the way (somewhat) that Roman Polanski played it in his very, very bloody Macbeth(1971) with Jon Finch as Macbeth and Francesca Annis as Lady Macbeth. *Duncan was all smiles on top, and cruelty underneath (much in the way you described). *The thane of Cawdor yells 'Long live the king!' before executed. *Malcolm shows exactly how he is going to treat Macbeth when he succeeds Duncan (he thrusts out a cup, expecting Macbeth to pour wine into it) *The ending hints at circularity (like this isn't the only time would-be kings are going to be seduced by witches.) It got ripped apart by critics, but I thought it was very well done, just for the attention to detail and the interesting way that Polanski chose to stage the play. One thing that I thought was quite clever was that Polanski had Macbeth stand on a stone at Scone to be coronated - and the stone was warn deep by the feet's imprints of presumably hundreds of kings that went through the same coronation before him. Ed [10]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Abigail Quart Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 20:07:44 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0981 Re: Macbeth Donalbain did, briefly, overthrow Malcolm and his English bride, the future Saint Margaret. His rebellion was billed as a "Celtic reaction." Note how, after Duncan's murder, Malcolm heads for England while Donalbain hightails it to a Celtic stronghold. Margaret got her sainthood for "cleansing" the Scottish Church of its remnant Celtic, pagan rituals. Though it certainly wouldn't be Shakespeare's play, there is good reason to look at Duncan, Malcolm and their supporters as the bad guys: they anglicized Scotland. One of the worst things was the destruction of the aethling system, in which Macbeth was as entitled as Duncan to be king, by appointing Malcolm Prince of Cumberland, a Scottish equivalent to Prince of Wales: a designated heir established by the English, Christian system of primogeniture. But for the witches to rejoice at Macbeth's fall? His fall is theirs. He is the defender of the old system. They are its relicts. They see the future, but they aren't in it. If you had a choice, would you choose salubrious air, like the temple martlet, or "filthy air," such as surrounds the witches. If you feared and respected them, and one asked you for some of your food, would you say, "Aroint thee, witch!" or would you hand it over? Even the revenge for this petty slight is pathetic, the Weird Sister can't sink the ship the slighter's husband sails, just toss it around till he's seasick. Even with the others helping. Their day is over. They appear to Macbeth because he is the last man who will listen to them. [11]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 21:48:28 -2900 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0981 Re: Macbeth Jimmy Jung wonders "what would happen if Macbeth's adversaries were played as more evil and less heroic." I played Banquo several years ago in a production not as cinematic as he posits (blood-drenched corpse-heaps are hard to set up and take down in the round), but aiming to be as dark. The director had read some of Shakespeare's source material and noted how he blackens Macbeth and lightens his adversaries. For example, since the Scottish kingship is determined by election, Duncan _shouldn't_ be able to anoint his son as heir, as he does at the top of the play: that's a naked power-grab in a play full of same. Halliwell (is that right? It's been too long) also makes Banquo far more a colluder and co-plotter than he's usually played in Shakespeare's adaptation. In history, or what we have of it, Macbeth had years of good rule before succumbing to tyrannous impulses, glossed over in Shakespeare's usual compression of events. So the material is there-though some of our audiences strongly resisted the attempt to darken the play's world as a whole rather than simply its anti-hero. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:03:06 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0985 Re: Two Questions; Pronunciation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0985. Wednesday, 1 October 1997. [1] From: Kenneth Meaney Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 16:36:11 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0974 Two Questions [2] From: Larry Schwartz Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 09:11:17 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0975 Re: Two Questions; Pronunciation [3] From: Roger Gross Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 09:37:59 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0975 Re: feminine endings [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Meaney Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 16:36:11 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0974 Two Questions >(1) Can someone please direct me to a good book on >early modern pronunciation? I'm trying to follow up on a suggestion that >Shakespeare's "nothing" would have sounded not much different from >"noting." I suggest the chapter on phonology in Charles Barber's _Early Modern English_ (1976). The notion of a pun on "nothing" and "noting" is, I think, a kite that won't fly. "Nothing" is, etymologically, "no" + "thing" and the initial consonant in "thing" has been a fricative since Anglo-Saxon times. It seems inconceivable that it would have enjoyed a brief interval as a stop in the early modern period and I know of no evidence for such a pronunciation. It is true that some words _written_ with a "th" were pronounced with a stop - Barber cites words like "author" and "authority" - but these were borrowed from French in the Middle English period, and originally pronounced as in French. Ken Meaney [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Schwartz Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 09:11:17 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0975 Re: Two Questions; Pronunciation Mention was made of a title by Gert Ronberg. The title, according to an online version of Books In Print, follows: Author: Ronberg, Gert Title: A Way with Words The Language of English Renaissance Literature Publisher: New York : Routledge, Chapman & Hall, Incorporated, Sept. 1992 ISBN/Details: 0340493070;Trade Paper USD 14.95 R Active Record Keywords: ENGLISH LITERATURE--HISTORY AND CRITICISM--EARLY MODERN, 1500-1700 Keywords: LITERATURE--HISTORY, CRITICISM AND SURVEYS Keywords: RENAISSANCE--ENGLAND Keywords: RHETORIC--1500-1800 Keywords: ENGLISH LANGUAGE--EARLY MODERN, 1500-1700 In my business, a correct citation is EVERYTHING. ls. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Gross Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 09:37:59 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0975 Re: feminine endings Please don't believe anything as simple as that feminine endings mean lying. Or mean any one thing. Or any ten things. The one reasonable generalization is that feminine endings are meaningful. What they mean depends on the dramatic context. Roger Gross U. Arkansas ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:22:15 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0986 Re: Classroom Strategies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0986. Wednesday, 1 October 1997. [1] From: Peter T. Hadorn Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 10:09:46 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0980 Many Queries [2] From: Derek Wood Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 16:33:21 -0300 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0980 High School Curriculums [3] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 16:44:11 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0980 Many Queries [4] From: Virginia Byrne Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 18:31:40 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0980 Many Queries [5] From: Amy Ulen Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 17:45:34 -0700 Subj: Re: High School Curriculums [6] From: Belinda Johnston Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 13:57:33 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0980 Many Queries [7] From: Richard Regan Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 01:01:43 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0980 Many Queries [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter T. Hadorn Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 10:09:46 -0500 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0980 Many Queries In response to Jodi Clark's query about performing a scene. Here's something that worked for me: The last time I taught Shax, on the first day of class I pulled a sufficient number of students in the front of the class, assigned parts and "did" *Hamlet* Act 3, scene 1, the "To be or not to be scene." I explained a little bit about what had happened up to that point, but most of them already know a bit about it. Whole thing took about three days. Afterwards showing different film versions of that scene was useful (Olivier, Mel Gibson, Nicole Williamson, and soon Branagh's will be available if not already). We emphasized motivation. For instance, we don't know for sure yet that Claudius is guilty, but we suspect it. He's awfully quiet in this scene except at some important points. He wants to know what Hamlet is up to. Notice the harshness of his language. What's he doing as the others speak? Notice how quick he is to make important decisions (in contrast to Hamlet). R & G of course want to sound important before the king. Is there a difference in the way the two are played? Ophelia is quiet through the whole thing. How does she feel about being there? Notice how the scene shrinks as people leave the stage. What effect does this have. Notice at the end of this part, Claudius for the first time reveals guilt. What prompted it? Except for Branagh's new version, no other film version I know of has the King and Polonius on stage as Hamlet delivers his speech. What effect does this have. Is there any evidence that Hamlet knows they are there. If so, when? How is this played? Note the shift later from verse to prose. Note how the previously quiet Ophelia really gets worked up in this scene. I could go on, but mostly we discuss motivation and blocking. It worked well for me. Good luck. Also, in response to Jimmy Jung's question about the same material being done in comedy vs. tragedy/history: where does one begin? But one bit that was successful for me most recently was to explore the basic situation of love between a young man of high birth and young woman of low birth. We looked at three plays written at about the same time: Hamlet, Troilus and Cressida, and All's Well That Ends Well. Side, but related, issues include conflict between love and war, older generation vs. younger generation, strong women vs. passive women. Certainly many other plays deal with the same issues, but I like the way these three were written at about the same time and are so different in treatment of these ideas. Hope this helps. Cheers! Peter T. Hadorn Department of Humanities University of Wisconsin-Platteville [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Derek Wood Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 16:33:21 -0300 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0980 High School Curriculums At an end of term party, where we were all expected to "do" something, a group of students put on a reading of the final scene of _Midsummmer Night's Dream_ It was a great success, extremely funny although they were all amateurs, were not in costume and so on. There's the funny punctuation of the prologue which you could ask a high school class to correct and there's the stylised verse of the rude mechanicals' play which might be interesting teaching points. Also, it should come in well under fifty minutes Good luck! Derek Wood. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 16:44:11 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0980 Many Queries > I would really like > the students to work on a scene and present it in performance in class > at the end of the unit. Each class period is about 50 minutes. Also, > which plays would you recommend using? Do the Pyramus and Thisbe scene from MDN. They'll enjoy it. > Has anybody seen any productions where Malvolio's imprisonment was *in > no way* tragic, and if so, how was it pulled off? If it is otherwise allowable in the character, Malvolio could be shown to be aware that he is expected to suffer and present that "face" to his tormentors, while to us he shows his awareness of what they are trying to do. This may have the potential for the comic, but I do not know what that would do to the larger argument of the play. However, directly to answer your question, I have seen no production of TN that presents Malvolio's imprisonment as comical. The punishment seems overkill. > In the Folio version of AYL, Rosalind says on arriving at the Forest of > Arden, > > O Jupiter, how merry are my spirits! As well they should be, for "this way have you well expounded it." Advance bravely; you have an excellent case. [L.Swilley] [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia Byrne Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 18:31:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0980 Many Queries My job is turning kids on to Shakespeare...start with having them insult each other. there are two books published of just the bard's insults. It really gets them going. I have unending ideas for you but this is(swear to god) the best way to have them 'act' with Shakespeare's dialogue and then they feel comfortable about it. If you want more contact me personally. I am in Worcester MA so you can call me if you want.(I am Drama1564) [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amy Ulen Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 17:45:34 -0700 Subject: Re: High School Curriculums > ." speech. But they even had a hard time with that. Does anyone have > some curriculum materials they would be willing to share, or lesson plan > ideas that they have used to great success? Jodi, I am an 8th grade language arts teacher, but spent four years teaching English (including Shakespeare) at an alternative high school. I have MANY ideas for your two week session, so our conversation is probably best conducted off list. I did want to share a couple of resources to help get you started: 1) Web sites (not a complete list, but a good place to start) http://www.ivgh.com/amy/shakespeare/ (my Midsummer site) http://www.ivgh.com/amy/shakespeare/whole.html (Midsummer lesson plans) http://www.tamut.edu/english/folgerhp/folgerhp.htm (various lesson plans) 2) Folger Library Shakespeare Set Free series R&J, Mac, MND (0-671-76046-7) Ham & H4.1 (0-671-76048-3) 12N & Oth (0-671-76047-5) I look forward to hearing from you! Amy Ulen http://www.ivgh.com/amy/ [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Belinda Johnston Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 13:57:33 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0980 Many Queries SHAKESPEARE IN THE CHANGING CURRICULUM edited by Lesley Aers & Nigel Wheale (London: Routledge, 1991) has some useful discussions of teaching strategies. Regards Belinda [7]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Regan Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 01:01:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0980 Many Queries In response to Jodi Clark, one way to focus students on language involves technology that may not be available to you, but which I am finding effective: I run a tape of a scene (usually the BBC production, faithful to a full text) on a monitor next to a large screen projection from a computer running a CD ROM of the play text, which I can scroll. The text can be highlighted with the mouse while the scene is playing, and the tape can be stopped while the text is given special attention. Students say they like the focus on language. Richard Regan Fairfield University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:27:57 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0987 Re: Ophelia MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0987. Wednesday, 1 October 1997. [1] From: Norm Holland Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 97 09:59:17 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.0979 Re: Ophelia [2] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 15:31:43 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0979 Ophelia [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 97 09:59:17 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.0979 Re: Ophelia Re: Ophelia as language function. As always, the reader-response approach solves the problem. The question is wrong. It is not "Is" Ophelia this or that, but, How are we reading Ophelia? Most people read the words representing Ophelia as a person like ourselves. Some people, notably highly sophisticated critics like Dave Evett, read the lines for the words as such, as "figure of speech." So what's the big deal? For a contrary and far less sophisticated view, see the concluding chapters of my _Psychoanalysis and Shakespeare_ (1966), where I explore both sides of the issue in terms of what a character "is," and guardedly side with Dave. --Best, Norm [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 15:31:43 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0979 Ophelia As Dave Evett points out, the absence of mothers from Shakespeare's scripts may be important. And some actors may feel that it is important to know (for themselves) where they learned (as characters) certain bawdy songs. And you can't stop certain auditors from wondering and asking themselves (fruitlessly?) where a nice girl like Ophelia learned those songs. Scripts cannot stop actors and/or auditors from asking questions-and coming up with extra-textual answers. Shakespeare's scripts do not contain enough information for a fully realized production. Characters do not merely enter and stand there. They do things on stage while they are talking, and it is not always clear and certain from the script what they should be doing. That's why business, extra-textual business added by directors and actors, is important and often enlightening-as Arthur Colby Sprague used to point out. (I remember the night when the actors taught him what a line in LLL meant! He was overjoyed.) I doubt if anyone would be overjoyed to see a production of any Shakespeare play that used only the information printed in the script. Well, maybe some spectators would be amused since many of the actors would not be wearing any costumes! Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:33:51 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0988 Re: Stratford Shrew MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0988. Wednesday, 1 October 1997. [1] From: David Evett Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 15:47:05 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0977 Re: Stratford Shrew [2] From: Julia Spriggs Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 05:33:14 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0977 Re: Stratford Shrew [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Tuesday, 30 Sep 1997 15:47:05 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0977 Re: Stratford Shrew Helen Ostrovich looks in vain for a mind behind the Stratford (Ont.) *Shrew*. I think a mind did decide to distance the piece but not radically by setting it in 50s New York (which also invokes an important epoch at the movies), to account for the gender attitudes by placing the action in an Italian-American community, to soften the piece by casting a relatively unassertive actor as Petruchio, to rebalance the piece by casting a much more assertive actor as Katherine, to enliven the piece by means of a lot of color and energetic movement and slapstick. (Some of this I thought genuinely inventive and witty, such as the gangster murder, during one of those "bizarre group sequences," which produced a widow, subsequently seen following her husband's coffin during a second crowd scene, who can there drop her handkerchief for Hortensio and so set up their marriage toward the end. All of this not only helping cover set changes and signal the passage of time but giving further exposure to that streak of casual violence which does, in fact, run through the text.) When I saw the production I did perceive a bond growing between Lucy Peacock's Katherine and Peter Donaldson's Petruchio, so that the final "sell-out" (Ostovich's term, not mine) did not in fact strike me as coming from nowhere. This may be a theatrical mind rather than an academic mind, to be sure-a mind persuaded that at this stage of Canadian cultural history developing a "Tour bus crowd-pleaser" or two is absolutely necessary, if the Festival is to continue offering caviar like this year's *Coriolanus*, *Oedipus*, and *Death of a Salesman*. A situation on which the pervasively commodified view of human relationships that informs this play offers a disturbing if nowhere very fully articulated perspective. Dave Evett [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julia Spriggs Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 05:33:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0977 Re: Stratford Shrew Since it's already been mentioned quite a few times now, I won't be redundant and repeat the same things already said about the ending for The Taming of the Shrew. But, I did find the costumes for the Shrew interesting. I also really liked Stephen Ouimette, who played Grumio. He really is a great actor. He also portrayed Richard III, which I thought was a very well acted play. I saw him in the streets of Stratford, but didn't have the nerve to walk up to him. Essentially, I think the ending of the play was geared more or less for the buses of high school students all around. Never have I seen more uncivil people in my life. I stayed in the Shakespeare Inn, and a bus load of obnoxious kids came in. Talk about curt, I was up half the night before they finally stopped bouncing off the walls and finally subdued. Or more probable, the chaperone may have given them a tranquilizer shot the size of Texas. Julia Spriggs ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:37:33 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0989 Re: Malvolio MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0989. Wednesday, 1 October 1997. [1] From: Ian Munro Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 00:15:40 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0980 Many Queries [2] From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 07:30:46 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Malvolio [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ian Munro Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 00:15:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0980 Many Queries Carl Fortunato writes: > Has anybody seen any productions where Malvolio's imprisonment was *in > no way* tragic, and if so, how was it pulled off? No, but why were you trying to? I think that the cruel way that Malvolio is treated is an essential part of the play. The presence of suffering in the midst of frivolity is a typical characteristic of Shakespearean comedy, and it adds greatly to the philosophical and ideological complexity of _TN_. After all, the rain it raineth every day. Mind you, I liked the bit about the picnic table. Ian Munro [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 07:30:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Malvolio As I've mentioned before, our Feste lampooned the televangelist Ernest Ainsley in that scene, making it extremely raucous. And we laughed Malovolio off the stage after Olivia's "out of question" line. We allowed him not a shred of dignity, pesky Puritan. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:29:44 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0990 Some Notes on the CSF Hamlet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0990. Thursday, 2 October 1997. From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 01 Oct 1997 09:03:47 -0400 Subject: Some Notes on the CSF Hamlet The Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival's Hamlet September 18 through October 12, 1997, at the Aronoff Center in Cincinnati. Cast Jill Westerby --- Francisco, Ophelia Aaron Todd Douglas --- Barnardo, Guildenstern William Sweeney --- Ghost of Hamlet, Player King, Norwegian Captain, Gravedigger C. Charles Scheeren --- Marcellus, Player Queen, Fortinbras, Gravedigger C. Chris Reeder --- Horatio Jay Apking --- Claudius Nicole Franklin-Kern --- Gertrude Regina Cerimele --- Voltemand, Rosencrantz, Osric Kris Lewin --- Laertes, Third Player (Lucianus) Dan Kenney --- Polonius, Priest, English Ambassador Marni Penning --- Hamlet In this production, Hamlet is played as a woman by a woman. The Ghost of Hamlet merges with the Player King, the Captain, and the Gravedigger; each is a manifestation of the former king. The thrones and the grave are on the same spot. The thrones are tipped back to reveal the grave which accommodates both King Hamlet and Ophelia. Some while ago, one of our members suggested that the business of a production is worth recording. What follows is a partial record of the business in the CSF Hamlet. 1.1.21-22: ". . . is Horatio there?' "A piece of him." Horatio is clowning; hiding all but his head from Barnardo, Horatio pretends to be a ghost. 1.2.8: "now our queen"-at this moment Claudius slips a pendant with his picture in miniature over Gertrude's neck. 1.2.25: "So much for him," i.e., Fortinbras. Claudius hands Fortinbras's letter to Laertes who tears it in pieces. 1.2.35: Claudius produces his own letter. 1.2.63: "spend" - Claudius gives Laertes a check. 1.2.102: "As of a father" - Claudius embraces Hamlet. 1.2.121: "a loving and a fair reply"-Claudius moves between Gertrude and Hamlet taking their hands-a family scene! 1.2.160: "I am glad to see you well." Hamlet is leaving stage left, and so does not fully see Horatio before the next line. 1.3.57: "There, my blessing" - Polonius gives Laertes money. Later this was changed, and Polonius gives him the money after "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" (75). 1.5.91: "Adieu, adieu, adiew. Remember me." At this point, the Ghost gives Hamlet his signet ring. Hamlet gives up the ring in 5.1. 1.5.196: "the time is out of joint" - the tolling of the bells is disjointed (This was later cut.) 2.2.5: "Hamlet's transformation-so I call it" - In this production, the royal family resists admitting that Hamlet is mad. The Queen shows her displeasure at the word. 3.1.56: Hamlet enters with a message in hand, apparently from Polonius to request her presence. When he does not appear, she crumples it and throws it at the base of the throne. "Where's your father?" (130). Hamlet asks the question when she notices the crumpled letter and realizes that this is a setup. "To be or not to be"-Hamlet draws a pistol and points it at Claudius's throne when she says, "take arms against a sea of trouble" (59). 3.2.92: When the king enters, Hamlet is pointedly sitting on his throne-displacing him. 3.2.263: "Give me some light. Away." In this production, Claudius aims the "Away" at his entourage and, perhaps, the Player King, whom he flings aside as he confronts Hamlet. (The Player King reminds Claudius of his brother.) Gertrude draws Claudius away to protect Hamlet from his fury. 3.2.375: "They fool me to the top of my bent" is not an aside, but spoken to Polonius about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. 3.2.387: the Player King gives Hamlet his sword. "Now could I drink hot blood" is spoken to the Player King. 3.4.24: Polonius dies in front of the thrones, and at 4.1.1, Gertrude is wiping up blood from the floor. She is in tears as she says to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, "Bestow this place on us a little while" (4). 4.3.39: "A will stay till you come." Hamlet makes it evident that "you" is Claudius. It's a threat. 5.1.206: "Imperious Caesar" - in this production, this is a reference to Old King Hamlet, who, as the Gravedigger, disappears into his own grave. 5.2. In the final moments, the Ghost enters and takes the body of Hamlet from Horatio. Horatio exits and his shadow is seen behind the thrones. The Ghost sits on his throne, holding Hamlet's dead body. The house lights go out. For more information, www.iac.net/~csf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:39:00 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0991 Re: Macbeth MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0991. Thursday, 2 October 1997. [1] From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 10:51:29 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0984 Re: Macbeth [2] From: Sean Kevin Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 19:18:49 -0700 Subj: RE: SHK 8.0984 Re: Macbeth [3] From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 22:23:43 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0984 Re: Macbeth [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 10:51:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0984 Re: Macbeth The Orson Welles MACBETH that Prof. Gretzinger mentioned may be found in Richard France, ed. and with an introduction. Orson Welles on Shakespeare: The W.P.A. and Mercury Theatre Playscripts (Westport [Ct.]: Greenwood Press, 1990). The version furnished is the stage production, however, of the "Voodoo" MACBETH, not the Republic Pictures film, though there are many similarities as well as differences. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Kevin Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 19:18:49 -0700 Subject: RE: SHK 8.0984 Re: Macbeth I'm wondering if anyone else notices a connection between the absent Sly and the absent witches at the end of their respective plays. Do both leave possibilities disturbingly open? The whole of _The Taming_, may be enclosed by Sly's dream, but we are not offered (in F1, at least) such an easy containment of the play. Similarly, in _Macbeth_, the evil which the witches represent may have been banished by Malcolm, but we are not offered the satisfaction and certainly of seeing them exiled or destroyed. Could leaving the witches unaccounted for, present through their absence, be a stronger statement of their ubiquity than having them stroll around on the stage? Witches, after all, are metaphysical figures, and I'm reminded of how in Luther, the Deus Absconditus is so much darker, more powerful and more terrifying than the Deus revelatus. A Diabolus Absconditus might function similarly. Cheers, Sean. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 22:23:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0984 Re: Macbeth One of the most egregious misadventures regarding casting of the witches was a church basement production in which my son-trained at London's Central Drama school-had the misfortune to play MacDuff. Anent the lunatic RICHARD III of Neil Simon's "THE GOODBY GIRL", this production featured but two witches-thus whittled down by a lunatic director, so that the two women could later play the two murderers. With "When shall we TWO meet again..." still ringing in my ears at intermission, I approached my kid and told him that if after four years of showcase productions, this is what it came down to-"When shall we two meet again..." maybe he needed a paradigm shift. He's now a successful screenwriter in Lalaland, swears he won't act again or at least in the near future-but I still yearn for the day when I can see him play in a Macbeth worthy of his talents. HR Greenberg ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:53:21 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0992 Re: Classroom Strategies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0992. Thursday, 2 October 1997. [1] From: Linda Lorenzo Date: Wednesday, 01 Oct 1997 08:11:25 -0700 Subj: Re: High School Curricula [2] From: Cora Lee Wolfe Date: Wednesday, 01 Oct 1997 12:53:35 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0986 Re: Classroom Strategies [3] From: Jason Rosenbaum Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 21:11:45 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Course Materials [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Lorenzo Date: Wednesday, 01 Oct 1997 08:11:25 -0700 Subject: Re: High School Curricula Jodi: Your disdain for "very boring English classes" notwithstanding, I (a high school English teacher) offer the following suggestion: If you want to get the students past the language, have them do some impromptu interpretations of very small segments. Try to select passages that have action and mystery, not just thoughts-and emotions that are less introspective than Hamlet's. Scenes of humor also work well, but then again, select humor they can relate to-bawdy, slightly risqué (researchers tell us they think of sex 70% of the time anyway!). Examples: a portion of the opening scene of Macbeth, the words spoken by Hamlet and Ophelia immediately preceding the play in Act III; the fight scene in R&J (boys love this one); Act I, scene 1 in Hamlet (helps them focus on time, conditions-the wrong guard calls out Who goes there-etc.); the killing of Cinna the poet in Julius Caesar...you get the idea. Involve as many kids as possible (when doing the battle scene in Macbeth, have all kids not "acting" beat their desks in replication of the battle drums; that works to get the actors to yell the way they would in battle!). Believe it or not, Mel Gibson did some fine work with high school students. It was on a promo video for his Hamlet and does some of the very things you are looking to do. I suggest you try to find a copy. It was sent to me (as department chair, gratis). Once you can get the kids to relate to and understand what is happening, the language comes as naturally as night follows day. I would suggest that 5 fifty minute sessions in a two week period is not sufficient time to accomplish what you propose. The idea is wonderful, but I would modify it considerably, especially if you are starting at such ground zero with these students. And as point of interest: In my high school, we have a policy of classical literature for everyone, no matter the achievement level of the student. In each of the 4 years, students read at least one play by WS. I wish you could see the excitement level of our kids with Shakespeare. It's all in the approach...and in the attitude of the teachers. Take risks-that's what education and learning are about. Wishing you success, Linda Lorenzo [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cora Lee Wolfe Date: Wednesday, 01 Oct 1997 12:53:35 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0986 Re: Classroom Strategies > My job is turning kids on to Shakespeare...start with having them insult > each other. there are two books published of just the bard's insults. It > really gets them going. I have unending ideas for you but this is (swear > to god) the best way to have them 'act' with Shakespeare's dialogue and > then they feel comfortable about it. If you want more contact me personally. There is a fun insult page at http://alabanza.com/kabacoff/Inter-Links/cgi-bin/bard.pl Cora Wolfe cwolfe@primenet.com [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jason Rosenbaum Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 21:11:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Course Materials Regarding teaching techniques, I thought I would let the Listserv know about the GlobeLink program of the International Shakespeare Globe Centre. It is a membership program (only UK25 per year) that enrolls the school in a worldwide network of secondary schools. The program sends teaching aids and materials developed by Globe Education. These materials have evolved and are in continuous development based on Globe Ed's 15 years of experience of involving students of all ages in the excitement of Shakespeare's plays. Globe Ed.'s principles are based on the idea that Shakespeare is best understood, as well as most interesting and dynamic, through performance. With the theatre just completing its first season, one consideration is to tie in the study aids with the productions that are being planned for the following season. There is also a GlobeLink website in development which will foster communications directly between member schools/students. If you want more information about the program, e-mail me at BardUSA@aol.com with your postal address. We at the Globe (USA) also run a summer course on site at the Globe in London for U.S. school teachers on teaching Shakespeare through performance. The 1998 course is currently being planned and applications should be available around the new year (with some scholarships available). Contact me if you would like to receive an application when they are ready. Best wishes, Jason Rosenbaum Administrative Director Shakespeare Globe Centre (USA), Inc. 19 West 34th Street, Suite 1013 New York, NY 10001 tel: 212-947-4510 fax: 212-947-8641 BardUSA@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:27:59 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0993 Qs: New Globe's H5; Malone MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0993. Thursday, 2 October 1997. [1] From: Mike Jensen Date: Wednesday, 01 Oct 1997 17:31:16 +0100 Subj: SHK 8.0982 [2] From: Kathleen Hannah Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 09:09:39 CST6CDT Subj: Malone Query [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Jensen Date: Wednesday, 01 Oct 1997 17:31:16 +0100 Subject: SHK 8.0982 I have seen a couple of posting that the Globe's production of H5 will be on Great Performances in November. Does anyone know if this will be a full length production or a documentary on it? Best, Mike Jensen [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Hannah Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 09:09:39 CST6CDT Subject: Malone Query Hello, SHAKESPERians, I am looking for information on Edmond Malone's work on the chronology of Shakespeare's plays. Is his 1790 chronology reprinted in a modern source that anyone knows of? I know that there were at least a couple of replies to this work (not sure about his earlier chronology), e.g., in the _Monthly_Review_, LIX, pp. 71-72, but I'd like to know generally how people in the early nineteenth century (and, more specifically, Charles Lamb & his circle) felt about the chronology. Did they accept it? Did they care what order the plays were written in? Any help you can provide would be appreciated. Katie Hannah khannah@english.as.ua.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:34:06 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0994 Re: Pronunciation; Shrew; Two Questions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0994. Thursday, 2 October 1997. [1] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 16:39:23 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Pronunciation; "feminine" endings [2] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 16:42:16 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0977 Re: Stratford Shrew [3] From: Markus Marti Date: Wednesday, 01 Oct 1997 23:44:49 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0985 Re: Two Questions; Pronunciation [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 16:39:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Pronunciation; "feminine" endings Not being as familiar with the variety of Scots dialects as I would like, being on the wrong side of the puddle for that kind of thing, I can only say that I've gathered my unscientific theory by listening to some fine contemporary Scottish singers, most notably Dick Gaughan who is able to use different dialects in his songs depending on the mood and character he is trying to convey. "Handful of Earth" in particular is a favorite of mine. As for the eleventh syllable, another interpretation, more valid I think, comes from looking at Hamlet's To Be Or Not To Be: an extra syllable indicates ongoing thought, thinking out loud as it were, as if the idea were not really finished in the Prince's head and just came out. Likewise the Wounded Captain in the Scottish Tragedy (the play that dare not speak its name), whose eleven-syllable lines are more an indication of sheer exhaustion. Can't stand the term "feminine" endings, by the way, although I still find it used. How about some alternatives? Andy White Arlington, VA [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 16:42:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0977 Re: Stratford Shrew When we tried this interpretation in Illinois, the previous scene when Petruchio and Kate are arguing about the sun/moon, we added a bit of unspoken business in which Petruchio said to her, "work with me on this, there's a reason for my being contrary, and it's not really all that sinister". This was the only way to present her final speech as a deliberate con job. From what I could tell (being in Hortensio's shoes) this worked with our audience. Andy White Arlington, VA [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Markus Marti Date: Wednesday, 01 Oct 1997 23:44:49 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0985 Re: Two Questions; Pronunciation "To be or not to be - that is the quest" : true. "To be or not to be - that is the question": doubtful - if not a lie. My name - o shame - I must confess - has got no stress on "i" ['ee']. Your liar, Markus Marti. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:37:55 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0995 Twelfth Night Notes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0995. Thursday, 2 October 1997. From: Louis C Swilley Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 17:16:11 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Twelfth Night After a video viewing of the Trevor Nunn "Twelfth Night," a member of our reading group, Patricia Lamb, re-read the play and gave us the following valuable notes on it: ============================== The keynote of the play is rule/misrule. The title refers to a time of misrule. Love may be said to combine rule and misrule because on the one hand it is madness and fantasy, yet on the other it is the greatest wisdom and reality. If a man has not some of this madness he has not love, or has at best a distorted love. Viola has the madness of love but she also has self-control. Like Olivia she is mourning a brother, but she must mourn in secret. As Olivia manages her household, Viola manages her own emotions and the emotional affairs of Olivia and Orsino. Viola lives vicariously (as long as she cannot otherwise express herself) by teaching Olivia about love - it's her own love she is describing. In the first line, Orsino asks to be fed with love. In the second line, he asks to be cured of love. In the seventh line he asks that the food/cure be stopped - it has already palled. Yet this unruly man runs a dukedom successfully: he says to one man "go" and he goeth, etc. The disorder in him is confined to his emotions. He is in love with love, and Olivia's refusal to consider his suit relieves him of the need to deal with her actual self. His recognition that he loves Viola, and his intention to marry her, are the signs of change in him. Viola will give his love an object at last and she will go on drawing him to order through the endurance of her love. Olivia's situation is comparable to Orsino's. Her emotional state is topsy-turvy. She has turned her natural grief into self-indulgence and is already finding it boring. If she were to adhere to her 7-year plan of mourning she would be wasting the prime of her life; she should be getting married and bearing children. Her emotions are in suspense and ready to rush forth when the beautiful and beautifully expressive Cesario comes along. At the same time, as Sebastian points out, she is able to run a household with authority and (considering what she has to work with) order. Nevertheless, her household is divided against itself. One part is excessively lax and frivolous while the other is excessively humorless and priggish. This is an extension of her own self-imposed state, which is loveless and silly at the same time. Sir Toby misrules things below stairs, getting drunk, disregarding time and decorum, and embarrassing his niece. Maria is the real organizer and her imagination is fed by her resentment. The marriage of these two cures them both, for she will be able to control him to a certain extent, while her social elevation will remove any reason for her to resent Malvolio. Sir Andrew has been mismanaging his estate by ignoring it and wasting his money at Olivia's. He now must go home and get himself and his house in order. Malvolio has not the madness of love. He has an imperturbable self-love to balance his isolation from society, and this balance may be what keeps him sane. Solitary confinement of one who is already isolated by nature only confirms him in his attitudes. Antonio is as humorless as Malvolio but at least he loves someone outside himself. Everything is orderly in him except the wildness of his love for Sebastian. He tries to be Sebastian's providence, which could be an acceptable way to show his love. He puts himself in peril for him, which is unreasonable - yet this is the unreasonableness of love. He would be happy to die for him if it would do him any good. (He is thus like the Antonio in *Merchant of Venice*.) Viola and Sebastian have to question each other when they meet because they are surrounded by illusions. It is prudent for each to doubt the other's appearance in this place where every other appearance has been misleading. Feste's final song describes a life misspent in drunkenness and knavery, growing less and less amusing to others as time goes by. A man who does not grow up and get himself in order will pay the price in bad reputation and painful hangovers. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:48:45 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0996 Re: Malvolio MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0996. Thursday, 2 October 1997. [1] From: Carl Fortunato Date: Wednesday, 01 Oct 97 19:16:00 -0400 Subj: Re: Malvolio [2] From: Carl Fortunato Date: Wednesday, 01 Oct 97 19:16:00 -0400 Subj: Re: Malvolio [3] From: Carl Fortunato Date: Wednesday, 01 Oct 97 19:16:00 -0400 Subj: Re: Malvolio [4] From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 1997 07:23:01 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Malvolio [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carl Fortunato Date: Wednesday, 01 Oct 97 19:16:00 -0400 Subject: Re: Malvolio > Has anybody seen any productions where Malvolio's imprisonment was *in > no way* tragic, and if so, how was it pulled off? LCS> If it is otherwise allowable in the character, Malvolio could be shown LCS> to be aware that he is expected to suffer and present that "face" to LCS> his tormentors, while to us he shows his awareness of what they are LCS> trying to do. This may have the potential for the comic, but I do not LCS> know what that would do to the larger argument of the play. The problem with this is he would seem to be putting one over on his tormentors. It would seem to me to change the whole thing. Malvolio is, after all, the one who wants "no more cakes and ale," and he shouldn't be allowed to get away with that. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carl Fortunato Date: Wednesday, 01 Oct 97 19:16:00 -0400 Subject: Re: Malvolio DL> As I've mentioned before, our Feste lampooned the televangelist Ernest DL> Ainsley in that scene, making it extremely raucous. That worked, eh? Good. A couple of years ago, I saw a production in Central Park that was *totally* silly. During the party scene, Feste entered with 3 helium balloons, and he, Toby and Andrew began to *suck the helium out of the balloons*, and say the dialogue with helium-induced voices, which was *horribly* funny. They also fought with *fish* instead of swords. And even *they* made you feel sorry for Malvolio. DL> And we laughed DL> Malovolio off the stage after Olivia's "out of question" line. We DL> allowed him not a shred of dignity, pesky Puritan. Yes, he shouldn't have *any* should he? I mean, he's standing there in yellow stockings... Fabian and I started to laugh at that point, but I thought it detracted from Malvolio's surprise when Feste started with "Some are born great..." I was originally going to have Malovolio *chase* Feste and Fabian off the stage after "I'll be revenged on the whole pack of you!" (there is no stage direction at all in the Folio here), but it was too difficult to choreograph, so I let it go. I was also thinking of getting rid of the character of Fabian and having Feste take his lines (with some editing, particularly in Act V, of course), but as I was both directing and playing Feste, I thought it would look really egotistical to beef up my own part like that. I would still like to try doing that, though. Fabian appears out of nowhere and doesn't seem to quite fit. I played Feste as a vaudeville comic - checkered pants way too large and held up by suspenders (Maria: "If one breaks the other will hold or if both break, your gaskins fall.") and a derby hat, carrying a guitar. The only extra lines I gave him were Curio's in I.i, where he played for Orsino as well as exchanging dialogue with him (we had no Curio). Where is your theatre company located? [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carl Fortunato Date: Wednesday, 01 Oct 97 19:16:00 -0400 Subject: Re: Malvolio > Has anybody seen any productions where Malvolio's imprisonment was *in > no way* tragic, and if so, how was it pulled off? IM> No, but why were you trying to? Good question. Because I'm shallow and have no soul, of course. Actually, because I get the impression that it was the original intention - that by the lights of the Elizabethan Theatre, Malvolio was intended as the butt, and it was impossible to be too cruel to him. But, also because the first time I read the play, I didn't get any tragic impression at all. It wasn't until *I was told* that Malvolio was somewhat tragic that I saw him that way. IM> I think that the cruel way that IM> Malvolio is treated is an essential part of the play. The presence of IM> suffering in the midst of frivolity is a typical characteristic of IM> Shakespearean comedy, True, but this one seems to be a little different. In *Much Ado* or *As You Like It*, there is no danger that the tragic elements will overwhelm the play. In *Merchant*, there is no *choice* but to have the tragic elements overwhelm the play, so you might as well go for it all way. But in 12th Night, it seems as though the tragedy *should not* overwhelm the comedy, but there is a real chance that it will. And I really don't think that it should. It's funny play, and in my opinion, it's just a raucous scream, and it should be played that way. IM> After all, the rain it raineth every IM> day. As an actor, I found it tough to balance the two sides of Feste, also. IM> Mind you, I liked the bit about the picnic table. Oh, that worked! It was fun. The actor who played Malvolio was *superb* (his name is David Skigen, just in case he becomes famous someday). *All* of the actors were terrific, helping to make up for the glaring shortcomings of their director (I mean me, of course - my wife was great). [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Morgan-Russell Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 1997 07:23:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Malvolio One of my students asked me recently if we have any idea which actor might have performed Malvolio originally. Anyone know, or, at least, know if we know? Simon. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:50:56 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0997 Comedy of Errors -Wash D.C. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0997. Thursday, 2 October 1997. From: Jung Jimmy Date: Thursday, 02 Oct 1997 6:35 -0500 Subject: Comedy of Errors -Wash D.C. Just a quick note to mention that The Comedy of Errors closes in Washington DC this weekend. Performed by the Washington Shakespeare Company, it is primarily interesting because they have elected to "cross cast" most of the roles (if that is the correct term). The twins are now sisters, husbands are now wives, courtesans ... something else. I haven't really compared with the text, but it appears "mistress" and "master"; "brother" and "sister"; "harlot" and "villain" have been substituted liberally throughout the play. I'm also wondering if some speeches weren't switched. As I said, seeing how the casting ripples through the play is the most interesting part. It is also the casting that makes for the funniest element of the play, in as much as the two Dromios are so completely different in stature, feature and complexion. They are costumed identically and wigged identically in bright orange little-orphan-Annie hair-dos; but to see the short pale Dromio stare at her towering dark sister and claim her as her mirror is a hoot. Taunya Martin, as the tall dark Dromio from Syracuse, is the hilarious highlight of the play. It is a very stripped down version, with limited, if not resourceful stage and prop choices and playing in Rosslyn till Sunday. jimmy ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 14:40:15 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0998 Qs: MND; Conferences; Address MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0998. Sunday, 5 October 1997. [1] From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 23:53:37 -0800 Subj: Midsummer's Night Dream [2] From: Dan Dunnigan Date: Friday, 03 Oct 1997 16:48:36 -0600 Subj: Conferences in England [3] From: Edna Z. Boris <104757.652@compuserve.com> Date: Sundy, 5 Oct 1997 06:02:06 -0400 Subj: Address [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997 23:53:37 -0800 Subject: Midsummer's Night Dream The drama teacher at our high school is planning a production of Midsummer's Night Dream for the spring (Hurrah!) She would like to hear staging ideas, etc from you. As she is not a member of this forum, please contact her directly. Thanks. Her name is Kathy Roberts and her school email address is kroberts@kodiak.alaska.edu. I'd like to hear some ideas for teaching MND in the classroom - please contact me privately if you can help. Thanks again. Mike Sirofchuck Kodiak High School msirofchuck@kodiak.alaska.edu [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan Dunnigan Date: Friday, 03 Oct 1997 16:48:36 -0600 Subject: Conferences in England I am looking for information on conferences in London, England. I hope there will be a conference of about a week's duration this winter or spring. I feel sure there must be a conference linked to Shakespeare, study of plays, and of course a play or two at the Globe Theatre. Do you know of an address or person I might contact? [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edna Z. Boris <104757.652@compuserve.com> Date: Sundy, 5 Oct 1997 06:02:06 -0400 Subject: Address Does anyone know how I can get in touch with Rinda F. Lundstrom, author of WILLIAM POEL'S HAMLETS (1984)? E-mail or snail-mail or phone would be helpful. Please reply off list. Thanks. Edna Boris ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 14:57:01 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.0999 Re: Macbeth MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0999. Sunday, 5 October 1997. [1] From: Richard Nathan Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 1997 15:13:19 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0991 Re: Macbeth [2] From: Tim Richards Date: Friday, 03 Oct 1997 00:17:03 +0800 Subj: SHK 8.0991 Re: Macbeth [3] From: Mike Jensen Date: Thursday, 02 Oct 1997 20:42:35 +0100 Subj: SHK 8.0984 Re: Macbeth -Reply [4] From: Stuart Manger Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 1997 23:36:41 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0984 Re: Macbeth [5] From: Eric Salehi Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 1997 19:31:41 -0400 (EDT) Subj: The Witches made him do it (?) [6] From: Julie Blumenthal Date: Thursday, 02 Oct 1997 12:34:12 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Macbeth [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Nathan Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 1997 15:13:19 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0991 Re: Macbeth Sean Kevin Lawrence wrote: >I'm wondering if anyone else notices a connection between the absent Sly >and the absent witches at the end of their respective plays. Not to mention the Fool disappearing in the middle of "KING LEAR" and Poins disappearing in the middle of "HENRY IV, PART I" and then coming back again in the early part of "HENRY IV, PART II" and disappearing again in the middle of that play! [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Richards Date: Friday, 03 Oct 1997 00:17:03 +0800 Subject: SHK 8.0991 Re: Macbeth H. R. Greenberg wrote: >One of the most egregious misadventures regarding casting of the witches >was a church basement production in which my son-trained at London's >Central Drama school-had the misfortune to play MacDuff. Anent the >lunatic RICHARD III of Neil Simon's "THE GOODBY GIRL", this production >featured but two witches-thus whittled down by a lunatic director, so >that the two women could later play the two murderers. Ouch, that must have grated. Why on Earth couldn't he have kept three witches in, having the third play the Third Murderer? Tim Richards. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Jensen Date: Thursday, 02 Oct 1997 20:42:35 +0100 Subject: SHK 8.0984 Re: Macbeth -Reply I have been reading and enjoying SHAKSPEReans reminiscences of production choices for Macbeth. I recommend a book that considers several major productions on film, stage, and television, examining how different choices affected interpretation. It is from the University of Manchester's Shakespeare in Performance series. The title is simply Macbeth, unless it is Shakespeare in Performance: Macbeth. The author is Bernice W. Kliman. There is a chapter on Orson Welle's Macbeth, both stage and film versions, and another on Polanski's film, both of which were the subject of yesterday's electronic chatter. Many others are considered as well. I saw a copy at Stanford Bookstore last week, if anyone in the neighborhood wants to grab it. Mike Jensen [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Manger Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 1997 23:36:41 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0984 Re: Macbeth Holinshed or Hall - not Halliwell. He's the film guide chap! Stuart Manger [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Salehi Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 1997 19:31:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The Witches made him do it (?) Tim Richards' intriguing questions about _Macbeth_ got me thinking as well: does anyone know of a production in which the witches figured as the Three Fates? Perhaps the connection sounds obvious, but I can't recall a production that's been done that way, with the sisters wielding thread, scissors and the whole equipage. Such a move would raise interesting questions about Macbeth's (and Lady Macbeth's) responsibility, since the sisters basically would be puppetmasters, manipulators rather than mere prognosticators. About five years ago I saw a remarkable staging of the play by Stuffed Puppet Theater at Theater Project in Baltimore (U.S.). In that production, a single actor (Australian puppetmaster Trevor ___, whose last name escapes me just now) played Macbeth and used puppets to portray the rest of the characters. The identification of Macbeth with the puppetmaster served to underscore the character's agency. I suppose my concept would produce the opposite effect by making Macbeth essentially a puppet himself. Has this been done? -- Eric Salehi [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julie Blumenthal Date: Thursday, 02 Oct 1997 12:34:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Macbeth I recently saw a production of "The Witches' Macbeth" at the First Annual Fringe Festival in New York City. It's a 75-minute adaptation (fairly minimal cuts for the most part) based around the central assumption of the witches as guiding forces of all the action of the play. As such, they're always lurking in the background and pulling various little tricks and gestures on the rest of the ensemble - sometimes seen by the ensemble, sometimes invisible. I thought it was interesting, but not necessarily a ground-breaking interpretation. Fun though. In any case, it did figure them quite prominently throughout, and if I remember right they did come in at the end to 'wrap things up' just as they had come in to start things up at the opening. This was symbolized most by a huge red (bloody?) cord which they brought in at the top of the show and unrolled to make a circle, in which most of the action occurred throughout, and which they I think rolled back up and took off at the end. The company's called The Cannon Theatre Co.; this was their first work as a company, so I don't have any more info. Also, just as a note of interest on MacB, also at the Fringe was "Lady Macbeth", a London Fringe two-person show which was a sort of 'backstage' Macbeth, positing a behind-the-scenes romance between the Lady and MacDuff. Interesting... A votre sante, Julie Blumenthal ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:02:36 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1000 Re: Some Notes on the CSF Hamlet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1000. Sunday, 5 October 1997. [1] From: Tim Richards Date: Friday, 03 Oct 1997 00:11:05 +0800 Subj: SHK 8.0990 Some Notes on the CSF Hamlet [2] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 1997 12:35:04 -0400 Subj: SHK 8.0990 The CSF Hamlet [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Richards Date: Friday, 03 Oct 1997 00:11:05 +0800 Subject: SHK 8.0990 Some Notes on the CSF Hamlet W. L. Godshalk wrote: >In this production, Hamlet is played as a woman by a woman... Interesting idea. How did they play the relationship with Ophelia, as a lesbian love affair or in some other manner? Tim Richards. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 1997 12:35:04 -0400 Subject: SHK 8.0990 The CSF Hamlet Hilarious! It's the way you tell them, Bill. T. Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:21:36 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1001 Re: Malone MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1001. Sunday, 5 October 1997. [1] From: Simon Malloch Date: Friday, 03 Oct 1997 00:31:07 +0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0993 Q: Malone [2] From: Judy Kennedy Date: Friday, 3 Oct 1997 09:44:37 -0300 (ADT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0993 Q: Malone [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Malloch Date: Friday, 03 Oct 1997 00:31:07 +0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0993 Q: Malone The 1790 chronology was not Malone's sole or final position: for this work he revised the earlier 1778 *An Attempt to Ascertain the Order in which the Plays Attributed to Shakespeare Were Written*, changing the dates of seven plays. A third revised survey was included by James Boswell Jun. in the 1821 edition of Shakespeare's plays, in which seventeen dates were adjusted. For discussion, you would do well to look at Peter Martin's *Edmond Malone: Shakespearean Scholar.* For a reproduction of one of the texts it might be fruitful to consult E.K.Chamber's *William Shakespeare* which may reproduce it - I cannot remember off-hand. Otherwise, Routledge has recently re-published the 1778 *Johnson-Steevens Edition of the Plays of William Shakespeare*, which includes the 1780 two-volume supplement by Malone (ISBN:0415120705) - this set contains the earlier 1778 piece. Simon Malloch. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Judy Kennedy Date: Friday, 3 Oct 1997 09:44:37 -0300 (ADT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0993 Q: Malone Katie Hannah wrote: >I am looking for information on Edmond Malone's work on the chronology >of Shakespeare's plays. Is his 1790 chronology reprinted in a modern >source that anyone knows of? I know that there were at least a couple of >replies to this work (not sure about his earlier chronology), e.g., in >the _Monthly_Review_, LIX, pp. 71-72, but I'd like to know generally how >people in the early nineteenth century (and, more specifically, Charles >Lamb & his circle) felt about the chronology. Did they accept it? Did >they care what order the plays were written in? Any help you can provide >would be appreciated. I'm not quite sure what you're looking for, but Malone's 1790 edition is available in a modern facsimile, as is the 1821 variorum. I do not know of a modern edition proper. Specifically on the _Attempt_, I suppose you have looked at Peter Martin's book on Malone (Cambridge, 1995), especially pp.30-35. Malone himself, of course, changed his mind fairly often, as Martin sketches out. For example, here is a summary of how he treated MND: 'In 1778 [the first appearance of the _Attempt_] Malone dated MND 1595; this date is repeated in the 1785 edition. The 1793, 1803, and 1813 variorum editions follow Malone's own edition of 1790 in assigning the date of 1592. In the posthumous edition of 1821 it is dated 1594.' Interest in the chronology began before Malone, and continues actively through the C19 (and through C20, but with less extreme disagreement). Some of the earlier responses or discussions, apart from those in reviews and Hurdis's _Cursory Remarks_ mentioned by Martin, are George Chalmers, _Supplemental Apology etc_ (1799); Charles Dibdin, _Complete History etc_ ([1800]); Schlegel's _Lectures_ (1815); Nathan Drake, _Shakespeare and His Times_ (1817); Charles Knight in his 1839 edition and elsewhere; Henry Hallam's _Introduction to the Literature of Europe_ (1839). Judy Kennedy jkennedy@stthomasu.ca ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:27:33 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1002 Re: New Globe's H5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1002. Sunday, 5 October 1997. [1] From: Marilyn Mosher Date: Thursday, 02 Oct 1997 10:40:28 -0300 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0993 Qs: New Globe's H5 [2] From: Peggy O'Brien Date: Thursday, 02 Oct 1997 23:08:43 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0993 Q: New Globe's H5 [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marilyn Mosher Date: Thursday, 02 Oct 1997 10:40:28 -0300 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0993 Qs: New Globe's H5 >I have seen a couple of posting that the Globe's production of H5 will >be on Great Performances in November. Does anyone know if this will be >a fulllength production or a documentary on it? >Mike Jensen The information I was given is that it is an actual performance, although it is possible that it is a special performance for television. The date, again, is Nov.5. Marilyn [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peggy O'Brien Date: Thursday, 02 Oct 1997 23:08:43 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0993 Q: New Globe's H5 The information on the Great Performances can be had from Jac Venza, Executive Producer of Great Performances at WNET (the public television station) in NYC. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:33:26 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1003 Re: Classroom Strategies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1003. Sunday, 5 October 1997. [1] From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 1997 11:37:13 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0992 Re: Classroom Strategies [2] From: Eric Salehi Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 1997 19:34:21 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Sourcebook for Teaching Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Schmeeckle Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 1997 11:37:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0992 Re: Classroom Strategies With regard to some of the strategies suggested on this thread, such as having the students insult each other and pandering to their sexual urges, such strategies seem to me irresponsible and morally indefensible. I am a retired English teacher. For more than ten years I taught seniors in a not very good public high school in Vermont. I regularly taught two or three courses in British Literature to college preparatory students and two or three so-called "general courses." The following remarks represent my conclusions with regard to the problem of presenting Shakespeare as great literature (I realize that he was a dramatist and that many teachers emphasize that aspect, but I knew my limitations) and leaving the students with a positive attitude towards his plays. I began by showing a version of The Taming of the Shrew, produced back in the 60's or 70's, on video, by a group in San Francisco. Someone may be able to identify this, as I have forgotten the details. It was treated, not inappropriately in my opinion, as a farce. It had the great value of being so thoroughly enjoyable that the students immediately learned from enjoyable experience that Shakespeare could be fun. I spent a week showing this in class. The second week we did Macbeth. I played records, scene by scene, stopping after every scene to point out things, to ask questions, to stimulate discussion. With my college preps, I went on to King Lear, after having concluded that Hamlet was too difficult. That may reflect my own feeling about the two plays, because it seems to me that I understand King Lear, whereas Hamlet was much more of a problem for me. In other words, given an option, it seems best to follow your own enthusiasm. I introduced KL by emphasizing the inter-generational theme. Ask kids whether parents are ever unjust, and how one should respond to an unjust parent, and their interest is aroused. Roger Schmeeckle [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Salehi Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 1997 19:34:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Sourcebook for Teaching Shakespeare Jodi Clark asks, <> Take a look at the Shakespeare Set Free series (Ed. Peggy O'Brien, Washington Square Press, 1995). The series, published by the Folger's Teaching Shakespeare Institute, provides useful source material for discussing the plays in terms of text and performance. -- Eric Salehi ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:38:35 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1004 Shakespeare CD technical problem MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1004. Sunday, 5 October 1997. From: Norton Technical Support Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 1997 14:36:47 -0400 Subject: Shakespeare CD technical problem Mr. Cook, One of the members of your Shakespeare list suggested that I sent you an email discussing a software problem that users of W. W. Norton's "The Norton Shakespeare Workshop CD-ROM" might be facing. Whenever an owner installs the CD with the 'run from CD' option checked, a shortcut is created. This shortcut points to the WRONG FILE and needs to be corrected manually. The correct shortcut path is D:\windows\shakstud.exe, where D:\ is the letter identifying the CD-ROM drive. The full directions on how to remedy this issue can be found at www.wwnorton.com/techsupport/nwsfaq.htm Please post this email to your group if you see fit. I'd appreciate any help in making sure the CD is enjoyed without technical glitches. Thank you, Alessandra Zarate-Sanderlin Electronic Media W. W. Norton & Co. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:47:20 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1005 Re: Bile; TN; Endings; Malvolio MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1005. Sunday, 5 October 1997. [1] From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 1997 11:04:29 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.0970 Re: Black Bile and Medical History [2] From: John Velz Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 1997 23:52:33 -0500 (CDT) Subj: TN notes [3] From: Laura Fargas Date: Friday, 3 Oct 1997 02:46:46 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0994 Re: "feminine endings" [4] From: Carl Fortunato Date: Friday, 03 Oct 97 20:34:00 -0400 Subj: Re: Malvolio [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 1997 11:04:29 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.0970 Re: Black Bile and Medical History The discussion of humours and melancholy and bile so far seem to have missed the fact that one of the main problems with the question is the question itself. Early modern medicine may have been very wrong but it wasn't simplistic or reductive. Medical authorities never believed that a disorder like chronic melancholy could be reduced to single physical cause (like an "excess of black bile"); nor did they believe that a single cure or regimen could be applied to all cases of the disorder with equal success. On the contrary, every case had to be considered on its own terms; that's why doctors supposedly came in handy. The natural constitution of the patient (sometimes referred to as her "temperament" or "complexion") had to be considered along with her present condition. A naturally choleric person, for example, may well be suffering temporarily from biliousness, etc. The condition of the individual, moreover, had to be considered in view not only of the quality of her blood (and urine and feces)--all indicators primarily of chemical or humoural and to some extent what they considered to be "spiritual" imbalances-but also of her diet, her environment, her personal relationships, her disposition toward auto-suggestion, and even her astrological charts, as well as any traumatic experiences she may have experienced recently or in the past (the death of a parent; being jilted by a lover.) That's why eating beef would be indicated for one individual and counter-indicated for another; that's why purging or bloodletting or exercise or prayer, etc., was held to work sometimes and not to work other times. And that's why so many apparently contradictory solutions were proposed for what in name seemed to be a single disorder. Just as today, medicine was both an art and a science, and its rostrums depended on both a complex calculus of divers factors, "scientifically" deduced, and an application of divers remedial strategies, whose efficacy could be either part of medicinal legend or part of the doctor's personal experience. And medicine stood and fell, as it does even today, both on its successes and its failures. Frankly, I don't know of any modern textbook (including _The English Malady_ or McDonald's _Mystical Bedlam_) that fully explains how early modern medicine really _worked._ On the other hand, I'm not sure that anyone would really be interested in a book that looked at early modern medicine wholly dispassionately, with no agenda. If there was a good one out there that hasn't been mentioned yet I'd be grateful to hear of it. In the meantime, I can recommend two books of the period written for laymen that explain medicine in interesting and entertaining ways: Elyot's _Castel of Helth_ (ca. 1546: I may be off a year or two) and Richard Brome's comedy, _The Antipodes_ (1638). Wishing you all good health, Robert Appelbaum [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Thursday, 2 Oct 1997 23:52:33 -0500 (CDT) Subject: TN notes Thanks to Louis Swilley and Patricia Lamb for the intelligent notes on *Twelfth Night*. I would like to offer a couple more. The household of Olivia is not only in disorder, it happens to have two emblematic characters in Sir Toby (all play and no work) and Malvolio (no play, no "cakes and ale"). The emblems enforce the theme that excess and/or defect of any virtue are self destructive. Yet the world wavers between feast and fast and between the workaday world and the holiday world. Those who deny either feast (as Malvolio does) or fast (as Sir Toby does) are natural enemies, but they are more alike than either would ever admit. Each of them declines the via media, that middle path between extremes that ever since Aristotle's time has been influential in the thinking of Western societies. Twelfth Night is the night of the feast of the Epiphany which in Mediterranean countries is more festive than Christmas. As the day ends the festivity comes to a sobering halt. Ending the period of authorized revelry is necessary. Some will not end it without being forced to. When I lived in France in the 1970s folks were still eating twelfth night cakes as Easter approached. No lenten fasting for them. Some on the other hand will never acknowledge that Christmas revelry has a place in human life. Remember those Puritans who called Christmas Christtide because they hated celebratory masses so much? And that is going on in the culture Shak. is writing out of. So Malvolio is thought a puritan by some and a timepleaser by others. Knowing when to leave the party is the first mark of maturity. But let not the party be pooped. Sorry to ramble on, but it is fun to think back over that fine Trevor Nunn film. I too saw it on t.v. recently. Yours for *festivitas* (controlled, of course) John W. Velz. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laura Fargas Date: Friday, 3 Oct 1997 02:46:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0994 Re: "feminine endings" Andrew Walker White wrote: > Can't stand the term "feminine" endings, by the way, although I still > find it used. How about some alternatives? Working poets these days speak of a line as ending on an unstressed syllable. I don't recall hearing anyone speak of a "feminine ending" for years. Laura Fargas [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carl Fortunato Date: Friday, 03 Oct 97 20:34:00 -0400 Subject: Re: Malvolio > One of my students asked me recently if we have any idea which actor > might have performed Malvolio originally. Anyone know, or, at least, > know if we know? That one is known to have been played by Richard Burbage, but unfortunately I forget the source for this. Maybe Manningham's diary? - Carl (carl.fortunato@moondog.com) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 08:46:12 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1006 Re: Classroom Strategies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1006. Monday, 6 October 1997. [1] From: Julia L. Shields Date: Sunday, 5 Oct 97 15:49:04 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.1003 Re: Classroom Strategies [2] From: Peter C. Herman Date: Sunday, 5 Oct 1997 20:11:22 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1003 Re: Classroom Strategies [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julia L. Shields Date: Sunday, 5 Oct 97 15:49:04 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.1003 Re: Classroom Strategies With all due respect to Mr. Schmeeckle, I find that with today's students I am having to use gimmicks that I would never have dreamt of using in the past. I've taught for thirty years, and the students today are harder by far to interest in reading or writing than any I've taught before. Last year I used the insults briefly in a tenth grade class that had come in determined to hate Shakespeare. Their having ten minutes of fun with those insults changed their attitudes. No miracle cure, but they were willing to give Shakespeare a chance. Active involvement is certainly one of the keys to success. Julia Shields [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter C. Herman Date: Sunday, 5 Oct 1997 20:11:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1003 Re: Classroom Strategies >I began by showing a version of The Taming of the Shrew, produced back >in the 60's or 70's, on video, by a group in San Francisco. Someone may >be able to identify this, as I have forgotten the details. I also remember watching on PBS this production, which was by, if I remember correctly, the San Francisco Repertory Company. Does anyone know if it's available in video? Peter C. Herman ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 08:51:25 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1007 Re: Macbeth MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1007. Monday, 6 October 1997. [1] From: Skip Nicholson Date: Sunday, 05 Oct 1997 13:25:11 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0999 Re: Macbeth [2] From: Tim Richards Date: Monday, 06 Oct 1997 18:42:16 +0800 Subj: SHK 8.0999 Re: Macbeth [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Nicholson Date: Sunday, 05 Oct 1997 13:25:11 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0999 Re: Macbeth While we're on Macbeth adaptations, the Johannesburg Civic Theater's production of Welcome Msomi's "Umbatha" (or sometimes "Mbatha"), the Zulu Macbeth rages and steams with power. The dialogue's in Zulu, so the text is gone, for those of us who don't understand the tongue. You can argue all night about the relative power of Shakespeare's verbal poetry and Msomi's "body poetry" and never come to a consensus (even with yourself, I found). But Shakespeare's more fun to argue about than just about anything else. Isn't that what this list is all about? "Umbatha" is absolutely worth seeing. It's trekking around the U.S. now. Skip Nicholson South Pasadena (CA) HS [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Richards Date: Monday, 06 Oct 1997 18:42:16 +0800 Subject: SHK 8.0999 Re: Macbeth Eric Salehi wrote: >does anyone know of a production in which the witches figured as the >Three Fates? Perhaps the connection sounds obvious, but I can't recall >a production that's been done that way, with the sisters wielding >thread, scissors and the whole equipage. We didn't go that far in our production earlier this year at the University of Western Australia, but the director did make a conscious decision in casting a "mother, maiden and crone" as the witches. It certainly helped differentiate the three characters, as their various ages were reflected in their mannerisms and actions (the youngest was quite obviously a novice witch). An interesting and effective idea. Tim Richards. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 08:56:54 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1008 Re: Some Notes on the CSF Hamlet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1008. Monday, 6 October 1997. [1] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 05 Oct 1997 22:22:32 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1000 Re: Some Notes on the CSF Hamlet [2] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 05 Oct 1997 22:31:27 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1000 Re: Some Notes on the CSF Hamlet [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 05 Oct 1997 22:22:32 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1000 Re: Some Notes on the CSF Hamlet T. Hawkes writes: >Hilarious! It's the way you tell them, Bill. Yes, I know the joke. The prisoners have all the jokes numbered. A new prisoner is told this fact. He hears one of the old lags shout 36--and everyone laughs at great length. So the new prisoner waits a day or two, and shows 36. No one laughs. The new guy asks one of the old prisoners why no one laughed at his 36 when everyone laughed outrageously when the old lag shouted 36. The answer: "Some people can tell a joke; some people can't." There are variations on the theme. Obviously, I can tell a joke. Thanks, Terence. Yours, Bill Godshalk [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 05 Oct 1997 22:31:27 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1000 Re: Some Notes on the CSF Hamlet >How did they [CSF] play the relationship with Ophelia, as a >lesbian love affair or in some other manner? asks Tim Richards. Actually, it was played as the ambiguously gay duo. Some audience members felt that Hamlet and Ophelia were just friends, while others felt that the relationship was definitely gay. In rehearsal, I pushed for openly gay, but Marni Penning who played Hamlet resisted, while Ophelia (Jill Westerby) was more comfortable with my suggestion (only on stage, of course). I thought it worked well-as did most of the audience members. Cincinnati really was and is really for innovative theatre. The play has been received extremely well by the traditionally conservative Cincinnatians. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:05:55 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1009 Re: Conference; TN; Endings; MND MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1009. Monday, 6 October 1997. [1] From: Jerry Bangham Date: Sunday, 05 Oct 1997 15:03:46 -0400 Subj: Conference in England [2] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Sunday, 5 Oct 1997 16:15:15 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1005 Re: TN [3] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Sunday, 5 Oct 1997 16:15:15 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1005 Re: TN [4] From: Stephan B. Paragon Date: Sunday, 5 Oct 1997 21:38:54 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.0998 Q: MND [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Bangham Date: Sunday, 05 Oct 1997 15:03:46 -0400 Subject: Conference in England >I am looking for information on conferences in London, England. I hope >there will be a conference of about a week's duration this winter or >spring. If you can settle for a conference in Canterbury in the Summer, the International Federation for Theatre Research will be meeting July 6 - 12. There will undoubtedly be some sessions related to Shakespeare. The conference will include a day's excursion to London (including the Globe) and probably a post-convention trip somewhere in the UK. There is a link with contact information on my website. Jerry Bangham Internet: jbangham@kudzu.win.net http://www.win.net/~kudzu/y [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Sunday, 5 Oct 1997 16:15:15 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1005 Re: TN Remember those > Puritans who called Christmas Christtide because they hated celebratory > masses so much? Your remark reminds of a favorite story of my old English professor (or happy memory): In the last century, a member of Parliament, one Thomas Massey-Massey, called for the suppression of the term, "Christmas," because of its Roman Catholic background. He favored "Christtide" instead, and presented this idea before the assembled Members. The idea died, however, when some wag of an Irish M.P. rose to say that he would be perfectly willing to endorse the measure, if the English gentleman would change his own name to Thotide Tidey-Tidey. L. Swilley [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter L Groves Date: Monday, 06 Oct 1997 09:50:46 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0994 Re: Pronunciation; Shrew; Two Questions > Can't stand the term "feminine" endings, by the way, although I still > find it used. How about some alternatives? I agree -- I always call it a "double" ending. Peter Groves, Monash [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephan B. Paragon Date: Sunday, 5 Oct 1997 21:38:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.0998 Q: MND I think you should have only imaginary minds in on creating the play. It must be as imaginative as possible. [was posting of members' biographies] ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 08:30:53 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1010 Re: Classroom Strategies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1010. Tuesday, 7 October 1997. [1] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Monday, 6 Oct 1997 09:15:13 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1006 Re: Classroom Strategies [2] From: Mike Jensen Date: Monday, 06 Oct 1997 18:09:19 +0100 Subj: SHK 8.1006 Re: Classroom Strategies -Reply [3] From: Roger Gross Date: Monday, 6 Oct 1997 15:03:41 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1006 Re: Classroom Strategies [4] From: Stephan B. Paragon Date: Tuesday, 7 Oct 1997 01:03:06 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1006 Re: Classroom Strategies [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Monday, 6 Oct 1997 09:15:13 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1006 Re: Classroom Strategies When I taught Shakespeare in high school, I realized early on that the students did not understand what the characters were saying. I abandoned that odious quantitative rule ("the class must cover all of 'Macbeth' in two weeks"), depending on summaries, if that answered the needs for standard tests, and spent the time in every class having a student read a sentence, then asking a student to paraphrase it and to defend the paraphrase by indicating where in the original he/she got that idea. Progress was slow but sound, if ever sound there was. We then moved from speech to speech, questioning the motivation of the character in making such a remark. The students accepted it as the "detective work" it was. Anyone wanting to try this should particularly consider the sergeant's speech in I,ii *Macbeth*. L. Swilley [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Jensen Date: Monday, 06 Oct 1997 18:09:19 +0100 Subject: SHK 8.1006 Re: Classroom Strategies -Reply >>I began by showing a version of The Taming of the Shrew, produced >>back in the 60's or 70's, on video, by a group in San Francisco. >>Someone may be able to identify this, as I have forgotten the details. >I also remember watching on PBS this production, which was by, if I >remember correctly, the San Francisco Repertory Company. Does >anyone know if it's available in video? - Peter C. Herman You are both thinking of the Shrew produced by the American Conservatory Theatre in San Francisco. It starred Marc Singer and Fredi Ostander(sp?). It is not available on video, alas, only archivally. I very much want to see it for something I am writing. It looks like a New York viewing booth or nothing. Ostander, BTW, has a book out on Shrew, written with her husband, Rick Hamilton. Your one stop trivia shop, Mike Jensen [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Gross Date: Monday, 6 Oct 1997 15:03:41 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1006 Re: Classroom Strategies I think that the SHREW production Peter was thinking of was by the American Conservatory Theatre in San Francisco, William Ball directing. Roger Gross U. Arkansas [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephan B. Paragon Date: Tuesday, 7 Oct 1997 01:03:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1006 Re: Classroom Strategies Why don't you show how Shakespeare effect's our every day lives? Or how great a word inventor he was. Shakespeare conceived many words. Assassination, Lousy, Or phrases: The milk of human kindness, The world's my oyster. No end to it. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 08:37:12 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1011 Re: Macbeth; New Globe's H5; Endings MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1011. Tuesday, 7 October 1997. [1] From: Cary M. Mazer Date: Monday, 6 Oct 1997 09:00:42 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.0999 Re: Macbeth [2] From: Franklin J. Hildy Date: Monday, 06 Oct 1997 14:23:30 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1002 Re: New Globe's H5 [3] From: Abigail Quart Date: Monday, 6 Oct 1997 20:10:18 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1009 Re: Endings [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cary M. Mazer Date: Monday, 6 Oct 1997 09:00:42 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.0999 Re: Macbeth Eric Salehi writes: >About five years ago I saw a remarkable staging of the play by Stuffed >Puppet Theater at Theater Project in Baltimore (U.S.). In that >production, a single actor (Australian puppetmaster Trevor ___, whose >last name escapes me just now) played Macbeth and used puppets to >portray the rest of the characters. The identification of Macbeth with >the puppetmaster served to underscore the character's agency. I suppose >my concept would produce the opposite effect by making Macbeth >essentially a puppet himself. Has this been done? The puppeteer's name is Neville Trainter, and though he's Australian his theater company, Stuffed Puppet, is based in the Netherlands. And that was the one grating thing about his Macbeth adaptation (well, that and some his more extravagant theatrical choices, e.g. Macbeth pulling a [puppet] penis from his trousers and urinating triumphantly on the corpse of Duncan after the other thanes leave the scene): the script had been freely adapted into Dutch by Trainter's Dutch collaborator; when he then took the performance on tour of the US, he translated the adaptation into passable English, rather than returning to Shakespeare's language, so the whole playscript, such as it was, was performed in a rather flat and lifeless paraphrase. If you're interested in actor-and-puppet adaptations of the play, check out the three-actor adaptation by the Independent Eye (actor/playwright/designers Conrad Bishop and Elizabeth Fuller, plus a third actor when they perform Macbeth). It's been in their repertoire for close to 20 years, and they revive it every two or three years on tour. The actors, in heavy makeup, can speak in their own person, and/or can ventriloquize for one or two life-sized puppet heads they hold in one or both hands, so there can be as many as nine characters (three faces, six puppet heads) on stage at any time. The Macbeth and Lady Macbeth puppet heads change over the course of the play, getting more drawn and skull-like; and different actors manipulate the heads and the speak the roles over the course of the play. The sleepwalking scene was a thing of beauty, for the two actors using their faces for the Doctor and the Gentlewoman loaned their free hands to the puppet-headed Lady Macbeth, so she had five hands to wash and intertwine; the question of whether and when she puts down the candle to wash her hands was a non-issue! Cary [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Franklin J. Hildy Date: Monday, 06 Oct 1997 14:23:30 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1002 Re: New Globe's H5 I believe the "Henry V at the Globe " documentary being done on Great Performances in November is the same one England's Channel 4 did last June. That was a documentary that features a number of interviews worked into long sections from the play. They do more from the second half of the production that from the first but they leave out Toby Cockerell's inspired performance as Princess Katherine. His performance finally helped me see just how very successful a "boy actor" could be when taking on the part of a female character. He just played it-just as he might have taken on the role of a king or the role of an archbishop. It was really remarkable. The other men who took on female roles were not as good at it but the scenes they did still worked. It would be wonderful if the Great Performances production was of the full play so everyone could see Cockerell's work but the titles used for it and the documentary done in England in June are exactly the same so I suspect the programs will be the same as well. It is very much worth seeing, however. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Abigail Quart Date: Monday, 6 Oct 1997 20:10:18 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1009 Re: Endings Shakespeare seems to have thought of them as "feminine" endings. In Sonnet 20, the "master-mistress" sonnet, he uses only feminine endings. Calling them something else would ruin the joke. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 08:54:28 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1012 Obituaries: A. L. ROWSE MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1012. Tuesday, 7 October 1997. [1] From: Daniel Traister Date: Monday, 06 Oct 1997 11:14:36 -0400 Subj: A. L. Rowse, Masterly Shakespeare Scholar, Dies at 93 [2] From: Daniel Traister Date: Monday, 06 Oct 1997 11:24:55 -0400 Subj: The Times: Obituaries: A. L. ROWSE [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Traister Date: Monday, 06 Oct 1997 11:14:36 -0400 Subject: A. L. Rowse, Masterly Shakespeare Scholar, Dies at 93 October 6, 1997 A.L. Rowse, Masterly Shakespeare Scholar, Dies at 93 By ROBERT McG. THOMAS Jr. [A] .L. Rowse, the brilliant authority on Shakespeare and Elizabethan England whose grandiose opinions of his scholarship were not always shared by rival historians he invariably dismissed as third-rate, died on Friday at his home in Cornwall. He was 93 and best known for his confident identification of "the Dark Lady" of Shakespeare's sonnets. During a career in which he turned out some 90 books-among them a monumental four-volume study of the Elizabethan age, two biographies of Shakespeare and an exhaustively annotated edition of Shakespeare's complete works-Rowse awed reviewers with both the brilliance of his writing and the sheer scope his scholarship. If he had not, as one suggested, read everything written during or about 16th-century England, he had read enough to speak with uncommon authority and never hesitated to do so, even if his pronouncements seemed to go beyond the evidence at hand. Even before the publication of his 1964 book "William Shakespeare: A Biography," for instance, Rowse made headlines on both sides of the Atlantic-and created a run on bookstores-by announcing that he had solved all but one of the problems of the sonnets, including their dates (1592-95) and the identity of the poet's unnamed rival (Christopher Marlowe). It was left to spoil-sport reviewers to point out that the only thing original about the discoveries was that unlike a number of earlier scholars who had come to pretty much the same conclusions from essentially the same record, Rowse alone was not dissuaded by the lack of definitive evidence from proclaiming his conclusions as incontrovertible facts. A decade later, just before the 1973 publication of his second biography, "Shakespeare the Man," Rowse won a new round of headlines by announcing that he had solved the last mystery of the sonnets: the identity of Shakespeare's mistress known as the Dark Lady. Drawing on circumstantial evidence, he identified her as one Emilia Bassano Lanier, the daughter of an Italian court musician. As for recent scholarly work insisting that most of the sonnets were written to a gay lover, Rowse, who was himself openly gay, had tried to nip that error in the bud, finding irrefutable scholarly evidence that Shakespeare was "a strongly sexed heterosexual" and a man "more than a little interested in women-for an Englishman." Rowse, who had divined Lanier as the Dark Lady from a close and inspired reading of the sonnets and the diaries of a well-known Elizabethan figure, Simon Forman, knew when he was on to a good thing. He also knew the value of a catchy title. Three years later, in 1976, he used the diaries as the basis of a full-blown sociological study he called "Sex and Society in the Elizabethan Age. If his pronouncements and his outspoken disdain for virtually every other scholar in his field made him an object of some controversy, Rowse reveled in it as a man who seemed to take delight in going against the grain, even his own. His very life as an Oxford don ensconced in the academic splendor of All Souls, a college of such rarefied scholarship that it has no students, seemed to belie his own upbringing. For Alfred Leslie Rowse, whose erudition and refined speech came to personify the pinnacle of upper-class England, grew up in a home without books in Cornwall, that narrow Celtic refuge that stretches into the Atlantic in southwest England. The son of a china clay miner, Rowse, whose parents were barely literate, was a brilliant student who learned to read by age 4, became obsessed with speaking precisely correct English and worked so hard to win the only Cornwall scholarship to Oxford that it almost ruined his already precarious health. As soon as he got to Christ Church College, Rowse knew that he had found his spiritual home at Oxford, but he remained so fiercely loyal to his native Cornwall that he always maintained a home there and wrote extensively about Cornwall and Cornish culture, including "Tudor Cornwall" (1941) and "The Cousin Jacks" (1969), a study of the Cornish in the United States. Rowse, who had been writing poetry since he was a child and had intended to study literature, was persuaded to switch to history at Oxford and never regretted it. After being elected a fellow of All Souls at age 22, he threw himself into the scholarly life with a couple of detours into politics, making two unsuccessful runs for a Labor seat in Parliament in the 1930s. It was a reflection of the range of his early interests that in successive years in the 1930s he published "Queen Elizabeth and her Subjects," and "Mr. Keynes and the Labor Movement." A 1938 book, "Sir Richard Grenville of the Revenge," a gripping account of an Elizabethan naval hero's last stand, helped establish his credentials as a solid scholar and a master writer with broad appeal. But it was a 1942 memoir, "A Cornish Childhood," that put him on the best-seller lists for the first time and made him a bona fide scholar celebrity. Over the next decades Rowse played the role to the hilt. In addition to turning out dozens of works on Tudor England, several of which became best sellers, he demonstrated his versatility by producing a two-volume history of the Churchill family, continuing to write poetry and traveling widely, especially in the United States. As if his books did not make him prolific enough, Rowse also found time to write widely for newspapers and magazines, among other things writing scores of essays, book reviews, travel articles and Op-Ed pieces for The New York Times. In his last years he had slowed down a bit but hardly mellowed. His last book, published two years ago, was "Historians I Have Known," a routinely brilliant work examining 30 prominent historians, most of whom, Rowse made clear, could not hold a Celtic candle to him. Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Traister Date: Monday, 06 Oct 1997 11:24:55 -0400 Subject: The Times: Obituaries: A. L. ROWSE October 6 1997 OBITUARIES A. L. ROWSE A. L. Rowse, CH, historian, died at his home in Cornwall on October 3 aged 93. He was born on December 4, 1903. An historian and autobiographer of rare quality, A. L. Rowse was a man whose work was too often sadly defaced by trivial absurdities. His splendid gifts and his solid accomplishment were easily devalued by his rivals since he himself provided them, in abundance, with the means of doing so. And his irritability, his pride, his bitter resentment of criticism, his readiness to sit in the seat of the scornful ensured him a plentiful supply of enemies. Thus, in 1973, when he claimed to have identified the Dark Lady of Shakespeare's Sonnets as being the daughter of an Italian court musician, he spoilt what was an enjoyable piece of detective work by vaunting the superiority of his methods as an historian and scholar over those whom he considered hidebound and timid establishment academics. This naturally made many of those who might have been inclined to give him credit reluctant to do so. How and why a man so kind and so generous could regularly contrive to appear the exact opposite was not the least astonishing of his capacities. But whatever he was, whatever he did, he could never be slow or insipid. He could, however, be ridiculous. Professional opinion of his value as an historian was, is, and will probably continue to be, divided. Rowse published so much that is better forgotten for him to rise unchallenged above the hurly-burly. But his best work, Tudor Cornwall (1941), The England of Elizabeth (1950), The Expansion of Elizabethan England (1955), The Elizabethan Renaissance: The Life of the Society (1971) and its pendant, The Cultural Achievement (1972) constitute a suitably magnificent interpretation of the age with which he felt the closest sympathy. There are other works, such as his early Sir Richard Grenville of the Revenge (1937) and his later Ralegh and the Throckmortons (1962) which enlarge and enrich it. In the early 1960s he published two biographies: William Shakespeare (1963) and Shakespeare's Southampton (1965) that challenged, somewhat stridently, the main body of Shakespearean scholarship. These proved no more than ranging shots for the full-scale attack launched in three successive salvoes: Shakespeare's Sonnets (1973), Shakespeare the Man (1973, new and revised edition 1988) and a biography of the Elizabethan astrologer Simon Forman, Simon Forman, Sex and Society in Shakespeare's Age (1974). Rowse had used Forman's manuscript journals to identify the Dark Lady of the sonnets, as Emilia Lanier, wife of a young court musician William Lanier, to whom she had been married off after falling pregnant by Lord Hunsdon, Queen Elizabeth's Lord Chamberlain, whose mistress she had been for the previous three years. Rowse contended that since she was a young woman of Italian extraction (her father was Baptist Bassano, an Italian musician of the Queen) the case for Emilia's being Shakespeare's Dark Lady was inescapable. Not only was Will Shakespeare among her lovers, so was Forman. Her identification, according to Rowse, explained Shakespeare's rueful play in two of the Sonnets on the words "Will" (to denote her husband and poet-lover) and "will" (her sexual precocity and fickleness, as well as being a wry comment on the physical endowments of the men in her life). Rowse thus felt himself able to reinterpret both the poems themselves and the career of their author. The brilliance of the conjecture, and the learning and the insight that supported it, would have won a more respectful hearing among scholars if it had been voiced in tones that permitted the possibility of dissent or acknowledged the achievements of others. To the general public, the noise of the Shakespearean battle made Rowse better known than anything he had written or was to write. Nothing about this extraordinary man can be understood without some study of his early life and, in particular, his childhood. Fortunately, he published two volumes of autobiography: A Cornish Childhood (1942) and A Cornishman at Oxford (1965), both of them interesting and highly readable and the first a considerable work of art. They were followed by others, such as A Man of the Thirties (1979), which are perhaps of more value as evocations of the period than of the personality of the author. Alfred Leslie Rowse was born at Tregonissey, a village near St Austell, the son of Richard Rowse, a china-clay miner, and Ann Vanson. Like the young John Aubrey, Leslie Rowse had from the first a passionate sense of the continuity of the everyday world that everyone else took for granted, and an eager curiosity about its past. The thrill, he felt as a young researcher in the Public Record Office when he stumbled on a document showing his family established in that very village in Elizabethan times, echoed the deepest feelings of childhood. This curiosity, the truest mark of the historian, was touched with poetry, with romance, with nostalgia, and above all with the tragic sense of the brevity, the transience of human life. To all this, the stolid, taciturn, matter-of-fact culture of a poor workingman's home at the turn of the century returned a cold incomprehension. The bright, affectionate, inquisitive, talkative boy was snubbed and stifled. This intellectual and emotional solitary confinement destroyed such balance and unity as might have been possible in so ardent a nature. To defend the core of his consciousness, he fortified himself with contempt for the people and the milieu that would otherwise have crushed him into a contemptible conformity. And yet they were his people, his milieu: and his nature was not only affectionate but passionately loyal. The two volumes of autobiography movingly and often brilliantly record the hurts he suffered and inflicted. Unhappily, the resort to scorn as the main defence of his personality grew into a habit, in effect a reflex action that he could not eradicate. Too intelligent, too self-aware not to recognise this and too proud, too defiant, to admit it a defect, he boldly professed it a virtue. To this fudging of the moral compass card may be traced almost all that is silly or spiteful in his work, notably the writing-off of opinions or beliefs that he did not share. Rowse's difficulties were not merely emotional and personal. The practical obstacles that in the early part of the century faced a poor boy with overmastering intellectual and aesthetic yearnings seem nowadays almost incredible. Getting to St Austell Grammar School was nothing out of the way, but going on from there to a university was another matter. Rowse was one of the first working-class boys to be elected to a scholarship at Christ Church, Oxford, and subsequently the first to be elected a Fellow of All Souls. Books, clothes, medicines, fares, all the things that for even the most impecunious of his university contemporaries came with handouts from home, had to be paid for by squeezing a county scholarship till the pips squeaked. Even with the most careful stewardship, the thing would have been impossible without the timely and tactful generosity of his fellow Cornishman Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch, the subject of one of Rowse's later biographies (1988). The strain of all this, above all the ever-present difficulty of attempting to cultivate a literary and intellectual life in a house where books and reading were unknown and unwelcome, told on his health. No sooner had he won through to All Souls and freedom than he was laid low by duodenal ulcers and operations that intensified both his loneliness and his sense of having been done down by life. The cost of Rowse's experience was high, but much of its fruit was pleasant. Indeed, he himself drew the contrast with his public school contemporaries: "My schooldays were just happiness all the way along. It is a great tribute to day-schools." Paradoxically, it was the capacity for enjoyment of this often unhappy and embittered man that lay at the heart of his work. Like Pepys he never lost the child's wonder at beauty, whether it was a starlit night, a piece of music or a familiar landscape. Few historians have been so keenly aware of the visual and the human setting of a particular period or event. And few have been more keenly sensitive to personality. The books that made the deepest impact on him were autobiographical. Although he published several volumes of poetry, finally collected as A Life: Collected Poems (Edinburgh, 1981), the instinct that inspired them found its truest expression in the power to evoke time and place that both informed and transcended his historical scholarship. Rowse was elected to Christ Church in 1922 and took a first in history in 1925, in which year he was elected a Fellow of All Souls, where he lived, except for vacations in Cornwall, for the next 40 years. As an undergraduate he was prominent in the University Labour Club and did not wholly abandon politics in favour of literature and learning until the Second World War, having stood unsuccessfully for his native constituency of Penryn and Falmouth in the general elections of 1931 and 1935. Little as he would avow it, his chivalry, his loyalty and his sense of justice as well as his social resentment probably moved him to champion the poor against the rich. His idolatry of Churchill later led him to rationalise his Labour past as a crusade against appeasement: but, like his party, he was still opposing rearmament as late as 1935. In 1952 he stood for the wardenship of the college that held so much of his heart. His defeat was a deep wound. Mercifully, in 1954 he was appointed a Senior Fellow of the Huntington Library, and usually wintered, for the next 20 years or so, in California. Public recognition came, but was sporadic and perhaps not as generous as Rowse himself would have liked. He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 1958, President of the English Association in 1952, and received honorary doctorates from Exeter and New Brunswick. In 1982 he was awarded the Benson Gold Medal of the Royal Society of Literature. His appointment as a Companion of Honour only last year was as belated as such recognition can well be. In his later years, he spent most of his time in Cornwall (he had written an excellent history of St Austell in 1960), producing a stream of books in which his likes (Tudor England, country houses and the families through which they were transmitted) and dislikes (Puritanism, the bien pensant Left) are vividly delineated. Among his most recent books, All Souls in my Time (1993) and Historians I Have Known (1995) happily exhibit his gift for portrait sketches coloured by personal reminiscence. The vigour of his mind, the range of his astonishing memory and the breadth of his reading remained unclouded. So, too, did his readiness to encourage and praise the work of younger writers and scholars. In his last, as in his first, writings his love for and deep understanding of his native county, its landscape, its architecture, its individuality and its people, achieves a depth and vibrancy that best expresses his personality. He was a great and generous Cornishman. Rowse was an amusing and stimulating companion and an excellent lecturer. It is for his intuitions, his artistry, his scholarship and his vitality that he will continue to be read. His impatience with theory was largely the product of his intense perception of an actual moment in history. From first to last, A. L. Rowse was a cat that walked by itself. It will be a bad day for England and a worse one for historical scholarship when there are no more like him. He never married. Copyright 1997 The Times Newspapers Limited.========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:57:49 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1013 Re: Classroom Strategies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1013. Wednesday, 8 October 1997. From: Peter Hillyar-Russ Date: Tuesday, 7 Oct 1997 15:22:07 +0100 Subject: Classroom Strategies Dare a "newboy" with some experience of teaching Shakespeare to disadvantaged young people (including severely dyslexic pupils) in England venture some opinions about Shakespeare in schools? Firstly, surely, Shakespeare was a writer of plays. The texts which survive record stage productions. It is surely quite bizarre to start studying Shakespeare with the printed page. No-one ever became a "Baywatch" or an "X-Files" fan by reading the screen plays. Certainly, for a mature and detailed study, one might well return to the script - but it is an abnormal place to start. Secondly Shakespeare's plays are fairly sophisticated and, even as plays, alien in style to most modern teenagers. Preparatory work is needed. Just as one would encourage young people to read some modern verse before tackling the "Faerie Queane", so one ought, surely, to prepare for a difficult Renaissance (or early-modern) play by seeing some (later) modern plays. Thirdly the theatre is primarily a place for recreation and enjoyment, and not really a place for formal education. I have two personal insights: I was put off Shakespeare until I was in my forties by my childhood experience of Shakespeare in school. Interminable, boring slabs of text, and even more boring (more or less compulsory) school trips to see Hamlet and Lear at Stratford in the sixties, seated in the cheapest seats way above and distant from the stage, did not inspire me with any love for the bard. Eight years ago, by contrast, I was working with a group of disadvantaged teenagers, including many with behavioural problems and several with total dyslexia. We started theatre trips - for recreation. Early trips to local theatres producing modern comedies and thrillers led to an enthusiasm for the medium, and soon the students were asking to be taken to London and Stratford to see Shakespeare. Even then I made very sure that the plays we saw, in the first instance, were the easier. We started with The Comedy of Errors. My advice on classroom strategy is this: Go to the theater, start with easy modern plays, move on to Shakespeare's Comedies, then try the tragedies. At this stage - AT THE EARLIEST - consider getting a copy of the text for the students to look at. Peter Hillyar-Russ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:13:04 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1014 Qs: 1000 Acres; Clapping; Race/Religion/Opera MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1014. Wednesday, 8 October 1997. [1] From: John Allan Mitchell Date: Tuesday, 07 Oct 1997 12:23:59 -0300 Subj: A Thousand Acres [2] From: Joseph Tate" Date: Tuesday, 7 Oct 1997 13:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Clapping [3] From: Rachana Sachdev Date: Wednesday, 8 Oct 1997 00:00:58 -0400 Subj: Please Post [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Allan Mitchell Date: Tuesday, 07 Oct 1997 12:23:59 -0300 Subject: A Thousand Acres This is my first timid contribution to the list. Has there been any discussion about Jane Smiley's _A Thousand Acres_? I am interested in anyone's reception of the novel (or movie), especially regarding its debt to King Lear. My first impressions: the ugliness of the moral problem in the novel (incest) does not allow us to sympathize with the father's (Lear figure's) loss and subsequent "redemption". So the novel finds its center in the daughters' development, their struggles toward some kind of forgiveness, resolution, peace-not in Lear's development. Any thoughts? On this or any other differences/similarities between the play and novel? allan [Editor's Note: This is not to head off discussion but to provide what I hope is useful information. Yes, Jane Smiley's *A Thousand Acres* has been discussed in the past on SHAKSPER. To locate those discussion, send a command like SEARCH SHAKSPER SMILEY or SEARCH SHAKSPER THOUSAND ACRES or both to listserv@ws.bowiestate.edu. You will get a message in return with instructions for requesting specific postings generated by your search query. On another note, although some suggested that I periodically send out new member biography files, yesterday's mailing was yet another mistake on my part. As excuse, I have been suffering through a wicked case of the flu caught from my four-year-old. HMC] [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Tate" Date: Tuesday, 7 Oct 1997 13:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Clapping SHAKSPEReans, A question: When did audiences start clapping at performances, theatrical or otherwise? Did the Greeks clap? Joseph Tate Graduate Student U. of Washington [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rachana Sachdev Date: Wednesday, 8 Oct 1997 00:00:58 -0400 Subject: Please Post One of my undergraduate students is interested in exploring the issues of race and religion in operatic adaptations of Othello, Midsummer Night's Dream ,and The Tempest. He is applying for a fellowship to go to England for further research. Does anyone know of scholars in England who would be willing to work with him and/or programs with interest in drama and opera? Please send all replies to pezza@susqu.edu. Thank you, Rachana Sachdev ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:42:20 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1015 Re: Macbeth MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1015. Wednesday, 8 October 1997. [1] From: Rinda Frye D ate: Tuesday, 7 Oct 1997 13:56:18 EDT Subj: SHK 8.0999 Re: Macbeth [2] From: Jean Peterson Date: Tuesday, 7 Oct 1997 19:43:29 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1007 Re: Macbeth [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rinda Frye Date: Tuesday, 7 Oct 1997 13:56:18 EDT Subject: SHK 8.0999 Re: Macbeth Eric Salehi asks if anyone has seen a production with the witches and the 3 fates. All right, I confess-I've just finished directing one. Actually, I'm also guilty of keeping the witches involved in the play right up until the end. This production is designed to tour college and high school classes locally, and so must be done with limited costumes, no lighting effects, and only 5 actors. It must also finish within a 50 minute class period-not an easy task, and one that focuses on the Macbeths, the witches, Banquo and the Macduffs, but completely disregards the larger world of the play. Since the 5 actors must each play about 6 roles, the witches are generally played by everyone in the cast, at one point or another. They have a large blood red web with thread , spool, and scissors. They are clothed in hooded black capes, with sheer red cloth over their faces. The web becomes the caldron, when needed, which they hold over head while spinning; it covers Macbeth for the apparition scene which is handled as a possession-he moves his lips for the apparitions while one of the witches speaks the lines. The witches then double as the murders- in the same garb-which makes his lines "your spirits shine through you" and "was it not yesterday we spoke together" resonate in an interesting way. They also fill in for the servants in the Macbeths' castle-beginning with the sleepwalking scene and onward to the end, so that as the violence in the play progresses, their presence is increasingly felt. By Macbeth's last scene on the battlements (Tomorrow, etc.), all of the messengers-the cream faced loon- and Seyton himself are witches. One of the witches even fights on Macbeth's side in the last battle-"come, Fate, unto the list". When Macbeth is killed, he is covered in the red web. Their presence throughout the piece seems to have a strongly positive effect on our high school audiences (the only ones who have seen it as yet). For me, their presence helps greatly a director who was required to find means other than light and recorded sound to achieve the nightmarish quality of the play. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean Peterson Date: Tuesday, 7 Oct 1997 19:43:29 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1007 Re: Macbeth >>does anyone know of a production in which the witches figured as the >>Three Fates? It maybe stretches the definition, but I think Kurosawa's old woman in the forest is evocative in that way-there she sits, spinning away, with full knowledge of the outcome of the story and bemused mockery for the futility of human endeavor and ambition. Much has been said about Kurosawa's use of Noh drama in her characterization, but it would be like him to bridge the gap between east & west with a nod to Greek mythology. Cheers! Jean Peterson Bucknell University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:02:35 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1016 Stratford (England) Course; BAM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1016. Wednesday, 8 October 1997. [1] From: Joanne Walen Date: Tuesday, 7 Oct 1997 19:25:46 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Announcement: Stratford (England) Course [2] From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Wednesday, 8 Oct 1997 07:34:39 -0400 Subj: BAM [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Walen Date: Tuesday, 7 Oct 1997 19:25:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Announcement: Stratford (England) Course The 3rd annual "Shakespeare at Stratford: Text and Theater" summer study group in collaboration with the Shakespeare Centre and the Shakespeare Institute, University of Birmingham, will take place June 21-28, 1998 in Stratford-upon-Avon, England. We will see six of the eleven productions of the Royal Shakespeare Company, talk with actors and scholars, go backstage, and connect with new ideas. We will talk, debate, observe, talk some more, and laugh. All the while we will be very well looked after in private guest houses where someone else will do the cooking for breakfast and dinner. The 1998 RSC season: Twelfth Night , dir. Adrian Noble (David Calder-Toby Belch, Stephen Boxer-Feste); Merchant of Venice, dir. Gregory Doran; The Tempest; Measure for Measure; Two Gentlemen of Verona; Bartholomew Fair (Ben Jonson), dir. Laurence Boswell; Roberto Zucco (Bernard-Marie Koltes), dir. James Macdonald; Goodnight Children Everywhere (Richard Nelson), dir. Ian Brown; three short Irish plays by Yeats and Synge, and two new plays. The cost of $945*, airfare not included, covers seven nights' lodging with full breakfasts daily, five guest house dinners, one group restaurant dinner, entrance fees to all Shakespeare properties, excellent tickets for six RSC productions, pre-show lectures and post-show discussions with scholars from the Centre and Institute, and four guest discussions with RSC actors. Travel is on an airline and at a fare of your choice. *The cost is based on the exchange rate, the anticipated lodging and ticket prices, and an enrollment of 15 participants. The final price may vary slightly up or down. For further information and references, contact Joanne Walen , 702-852-1637 (until Oct 25) or 602-807-5114 (Oct 27 to Apr 5). [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Wednesday, 8 Oct 1997 07:34:39 -0400 Subject: BAM Anyone within traveling distance to BAM should try to see one or more performances of Peter Darling in the one-person production of *Elsinore,* a meditation on *Hamlet* conceived and staged by Robert Lepage. It is brilliant. I was jumping up and down for joy at the end. That might seem an inappropriate response to a tragedy, but this was an amazing evocation of the play. The actor's voice and body, the amazingly fluid sets and fabrics, the sound and film effects all came together to make for an unforgettable experience. It runs only till Sunday; students and seniors get rush tickets for 7.50. Call 718-636-4100 for information. Evening shows are at 7:30 pm. Cheers, Bernice W. Kliman ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:45:31 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1017 Re: Classroom Strategies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1017. Thursday, 9 October 1997. [1] From: Karen Krebser Date: Wednesday, 08 Oct 1997 08:38:05 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1013 Re: Classroom Strategies [2] From: Eva McManus Date: Wednesday, 8 Oct 1997 18:02:27 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Classroom Strategies [3] From: Robert Linn Date: Wednesday, 08 Oct 1997 20:19:22 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1003 Re: Classroom Strategies [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Krebser Date: Wednesday, 08 Oct 1997 08:38:05 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1013 Re: Classroom Strategies > My advice on classroom strategy is this: Go to the theater, start with > easy modern plays, move on to Shakespeare's Comedies, then try the > tragedies. At this stage - AT THE EARLIEST - consider getting a copy of > the text for the students to look at. > > Peter Hillyar-Russ But the POETRY, man, the POETRY!!! Often that level of Shakespeare's plays is lost on the stage (depending upon the production), and is best appreciated by a reading of the play FIRST. It has also been my experience that, because there are four hundred years between Shakespeare's English and mine, reading the play first is a BIG help in understanding the performance. Best regards, Karen Krebser PS. Surely you're not comparing *any*thing Shakespeare wrote to "Baywatch"? "The X Files," maybe... but in any event, it's apples and oranges, from my view. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eva McManus Date: Wednesday, 8 Oct 1997 18:02:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Classroom Strategies For those unfamiliar with our publication, "Shakespeare and the Classroom" is a journal published twice yearly that focuses on teaching Shakespeare. Our range is broad enough to cover all academic levels. We provide articles on teaching strategies as well as news of books, articles, films/videos and other teaching aids. We regularly provide information on the educational outreach programs of Shakespeare festivals and theatres and review their productions. The journal includes calls for papers, announcements of conferences, reviews of conferences and workshops as well as notices of upcoming productions. Each edition contains commentary on the state of education in the US, linking it specifically to our concern with teaching Shakespeare. In fact, our recent 92-page special Spring edition contained not only articles on teaching, the usual Contexts and Opinion sections, but also two significant studies-Dennis Brestensky's "A Search for Master Teachers" and C. W. Griffin's "Teaching Shakespeare: A Report" that analyzed data from an extensive study of teaching methods and emphases in college and university Shakespeare classes. The journal routinely includes media commentary on education issues as well. Other features address electronic media by reporting on Shakespeare websites, including the Globe sites, and uses of technology in the classroom. "Shakespeare and the Classroom" is jointly sponsored by Ohio Northern University and Shakespeare's Globe (USA). We provide information about Globe Education programs in the US, England and other international Globe sites. Over the years our publication has followed the development of the new Globe; we provided construction updates and then carried several articles on last year's Prologue Season dealing with the logistics of staging in the theatre. The summer courses offered by Globe (USA) (mentioned in Jason Rosenbaum's recent note to SHAKESPER) and the 1997 Globe Opening Season are discussed in our fall 1997 edition, due out later this month. This edition will also contain an index to the first four years of publication. The subscription rate is $8.00 per year ($12.00 international). Send subscription requests and manuscripts to: Eva McManus English Department Ohio Northern University Ada, OH 45810 [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Linn Date: Wednesday, 08 Oct 1997 20:19:22 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1003 Re: Classroom Strategies Concerning classroom strategies or ideas, I have taught A Midsummer Night's Dream to non-college prep seniors in high school for more years than I care to remember. In most of those years, we have ended our study with a class production of the workman's play. The students learn the lines, prepare the costumes and props, select music, and come up with -- -um "dramatic ideas." We put the production on for other students, usually about one hundred, and the production has become one of the traditions for the end of school. Putting on a dress and playing Thisbe has helped more than one good ol' boy graduate. I have videotapes of these performances that go back over fifteen years. If anyone is interested in the specifics of what I do and how, you are welcome to contact me off list. Bob Linn (rlinn@earthlink.net) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:48:31 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1018 Re: A. L. Rowse MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1018. Thursday, 9 October 1997. From: John McWilliams Date: Wednesday, 08 Oct 1997 16:03:28 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1012 Obituaries: A. L. ROWSE It is said that opinion is 'divided' on the value of A. L. Rowse's work. But is there really anyone who takes this guy seriously? Yes he sold some books, but why was he on the shelves to be sold in the first place? It is a constant source of annoyance to me when browsing in the Shakespeare section that this historian made pointless by his breathtaking self-regard features so prominently when there are scholars of genuine interest (and accessibility) who are ignored by retailers. Would anyone like to defend his work? I admit I haven't read anything beyond the few pages on Shakespeare I've looked at in the bookshop - I don't think I could bring myself to... John ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:53:15 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1019 Re: Macbeth MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1019. Thursday, 9 October 1997. [1] From: Hugh Howard Davis Date: Wednesday, 8 Oct 1997 12:15:51 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1015 Re: Macbeth [2] From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Wednesday, 8 Oct 1997 19:36:13 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1007 Re: Macbeth [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hugh Howard Davis Date: Wednesday, 8 Oct 1997 12:15:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1015 Re: Macbeth I believe that Polanski's Macbeth (sorry, I don't have it in front of me right now) used the witches as representative of the fates. Can anyone confirm? --Hugh Davis [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Wednesday, 8 Oct 1997 19:36:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1007 Re: Macbeth I have to say that I saw the Zulu Macbeth in NYC and left midway. I found it ferociously boring, the more so since whatever dialogue there was had been summarized by minimal supertitles. Others here had the same reaction, while still others thought it was the greatest thing since they sliced the bread and put it in waxpaper. hr greenberg md ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:57:14 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1020 Qs: Search Web Search; Oth-Insipred Film MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1020. Thursday, 9 October 1997. [1] From: Milla Riggio Date: Wednesday, 8 Oct 1997 10:40:15 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: A dumb query [2] From: Barrett Fisher Date: Wednesday, 8 Oct 1997 14:37:25 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1014 Qs: 1000 Acres; Clapping; Race/Religion/Opera [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Wednesday, 8 Oct 1997 10:40:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: A dumb query Dear Hardy and others: I have been asked by someone planning a retirement party for a Shakespeare director what the best net/web source for Shakespeare's plays is, so that they can browse through for quotations. How would an informed person answer this (probably all too obvious) question. I need to know in something of a hurry. Thanks, Milla Riggio [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barrett Fisher Date: Wednesday, 8 Oct 1997 14:37:25 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1014 Qs: 1000 Acres; Clapping; Race/Religion/Opera SHAKSPEREANS: A colleague who will be teaching "Othello" has asked me if I can think of any books or movies "inspired" by, or responding to, the play in much the same way as Jane Smiley's "1000 Acres." I cannot think of either a film or book off the top of my hand, so I am drawing on your collective wisdom for suggestions. Since one theme of the play is miscegenation, I did tell her that Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing" is a good recent film treatment of mixed race relationships, but that movie is hardly inspired by "Othello"; the Denzel Washington character is also an adulterer, there is a large subplot with a crackhead brother and, most importantly, the movie does not have an Iago-figure or Iago perspective (though I suppose the brothers of the white woman provide that to a certain extent). Any help would be much appreciated. Private replies are welcome if this is not of general interest. Barrett Fisher Bethel College (MN) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:01:58 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1021 Great Lakes Tempest MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1021. Thursday, 9 October 1997. From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 8 Oct 1997 13:37:22 -0400 Subject: Great Lakes Tempest Those of us on the local organizing committee for the Shakespeare Association meeting (Cleveland, 18-21 March, 1998) tried hard to persuade the Great Lakes Theater Festival, one of our two large professional theater groups, to schedule their annual Shakespeare, in this case *The Tempest*, so that registrants could see it. They decided, however, to open the season with it. (Those of you coming to the meeting will have a chance to see the Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival perform *Coriolanus* and rehearse *Much Ado* instead.) Anyway, having seen the opening of *Tem* I'm both sad and glad we didn't succeed in getting them to do it in March. The production has much of interest to academic viewers. Dennis Rosa, the director, has taken up the old notion of the play as the author's farewell to the stage with great enthusiasm. He's contrived a kind of prologue, a patchwork of quotations from the play (mostly pretty obvious) and some bits and pieces from the sonnets, an aging man's ruminations on the evanescence of life and art; the actor who will play Prospero, in generic Eliz/Jac doublet and hose, black, delivers this on a proscenium stage open all the way to the back wall, whose center is occupied by an equally generic reconstruction of the Globe stage and tiring house, with the stage itself raised (but much foreshortened--6' or so?) and the canopy only suggested. We discover later that there's a little room up there under the twin gables where Shakespeare/Prospero sometimes sits and writes. As the black figure muses, other actors come in and do pre-performance stuff; the prologue closes with P. scribbling and then reading the last few lines of the play proper, and then the winds begin to howl. At this point a second (third?) set of theatrical conventions emerges. Rosa, having read his introductions, asked his designers to take Inigo Jones as their inspiration, and not only the betrothal masque but the whole piece employs the kind of obvious artifice, two dimensions pretending to be three, of Jacobean masque design as it survives to us in Jones' drawings. The storm scene involves fairies, working on the forestage, waving strips of cloth through which another fairy carries a little toy ship in great distress, while the Neapolitans, working on the Globe stage, do their dialogue and Prospero, up in the little room, observes and occasionally gives directions with his staff. Prospero tells his story not only to Miranda but to an attentive audience of fairies; when she's asleep, Ariel comes dancing in from the wings (Rosa keeps him in constant motion-a slightly unfortunate choice with an actor-Jonathan Uffelman- who doesn't move badly but not all that well either), and Caliban (George Diehl, Jr.), interestingly played with bent knees and bowed back until his very last few moments in Act 5, comes rolling out from under the Globe platform. At the end of that scene, stage-hands wheel on little towers, painted to look like the rocks in International Style landscapes, the landscape of the island; from these Prospero, Ariel, and the ever present fairies watch Ferdinand and Miranda meet, the Neapolitan court party come ashore, the clowns discover one another, and so on. Prospero is sometimes down, sometimes aloft. There's a good deal of incidental music, not bad (though Ariel doesn't sing very well), and a great deal of movement. All this has a lot of scenic appeal; the Jones stuff is elegant and charming, the costumes rich and strange, something is going on all the time. Too much, to my mind. All that scenery crowds things, so the actors are always in each others' faces (this may also arise from the fact that Rosa has worked mostly in TV the last few years). The non-stop busyness means drifting focus-knowing the text as well as I do I couldn't always hear lines for the rolling of scenery or other incidental noise, and I know some less experienced spectators found it hard to keep up. Still and all, an interesting if not always successful effort. Michael Rudko as Shakespeare/Prospero manages to keep his genial and his vengeful side in touch with each other and us and to communicate clearly through the visual din. Mark Elliot Wilson makes a dangerous Antonio from whom Prospero has clearly not heard the last. George Diehl Jr.'s 3-foot-high Caliban, whom the others treat as a talking dog with a propensity to bite, is beguilingly vigorous. Careena Melia is persuasively innocent and sexy at the same time. And John Buck, Jr., does a delightful turn as a Stefano who owes more than a little in the way of inflection, posture, and gesture to the immortal W. C. Fields. The show runs through Oct. 19. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:08:25 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1022 Shakespeare magazine's Fall issue MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1022. Thursday, 9 October 1997. From: Mike LoMonico Date: Wednesday, 08 Oct 1997 16:50:27 -0400 Subject: Shakespeare magazine's Fall issue Shakespeare magazine, sponsored by Georgetown University and Cambridge University Press announces its Fall 1997 issue. Contents: Featured Articles "Sex Me Here" Phyllis Rackin (UPenn) asks why did Shakespeare's Lady Macbeth nurse her own baby. "King James and the Witches" Boyd Berry (Virginia Commonwealth University) connects Shakespeare's "Weird Sisters" with Renaissance works on witchcraft. "Teaching Macbeth" Several teachers share their ideas: "Found Poetry in Macbeth" Kathleen Breen sends her students to the words of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth to find poetry. "Wake Duncan with Thy Knocking" Michelle Peeling brings Duncan back to life and stages a murder investigation. "Give Sorrow Words" Hilary Zunin teaches the art of condolence in the context of Macbeth. "Macbeth: The Love Story" Julia Shields looks beyond the violence to find a tragic story of sacrificee spoke together" resonate in an interesting way. They also fill in for the servants in the Macbeths' castle-beginning with the sleepwalking scene and onward to the end, so that as the violence in the play progresses, their presence is increasingly felt. By Macbeth's last scene on the battlements (Tomorrow, etc.), all of the messengers-the cream faced loon- and Seyton himself are witches. One of the witches even fights on Macbeth's side in the last battle-"come, Fate, unto the list". When Macbeth is killed, he is covered in the red web. Their presence throughout the piece seems to have a strongly positive effect on our high school audiences (the only ones who have seen it as yet). For me, their presence helps greatly a director who was required to find means other than light and recorded sound to achieve the nightmarish quality of the play. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean Peterson Date: Tuesday, 7 Oct 1997 19:43:29 -0400 Subject: Re: ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:47:08 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1023 Re: Oth-Inspired Film MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1023. Friday, 10 October 1997. [1] From: Bruce Golden Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 09:50:52 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1020 Q: Oth-Inspired Film [2] From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 11:50:22 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1020 Q: Oth-Inspired Film [3] From: Mike Jensen Date: Thursday, 09 Oct 1997 17:25:28 +0100 Subj: SHK 8.1020 Q: Oth-Inspired Film [4] From: Tom Marshall Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 12:57:15 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1020 Q: Oth-Inspired Film [5] From: Kevin J. Donovan Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 13:23:37 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: Responses to Othello [6] From: David Crosby Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 15:22:30 -0500 Subj: Re: Spike Lee film [7] From: Werner Habicht Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 97 23:12 MET DST Subj: SHK 8.1020 Othello [8] From: Hugh Howard Davis Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 18:38:39 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1020 Q: Oth-Inspired Film [9] From: Bill Gelber Date: Thursday, 09 Oct 1997 23:51:11 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1020 Q: Oth-Inspired Film [10] From: Richard Nathan Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 21:00:13 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1020 Oth-Inspired Film [11] From: Paul Franssen Date: Friday, 10 Oct 1997 10:01:56 -0600 (CST) Subj: RE: Oth-Inspired work [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Golden Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 09:50:52 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1020 Q: Oth-Inspired Film Machado de Assis, _Dom Casmurro_ (sp?). Great Brazillian writer at the turn of the twentieth century; great novel with an _Othello_ theme. -Bruce Golden [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 11:50:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1020 Q: Oth-Inspired Film Kenneth Rothwell's "Shakespeare on Screen" (the source for all things Shakespearean and filmed) lists the following movies inspired by "Othello" : "Carnival" (1921 silent/1931 sound) : actors playing "Othello" begin to mirror the play's events in their lives "Men are Not Gods" (1936) Story of an actor's life while playing "Othello" and the reviewer who falls in love with him. "A Double Life" (1947) another version of actors who begin to confuse their real lives with the events of the play they are acting. "Jubal" (1956) A Western version of the play. "All Night Long" (1962) Othello in the world of modern jazz. "Catch My Soul" (1973) Othello as rock musical. There is also, of course, Verdi's "Otello" Annalisa Castaldo [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Jensen Date: Thursday, 09 Oct 1997 17:25:28 +0100 Subject: SHK 8.1020 Q: Oth-Inspired Film -Reply The answer to Barrett Fisher's question that will probably be given most often is The Double Life, an American movie with Ronald Coleman. It is usually classed as a film noir. Coleman plays an actor given the role of Othello. His private life begins to mirror his character on stage. I do not recall an Iago character, and his "reel" life Desdemona is hardly cut from the same cloth as Shakespeare's character. Still, it is an entertaining film and was released on video a year or two ago. There are, of course, Ran and Throne of Blood. They are in a strange dimension between adaptation and re-imagination, not quite either. Best of luck, Mike Jensen [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Marshall Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 12:57:15 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1020 Q: Oth-Inspired Film Othello-Inspired film: In 1955 or 56 there was a film released called _Jubal_ with Glenn Ford, Ernest Borgnine, Julie London, and Rod Steiger, loosely based on Othello. It's a western that focuses on jealousy. Ford is Cassio; Borgnine, Othello; London, Desdemona,; and Steiger, Iago-his character is called "Pinky" as I recall. The film does not deal with race, but more with the sheepman-cattle rancher feud. It's an interesting adaptation, and the studio did not have to give Shakespeare screen credit because, as Sam Goldwyn once said in ordering Dickens' name off the credits in a film: "He's dead. Screw him." O tempore, O mores. Tom Marshall [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kevin J. Donovan Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 13:23:37 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Responses to Othello This is probably an obvious one, obviously not an adaptation, but since your query broadened out to include "responses," here goes: the "feelie" *Three Weeks in a Helicopter* in *Brave New World*, Ch 11. [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Crosby Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 15:22:30 -0500 Subject: Re: Spike Lee film Barrett Fisher has probably already remembered that the Spike Lee film that deals with an affair between an African-American man and an Italian-American woman is "Jungle Fever," not "Do the Right Thing." Also, the "Denzel Washington" character was played by Wesley Snipes. I guess they do look a little bit alike. David Crosby Alcorn State University [7]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Werner Habicht Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 97 23:12 MET DST Subject: SHK 8.1020 Othello Novels partially inspired by *Othello* would seem to include John Fowles' The Magus (in which, towards the end, allusions to The Tempest give way to those to Othello); John Gardner, Every Night's a Bullfight (trivial theatre novel, also about Romeo and Juliet); Nadine Gordimer, My Son's Story; perhaps also S. Rushdie, Satanic Verses. Nothing remotely comparable with 1000 Acres, of course. However, Charles Marowitz's play An Othello may deserve to be remembered. Should one add the short story by Allan Massie, "Ossie: a Dumb Black Ox" (in Shakespeare Stories, ed. Giles Gordon, 1982)? And don't forget that at the beginning of Bernard Shaw's Heartbreak House the female main character falls asleep while reading Othello - a significant fact in that play. W.H. [8]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hugh Howard Davis Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 18:38:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1020 Q: Oth-Inspired Film One _Othello_ based film is _Jubal_, a western from the late 1950s. Hugh Davis [9]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Gelber Date: Thursday, 09 Oct 1997 23:51:11 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1020 Q: Oth-Inspired Film A film entitled "Jubal" is an adaptation of the Othello play with Rod Steiger as the Iago character. (It is a western.) [10]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Nathan Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 21:00:13 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1020 Oth-Inspired Film The film that immediately comes to mind is "A Double Life" (1947) in which Ronald Coleman plays an actor who gets so caught up in portraying Othello on stage that he ends up murdering a woman. I'm told there is a similar British film from 1936 entitled "Men Are Not Gods," but I've never seen that one. There was a rock musical adaptation entitled "Catch My Soul" -- but I never saw that one either. [11]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Franssen Date: Friday, 10 Oct 1997 10:01:56 -0600 (CST) Subject: RE: Oth-Inspired work In response to Barrett Fisher's query: There are a number of adaptations of *Othello* for the stage, using (largely) the same cast of characters, but challenging the original's perceived racism. Charles Marowitz's *An Othello* comes to mind (published in *Open Space Plays* (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974), as well as a more recent rewrite by C. Bernard Jackson entitled *Iago*, which was produced in the Los Angeles Theatre Center last year-I do not know of any published version. I was not really impressed by the latter, I must add. Both might do for teaching purposes, depending on the level of the students. Paul Franssen Dept. of English University of Utrecht The Netherlands ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:07:13 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1024 Re: Classroom Strategies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1024. Friday, 10 October 1997. [1] From: Thelma English Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 10:14:52 -0700 Subj: MND in the classroom [2] From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Thursday, 09 Oct 97 20:52:48 EDT Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 5 Oct 1997 to 6 Oct 1997 [3] From: Dale Lyles Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 22:45:08 EDT Subj: Classroom Strategies [4] From: Clark Bowlen Date: Friday, 10 Oct 1997 09:19:07 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1017 Re: Classroom Strategies [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thelma English Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 10:14:52 -0700 Subject: MND in the classroom I thought perhaps those who have been discussing classroom strategies might be interested in our experience. Our home school, high school group did an all-day mini-seminar for _Midsummer Night's Dream_ as an introduction to Shakespeare. We began with a 90 minute lecture on English history (Age of Elizabeth, Caxton's translations/printing, Renaissance and Reformation, Spanish Armada/rise in patriotism/history plays/Hollinshed, etc.), Shakespeare biography, and Shakespearean language (unusual sentence structure, omission, word play, vocabulary, inversion of subject and verb to create rhythm, etc.). After a 15 minute break, we had another 90 minute lecture on Elizabethan drama, history of drama, staging techniques, etc.. Next, students experienced an English Tea, complete with instructions (huge success, semi-formal attire had been required). Moving on, we gave a synopsis of MND (paraphrased story + lines from the play), and a hand-out of characters (also plots, sub-plots, and notes). The last 3 hours were spent reading through the entire play after students chose parts (or had parts assigned to them). Some proved to be excellent 'raw' readers, all were encouraged regardless of their ability. The students (and some parents), most new to Shakespeare, enjoyed the day immensely. For a cost of $20 per person, we are providing the all-day mini-seminar, two play tickets for MND(one children's theater production, one professional), two Dessert/Discussion nights (one after each play),and a Dover edition of the play (though I prefer Folger, we were cutting corners to keep the cost down). I do not know why this same experience could not be duplicated in a public/private school situation. Thelma English [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Thursday, 09 Oct 97 20:52:48 EDT Subject: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 5 Oct 1997 to 6 Oct 1997 Classroom Strategies: May I suggest the Cambridge School Shakespeare editions as sources for a wild bounty of strategies, tactics, common sense and uncommon illustrations? About a year ago I received a batch of examination copies from the Cambridge University Press, 110 Midland Avenue, Port Chester NY 10573 phone 914 937-9600 (the return address on the shipping invoice -- Likely a better address and phone can be found). They're a delight. Cost for each volume is only about $6-8, as I recall. The texts are designed for classrooms, but for folk who are locked into already-purchased sets or collections, one copy for the instructor can be fine, I imagine. Ever, Steve Bibliopedagogowitz SURCC@cunyvm.cuny.edu [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 22:45:08 EDT Subject: Classroom Strategies Karen Krebser writes: "But the POETRY, man, the POETRY!!! Often that level of Shakespeare's plays is lost on the stage (depending upon the production), and is best appreciated by a reading of the play FIRST." I'm afraid I have to side with Peter Hillyar-Russ on this one. They are not poetry, they are scripts. "Venus and Adonis" is poetry. The writing (which certainly is poetic) is merely the most magnificent tool an actor ever gets to use. And use it students must, or they will never get to the appreciation. Teach them how to play with the sounds of the words, show them how to juggle the syntax, give them the chance to gnash their way through one of Kate's vituperations, or Edward's taunt to Warwick, and they're yours (and Shakespeare's) forever. If anyone on this list is in the neighborhood, e-mail me and I'll reserve free tickets to our production of Midsummer (Oct. 24, 25, 31, Nov. 1), and you can see what community players, several unbreathed in their minds till now, can accomplish, and it was not accomplished by learning to love the poetry first. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company Newnan, GA [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Bowlen Date: Friday, 10 Oct 1997 09:19:07 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1017 Re: Classroom Strategies But wasn't the poetry written for actors to play rather than for readers to read? Clark Bowlen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:15:20 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1025 Re: Web Searching MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1025. Friday, 10 October 1997. [1] From: Karen Saupe Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 11:57:32 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Search Web Search [2] From: Virginia Byrne Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 19:08:35 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1020 Q: Search Web Search [3] From: Terry Gray Date: Thursday, 09 Oct 1997 16:10:02 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1020 Qs: Search Web Search [4] From: Julia MacKenzie Date: Friday, 10 Oct 1997 13:39:38 +1000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1020 Q: Search Web Search [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Saupe Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 11:57:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Search Web Search Milla asks about searching Shakespeare's texts on the web: Try each of these (both search engines for Moby Shakespeare): http://www.gh.cs.usyd.edu.au/~matty/Shakespeare/ (Matty Farrow) http://the-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/search.html (MIT) Karen [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia Byrne Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 19:08:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1020 Q: Search Web Search Milla Riggio Whenever I want something specific from Shakespeare i.e. a thank you card to the cast of a Shakespeare I've directed...i.e. a congrats to the parents of a new baby girl...I go to the CONCORDANCE look up the operative word "thanks" or "Daughter" and then seek the original quote that is sited...You might try "stage" or "directing" or "play" or "ruler" or whatever is significant to this person ("rest")? [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry Gray Date: Thursday, 09 Oct 1997 16:10:02 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1020 Qs: Search Web Search I maintain a page of Shakespeare search tools at: http://daphne.palomar.edu/shakespeare/searching.htm The hands down best one is maintained by Matty Farrow at: http://www.gh.cs.su.oz.au/~matty/Shakespeare/Shakespeare.html --Terry [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julia MacKenzie Date: Friday, 10 Oct 1997 13:39:38 +1000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1020 Q: Search Web Search Re: quotes web site There is a page by the University of Sydney called 'The Works of the Bard' that has the full texts of all the plays and the sonnets as well as being a search engine for quotes. The site address is: http://www.gh.cs.usyd.edu.au/~matty/shakespeare/ Hope this is useful. Regards, Julia MacKenzie sajcmac@coffs.net.au ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:22:30 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1026 Re: Rowse; 1000 Acres; Macbeth MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1026. Friday, 10 October 1997. [1] From: James Marino Date: Thursday, 09 Oct 1997 13:37:32 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1018 Re: A. L. Rowse [2] From: Ron Dwelle Date: Thursday, 09 Oct 1997 13:42:58 -0400 Subj: 1000-acres [3] From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 11:41:30 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1019 Re: Macbeth [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Marino Date: Thursday, 09 Oct 1997 13:37:32 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1018 Re: A. L. Rowse >It is said that opinion is 'divided' on the value of A. L. Rowse's work. >But is there really anyone who takes this guy seriously? I treasure one line from Samuel Schoenbaum's *Shakespeare's Lives* concerning Rowse, who blustered into a polite controversy between Barbara Everatt and Donald Foster about the identity of W.H. crying "'Is there no end to human foolery?'". Schoenbaum comments dryly that Rowse, himself had "not been behindhand in contributing to the gaiety of nations with his own speculations." Regards, James [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Dwelle Date: Thursday, 09 Oct 1997 13:42:58 -0400 Subject: 1000-acres I continue to be surprised at the connection between 1000-Acres and Lear. It was 3 or 4 years ago that I eagerly picked up Jane Smiley's novel, having heard it was a Lear takeoff. Now, there's nothing wrong with the novel (well, it is as disgusting as the author probably intended it to be), but I still can't fathom the connection with Lear that so many see. Shouldn't the old patriarch be somewhat like King Lear and the daughters be somewhat like Lear's three-some and the action be somewhat analogous? Or is including an "old patriarch" and "three daughters" enough to make it a knock-off? [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Thursday, 9 Oct 1997 11:41:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1019 Re: Macbeth Polanski seems to draw more "triple goddess" aspect of maiden-mother-crone than on the Greek fates. He has the witches clearly of different ages, with one young woman (who is mute; her lines are reassigned) who is blond and fairly pretty, and in an off the shoulder dress (she also flashes Macbeth) one middle aged, plump woman wearing an apron and a kerchief and one very old woman, apparently blind and arthritic, dressed entirely in black. The women don't spin or carry other representations of the Greek fates, and their supernatural powers have been stripped from them (they vanish not into the air, but into an underground dwelling and Macbeth is given a drink which causes the visions). Annalisa Castaldo Temple University ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:27:43 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1027 Re: Classroom Strategies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1027. Monday, 13 October 1997. [1] From: Karen Krebser Date: Friday, 10 Oct 1997 09:35:18 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1024 Re: Classroom Strategies [2] From: Brad Morris Date: Saturday, 11 Oct 1997 14:22:20 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1017 Re: Classroom Strategies [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Krebser Date: Friday, 10 Oct 1997 09:35:18 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1024 Re: Classroom Strategies > But wasn't the poetry written for actors to play rather than for readers > to read? > > Clark Bowlen All, Perhaps we're just splitting hairs here. Yes, indeed, the words were written for actors to play, rather than for readers to read. But tell me, then, why Shakespeare's plays (and those of Jonson and Marlowe and Fletcher and Middleton and Fielding and Shaw and O'Neill and Williams and Durang and Stoppard and many, many others) are standard fare for high school and college English Literature courses? These plays are mostly read, and studied on the page, rather than on the stage. Surely visits to the theater, or in-class productions, enhance a student's experience of any of these playwrights' plays, but the larger part of initial (and for some students, sole ) exposure to them (for the long-dead writers especially) is on the page, not on the stage. Given that, to downplay the importance of the language and the poetry of Shakespeare's plays (and how they can forward a student's understanding of the play in question) is perhaps to miss important educational tools. Of course, this is just one person's opinion and experience, but I still cling, barnacle-like, to my original position: read first, (and read deeply and extensively ["read well, and understand"], if the play is complicated), then see the play. Regards, Karen Krebser [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Morris Date: Saturday, 11 Oct 1997 14:22:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1017 Re: Classroom Strategies > PS. Surely you're not comparing *any*thing Shakespeare wrote to > "Baywatch"? "The X Files," maybe... but in any event, it's apples and > oranges, from my view. No, it's NOT apples and oranges. This is the best analogy I've heard in a long while-"The X-Files" is a TV show, sure, but it's still drama-there are scripts, plots, characterizations, themes, actors, sets, etc. Sure, Agent Mulder is no Touchstone, and Chris Carter is NOT Shakespeare, but the similarities are there to warrant the original comparison. I will always be of the opinion that the plays are to be seen. Who writes a play (especially with the mercenary intentions of Shakespeare) hoping it will be read rather than seen? Brad ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:39:46 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1028 "Offspring" of Shakespeare's Plays (Oth Inspirations) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1028. Monday, 13 October 1997. [1] From: Barrett Fisher Date: Friday, 10 Oct 1997 12:21:34 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Othello Inspirations [2] From: Gerda Grice Date: Friday, 10 Oct 1997 15:57:31 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Other "Offspring" of Shakespeare's Plays [3] From: Cora Lee Wolfe Date: Friday, 10 Oct 1997 21:26:45 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1023 Re: Oth-Inspired Film [4] From: David Levine Date: Saturday, 11 Oct 1997 00:13:28 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1023 Re: Oth-Inspired Film [5] From: Martin Jukovsky Date: Sunday, 12 Oct 1997 12:41:10 -0500 Subj: Other Othello Adaptations [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barrett Fisher Date: Friday, 10 Oct 1997 12:21:34 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Othello Inspirations Many thanks to those of you who have sent privately or posted some excellent suggestions for my friend's "Othello" project. I am embarrassed by two quite stupid errors in my original post: Yes, I do know the difference between "Do the Right Thing" and "Jungle Fever"! I simply typed the former when I meant the latter. (I suppose this is one way in which e-mail is more like informal speech than formal writing.) And I do know the difference between Denzel Washington and Wesley Snipes, but I simply "misremembered." Perhaps I was affected by having seen the former recently in "Mississippi Massala." His name didn't seem quite right as I was typing, but I charged on anyway. Mea culpa. Thanks again; you have all been a great help. Barrett Fisher [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gerda Grice Date: Friday, 10 Oct 1997 15:57:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Other "Offspring" of Shakespeare's Plays The story of Canadian novelist Margaret Laurence's _The Stone Angel_ is a _King Lear_ analogue. The heroine, who lavishes all her hopes and affection on the wrong one of her two sons and who, when she is sick and very elderly, runs away from home rather than face being put out of her house and into a nursing home by her son and daughter-in-law is very much a Queen Lear figure. Another of Laurence's novels, _The Diviners_ contains some elements of _The Tempest_. Gerda Grice Ryerson Polytechnic University Toronto, Canada [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cora Lee Wolfe Date: Friday, 10 Oct 1997 21:26:45 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1023 Re: Oth-Inspired Film This isn't about Othello, but there is a silly Canadian comedy called "Strange Brew" that's a take off on Hamlet. [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Levine Date: Saturday, 11 Oct 1997 00:13:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1023 Re: Oth-Inspired Film The most direct Othello-inspired movie I know is All Night Long, which is a very direct adaptation which also functioned as the occasion for what I remember as a good jazz score. Othello becomes Rex, a black bandleader and the Iago character is played by Patrick McGoohan, the band's drummer. Cassio's "weakness" becomes pot. The story ends with everyone being saved in the nick of time. It used to play on late night television until about twenty years ago. I'm not sure who did the score, but I'm tempted to say John Dankworth...if I weren't so lazy, I'd look it up. [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Jukovsky Date: Sunday, 12 Oct 1997 12:41:10 -0500 Subject: Other Othello Adaptations Other free adaptations of OTHELLO to the screen include MEN ARE NOT GODS (1936), wherein, as in A DOUBLE LIFE (1947), an actor takes his playing of Othello much too seriously; and ALL NIGHT LONG (1961), which sets it in a contemporary jazz musician milieu. Martin Jukovsky Cambridge, Mass. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:44:34 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1029 Re: Web Searching; Macbeth MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1029. Monday, 13 October 1997. [1] From: Andrew Murphy Date: Friday, 10 Oct 97 17:52:41 BST Subj: Re: SHK 8.1025 Re: Web Searching [2] From: Jerry Bangham Date: Friday, 10 Oct 1997 17:28:50 -0400 Subj: Re: Macbeth - witches as fates [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Murphy Date: Friday, 10 Oct 97 17:52:41 BST Subject: Re: SHK 8.1025 Re: Web Searching Terry Gray is far too modest-his own Shakespeare site http://daphne.palomar.edu/shakespeare/ is an absolute goldmine of information on all things Shakespearean. Andrew [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Bangham Date: Friday, 10 Oct 1997 17:28:50 -0400 Subject: Re: Macbeth - witches as fates Many many, years ago I used an Encyclopedia Britanica Films presentation on directing Macbeth in which Douglas Campbell discussed various ways that Macbeth could be interpreted. There is a brief scene with the witches as fates. but then Campbell goes on to show his personal choice of showing the witches as crazy old women. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:47:01 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1030 Shakespeare Etext Volunteers Requested MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1030. Monday, 13 October 1997. From: Michael S. Hart Date: Friday, 10 Oct 1997 13:53:16 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Shakespeare Etext Volunteers Requested Project Gutenberg will be re-presenting the Complete Works in several different Etext editions, from several paper editions. We need some volunteers to help us create a naming scheme for the files. . .details available on request. We also always need volunteers to help proofread and select the best editions to work from. We will offer these Etexts to anyone who wishes to read or use them, or even to use them for source materials for any new editions they would like to create. There is no fee. Thanks! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:49:22 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1031 Navarre = Roanoke? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1031. Monday, 13 October 1997. From: Peter Nockolds Date: Saturday, 11 Oct 1997 11:37:11 +0100 (BST) Subject: Navarre = Roanoke? Anyone seeking for Shakespeare's inspiration for the all-male academy in Love's Labour's Lost might consider the first colony on Roanoke Island in 1585-6. This too was an all-male enterprise, and, as with the academy, its members failed to stay the course. In the play it is women who tempt the men from their resolve: when Raleigh sent out the second 'lost' colony' in 1587 women were present, so it was more than likely said that the absence of women was a cause of the failure of the first colony. More detail may be found in the article 'Echoes of Roanoke in Shakespeare' first given as a lecture at the 1997 Thomas Harriot seminar, Cambridge (UK). This may be found on the web site at www.sonnet.co.uk/egma/ Comments on or off-list are welcome. Peter Nockolds ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:51:48 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1032 Query: "the woman's part" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1032. Monday, 13 October 1997. From: Stephen A. Cohen Date: Saturday, 11 Oct 1997 13:46:24 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Query: "the woman's part" Can anyone help me authenticate what I hope is a quotation and not a faulty memory on my part? I seem to remember reading somewhere about Queen Elizabeth expressing her distaste for "the woman's part" in romantic comedy because the heroines always end up marrying. I've checked the Lenz/Greene/Neely book of the same title; they mention two Shakespearean sources for the phrase but nothing about Elizabeth. Can anyone point me towards a source for my recollection, or did I make it up? You can contact me off-list at scohen@jaguar1.usouthal.edu. Many thanks, Steve Cohen University of South Alabama ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 08:26:08 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1033 Re: Classroom Strategies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1033. Tuesday, 14 October 1997. [1] From: David J. Knauer Date: Monday, 13 Oct 1997 10:57:35 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: Classroom Strategies [2] From: Dale Lyles Date: Monday, 13 Oct 1997 12:12:17 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1027 Re: Classroom Strategies [3] From: Pervez Rizvi Date: Monday, 13 Oct 1997 13:43:52 +0100 Subj: Re: classrom strategies [4] From: Rod Osiowy Date: Monday, 13 Oct 1997 13:09:48 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1027 Re: Classroom Strategies [5] From: Skip Nicholson Date: Monday, 13 Oct 1997 21:39:35 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1027 Re: Classroom Strategies [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David J. Knauer Date: Monday, 13 Oct 1997 10:57:35 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Classroom Strategies While I decline to take a position on the efficacy of having students first read a Shakespearean play or witness a performance, I'd like to point out to those who insist on categorizing the plays as primarily performance scripts that, since at least 1623, we've been a long way from anything resembling a Shakespearean theatrical text. Those folios, and before them, quartos, weren't printed up so folks could act Shakespeare at home; rather, they had already become a sort of poetry or, to use a modernism, dramatic literature. There is a surround of early publishing and printing practices that obscures any easy definition of these texts as performance scripts, no matter their original state or author's intention. The texts' histories confound this sort of idealism. That said, play on. David Knauer [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Monday, 13 Oct 1997 12:12:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1027 Re: Classroom Strategies Karen Krebser has perhaps inadvertently proven my point when she says that "These plays are mostly read, and studied on the page, rather than on the stage." There lies the most serious error in most literature classrooms today. There is no reason, *none*, why one of Shakespeare's plays should be studied in any classroom other than as a performance text. To any teacher who says, "I can't do that," I would reply with Lyles' Operational Thesis of Actors: "There is no such thing as an actor who can't, only an actor who won't." Get thee to a good source like the Oxfords or Cambridges or the Folger series [thanks, Peggy O'Brien!!!] and start digging into those scripts alongside your students. And to those whose complaint is that you can't "cover" the play doing this, ask yourselves what your goal is, to have children who can identify what happens in II.1 or who says what in III.4, or to have children who are thrilled to think of being able to see/play the world's greatest playwright? Trust me--I've been there, done that, and I know the difference it makes. Encouragingly pushing teachers over the edge, Dale Lyles, a public educator as well as Newnan Community Theatre Company [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pervez Rizvi Date: Monday, 13 Oct 1997 13:43:52 +0100 Subject: Re: classrom strategies In the classroom strategies discussion one or two people made the point last week that Shakespeare's plays were meant to be performed not read. That's self-evidently true but I also think that the point has become a cliché and is sometimes extrapolated almost to suggest that we shouldn't be reading the texts at all. My point is not to belittle the experience of watching a live performance, which I like as much as anyone, but to say that in watching a modern production we should not mislead ourselves into believing that we are experiencing what Shakespeare intended his audiences to experience. He never intended his lines to be spoken by women. He observed stage conventions which we do not, e.g. characters entering with a torch to indicate that it is night-time. The English language has changed since then. The combined effects of lighting, sound amplification and theatre architecture make a modern production significantly different to what Shakespeare's company delivered. Even if we undo all these changes, we cannot reproduce the states of mind which Elizabethan audiences brought to their theatres; it was to these states of mind that Shakespeare addressed his lines, not ours. Ironically, the experience of reading a modern edited text might take us closer to Shakespeare's vision than a modern production. An editor sets out consciously to reproduce the lines Shakespeare wrote (or, in the case of the Oxford editors, the lines his company spoke). Most modern directors set out to find new interpretations of the old plays, cutting lines, changing the order of the scenes, changing locations (e.g. setting Troilus and Cressida in the First World War). They'd argue that, while moving away from the letter of the texts, they are staying true to their spirit and in many cases I'd agree. I guess my point is that we should not take the view that watching a performance is, a priori, better than reading the text. It depends on which performance and which text. [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rod Osiowy Date: Monday, 13 Oct 1997 13:09:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1027 Re: Classroom Strategies > > But wasn't the poetry written for actors to play rather than for readers > > to read? > > > > Clark Bowlen > > Perhaps we're just splitting hairs here. Yes, indeed, the words were > written for actors to play, rather than for readers to read. > > But tell me, then, why Shakespeare's plays (and those of Jonson and > Marlowe and Fletcher and Middleton and Fielding and Shaw and O'Neill and > Williams and Durang and Stoppard and many, many others) are standard > fare for high school and college English Literature courses? These plays > are mostly read, and studied on the page, rather than on the stage. > Surely visits to the theater, or in-class productions, enhance a > student's experience of any of these playwrights' plays, but the larger > part of initial (and for some students, sole ) exposure to them (for the > long-dead writers especially) is on the page, not on the stage > > Of course, this is just one person's opinion and experience, but I still > cling, barnacle-like, to my original position: read first, (and read > deeply and extensively ["read well, and understand"], if the play is > complicated, then see the play Good Lord, Having taught literature and theatre for over 15 years has given me some good perspective on this issue. There is no way to understand Shakespeare,(except for the sonnets), without watching them on the stage. To think that understanding is taking place off the page is simply ridiculous. Plays are written as a vehicle for actors, directors and all the trappings of theatre to move audiences. Some students have a very intuitive grasp of the words of any play, but real understanding of what can be done with the words is never complete without the boards. The fact that many other authors are taught using classrooms and textbooks, not stage productions is another pity. It is more a reflection of the fact that Shakespeare is still one of the most produced authors in history; his scripts are royalty free, and they are still a reflection of humanity. Many other authors aren't quite so universal, yet they too hold their place in literary history, and as such, they are not quite so produced. In short, if you are not watching Shakespeare's plays in production, you are not really doing the work justice. And I cling to this. RodO [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Nicholson Date: Monday, 13 Oct 1997 21:39:35 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1027 Re: Classroom Strategies I feel, as Karen Krebs suggests, that Shakespeare's language is probably what most keeps us coming back to the plays. We need only read the retelling by the Lambs or others to see that it's not the stories so much as the words Shakespeare finds to tell them that we love. And research exists-maybe the best in the form of a dissertation by Peggy O'Brien-showing that a most effective way to get students to experience, and thereby learn, the "importance of the language and the poetry of Shakespeare's plays" is to get, as O'Brien says, "his words in their mouths." That can be done both productively and enjoyably, for most, when the students are on their feet playing out their "understanding of the play in question." The point isn't to ignore the language, quite the opposite. Anyone who's sat through hours of listening to students torture those words in cold reading aloud knows they're not exactly picking up on any majesty in the lines. I frustrated students for years having them do just that. Then I was challenged to trust Shakespeare to do the work. If I thought he was so great, I was asked, why did I feel I had to keep a protective filter of either heavy textual annotation or my own interpreting between him and my kids? Once I let that language take over in living production rather than insisting first on analytical explanation, I saw what I, and my students, had been missing. After they had rehearsed (the rehearsal step is critical) and performed, or, to a slightly lesser extent, after they had seen others perform a play, my high school kids began to investigate the language. Now they do that investigation because they want to know, not because I told them it was important. The handful of students who will become the next good Shakespeare scholars have probably learned to see on a page what most cannot. Other high school students and most undergraduates can, for the sake of a grade, learn the terminology to talk about the language, but do they later read more Shakespeare on their own? Students who've performed in scenes come tell ME they've found a production of "their" play. And later they write with excitement that they've found others. A former student, now working in a bagel shop, probably as a career, wrote me two weeks ago that she'd "discovered" _Twelfth Night_ and decided it's "great." That's what I'm after. And, of course, I didn't do it. He did. Skip Nicholson South Pasadena (CA) High School ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 08:35:59 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1034 Re: "Offspring" of Shakespeare's Plays MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1034. Tuesday, 14 October 1997. [1] From: Edward M Moore Date: Monday, 13 Oct 1997 09:32:03 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Shk 8.1020 Othello inspired novels [2] From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Monday, 13 Oct 1997 12:30:49 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1028 "Offspring" of Shakespeare's Plays (Oth Ins [3] From: John Velz Date: Monday, 13 Oct 1997 14:32:33 -0500 (CDT) Subj: A Thousand Acres & Lr. [4] From: Richard A Burt Date: Monday, 13 Oct 1997 17:30:34 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1023 Re: Oth-Inspired Film [5] From: Hugh Howard Davis Date: Tuesday, 14 Oct 1997 00:47:34 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1023 Re: Oth-Inspired Film [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward M Moore Date: Monday, 13 Oct 1997 09:32:03 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Shk 8.1020 Othello inspired novels I don't think anyone has mentioned John Peale Bishop's novel Act of Darkness, 1936. Avon issued a paperback edition in 1967 with an afterword by Leslie Fiedler [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Appelbaum Date: Monday, 13 Oct 1997 12:30:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1028 "Offspring" of Shakespeare's Plays (Oth Ins If it hasn't been mentioned yet, another adaptation of Othello is Internal Affairs (1990), starring Richard Gere and Andy Garcia, directed by Mike Figgis. It's an L.A. cops-and-robbers story, with the crooked cop played by Gere standing in for Iago, and the Hispanic good cop played by Garcia standing in for Othello. Yes, there's jealousy and murder and even an object recalling the handkerchief. It's not a great movie but it's worth renting and seeing. My colleague here Jon Kamholz has been showing it to classes for several years; I tried it this year and the class both enjoyed the movie and learned something from it. Turn out the light. Robert Appelbaum University of Cincinnati [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Monday, 13 Oct 1997 14:32:33 -0500 (CDT) Subject: A Thousand Acres & Lr. Ron Dwelle and others interested: I have lectured twice on this topic (one of the talks called "*King Lear* in Iowa") so will leave the full exposition to others, but it is unmistakably connected to *Lear*. Larry divides up his land among three daughters one of whom balks and promptly is shut out. The remaining two daughters have affairs with the Edmund character, Jeff. The old man is driven out into a storm which he survives. He runs mad (courtroom scene). Larry / Lear Ginny / Goneril Rose / Regan, Caroline / Cordelia. And so on. The story is told from Goneril's Ginny's p.v. a shocking shift from Shak. where she is unredeemably heartless. Two big differences are the absence of a political dimension in the book; the lack of royal succession question diminishes the book to an account of a mean-spirited family's scrabbling for land and the power it brings. The other difference is the incest motif, which is surely what Ron Dwelle means by "disgusting". I suppose that Smiley put it in (no hint of this in Lear) because it is timely and might sell books but at a more serious level because daughter abuse by a father is patriarchalism pushed to its grossest limits. In the book Larry makes it clear that he thinks he has the right to do what he likes with his daughters' bodies, because after all he made them. They are his. Lear is less overtly sexual in his power wielding, but note that he curses Goneril's womb and sees women in negative physical terms (this, however, could be madness, which is characterized by crude bawdy on the Elizabethan stage on the rationale that the abandonment of reason sinks us to the animalistic level-with Lear compare Timon, Ophelia, and Hamlet pretending to be mad). One of the two lectures I gave on this subject was to a book club that is almost all women, and the session I talked to was all female. During the question period all they wanted to talk about was the incest motif and patriarchal power. The average age was prob. 40; all were once university students, for the most part English majors. I was taken aback, as there were other dimensions to the book (symbolism of poison and subterranean water, e.g.) that seemed worth discussion. So Smiley knew what she was up to. On Nov. 21 I am to talk elsewhere on the film with Jessica Lange and Michelle Pfeiffer and Jason Robards and other fine actors. In relation to *King Lear*, once again. So Ron's question is timely. He ought to go see the film and see if it changes any of his perceptions. Yours for Shakespeare with a difference: John Velz [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A Burt Date: Monday, 13 Oct 1997 17:30:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1023 Re: Oth-Inspired Film One more film of interest in relation to _Othello_ is _The Playboys_ (1991, I think). Best, Richard [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hugh Howard Davis Date: Tuesday, 14 Oct 1997 00:47:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1023 Re: Oth-Inspired Film Coincidentally, TNT is showing _Jubal_, the Othello-inspired western, on this Thursday afternoon at 2 PM eastern time. Hugh Davis ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 08:42:23 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1035 Re: Film; Woman's Part; Navarre = Roanoke MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1035. Tuesday, 14 October 1997. [1] From: Hugh Howard Davis Date: Monday, 13 Oct 1997 09:53:36 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Shakespeare on film [2] From: Melissa Aaron Date: Monday, 13 Oct 1997 15:20:10 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1032 Query: "the woman's part" [3] From: Peter Nockolds Date: Tuesday, 14 Oct 1997 09:00:23 +0100 (BST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1031 Navarre = Roanoke? [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hugh Howard Davis Date: Monday, 13 Oct 1997 09:53:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Shakespeare on film For those interested in Shakespearian clips (however brief) captured on film, Turner Classic Movies is showing _Show of Shows_ next Saturday (Oct. 18). Made in 1929, this film is a variety show featuring studio players (Warner Bros., perhaps) who were showing off the new features of sound. John Barrymore is featured, presenting a speech from _Henry VI_. (A similar film was made by Paramount the same year, with Lionel Barrymore directing Norma Shearer and John Gilbert in the balcony scene of _R&J_.) --Hugh Davis [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Aaron Date: Monday, 13 Oct 1997 15:20:10 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1032 Query: "the woman's part" >Can anyone help me authenticate what I hope is a quotation and not a >faulty memory on my part? I seem to remember reading somewhere about >Queen Elizabeth expressing her distaste for "the woman's part" in >romantic comedy because the heroines always end up marrying. I've >checked the Lenz/Greene/Neely book of the same title; they mention two >Shakespearean sources for the phrase but nothing about Elizabeth. Can >anyone point me towards a source for my recollection, or did I make it >up? You can contact me off-list at scohen@jaguar1.usouthal.edu. "The woman's part" is also a quotation from Cymbeline, but it's in a misogynistic context-"Being it lying, the woman's," etc. Problem is, it's spoken by a male character (Posthumus) and Cymbeline's a Jacobean play. I don't know of Elizabeth saying anything about it. Apologies if I have just proffered already-known information. Melissa Aaron [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Nockolds Date: Tuesday, 14 Oct 1997 09:00:23 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1031 Navarre = Roanoke? Apologies to anyone who tried to reach my site yesterday: the page links were not working properly. The problem is now resolved. Once again the URL is www.sonnet.co.uk/egma/ Peter Nockolds ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 08:44:42 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1036 Polish Hamlet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1036. Tuesday, 14 October 1997. From: Paul Franssen Date: Monday, 13 Oct 1997 16:29:26 -0600 (CST) Subject: Polish Hamlet Dear fellow-Shakespeareans, For a lecture on *Hamlet* in an international context, I am desperately looking for the article (or possibly, chapter in a book) that I once seem to have read on *Hamlet* in Poland. The gist of the argument was, if I remember correctly, that in a Polish production Hamlet was made out to be an over-scrupulous fool, who broke the essential national unity, leaving a state in disarray, so that Fortinbras, the foreign power, could come and pick up the pieces. Fortinbras, who in the play is of course the great enemy of Poland as well as of Denmark, might then stand for either Nazi Germany or the Sovjets, or both, who capitalize on the internal divisions of the Polish leadership over relatively minor issues. Who knows where this idea comes from? I checked Jan Kott's *Shakespeare, our Contemporary* and various articles given by the MLA, but could not find precisely this interpretation anywhere. Paul Franssen Department of English University of Utrecht The Netherlands ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 08:47:49 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1037 Call for Papers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1037. Tuesday, 14 October 1997. From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Tuesday, 14 Oct 1997 18:50:01 +1000 Subject: Re: Call for papers **********************CALL FOR PAPERS************************* "BODIES IN QUESTION" AUSTRALIAN DRAMA STUDIES ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE 1998 29th June to 4th July 1998 CALL FOR PAPERS, PRESENTATIONS, WORKSHOPS, PERFORMANCES, PANEL DISCUSSIONS BODIES IN QUESTION The theme of the conference, "Bodies in Question," reflects the growing concern in theatre scholarship and practice with interrogating the many ways in which "bodies" are conceived and positioned in our work. On a fundamental level, the performer's body in space, communing in a direct and live manner with the audience, is what characterises theatre and distinguishes it from other art forms. Thus to the performer and the audience member, the body is at the very heart of performance. To those concerned with culturally-determined bodies of knowledge, the body may suggest bodies of work, a single canon, multiple canons, or indeed no canon at all. To practitioners and critics living and working in environments where many cultures co-exist and interrelate, the term "bodies" may suggest the many different bodies inscribed by race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. These and other constructions of "bodies" will provide a backdrop for many of our encounters with theatre and performance at this conference. GUEST SPEAKERS Keynote speakers include Rustom Bharucha, the worlds leading critic of interculturalism as it is often practiced in the West, and renowned Shakespearian scholar Andrew Gurr from the UK. In addition, the conference will also feature two prominent New Zealand theatre practitioners: Hone Kouka, the country's leading Maori playwright; and Sally Rodwell of Red Mole, New Zealand's oldest alternative theatre company. FESTIVAL OF NEW ZEALAND THEATRE The ADSA conference overlaps with the Festival of New Zealand Theatre, an independent but related event, which is scheduled from 19 June to 5 July, 1998. This festival brings together performance groups from around the country to present a range of theatre which reflects the many cultures which comprise contemporary Aotearoa/New Zealand. BI-CULTURAL IDENTITY OF THE WAIKATO The Waikato region, in the heart of New Zealand's green North Island, is an important centre for Maori culture in Aotearoa/New Zealand. The Tainui tribe owns the land on which the University of Waikato is situated and the university is the home of a burgeoning School of Maori and Pacific Development which is rapidly becoming recognised as a global centre for indigenous and development studies. This conference will reflect the bi-cultural nature of performance in this part of New Zealand and will be preceded by a formal Maori powhiri (or opening ceremony) on the campus marae (the land on which a traditional meeting house is situated). TRAVEL & ACCOMMODATIONS Most conferees will probably elect to stay in the officially designated conference motel. Graduate students and student actors may wish to be billeted with drama students or stay in a hostel or on a marae. Shuttles will be offered at pre-arranged (and pre-booked) times to pick up conferees from the Auckland airport and bring them to their accommodation in Hamilton (about a 90 minute trip). Conferees travelling from Sydney or Brisbane may find it more convenient to travel directly to Hamilton on Freedom Air. Booking information will be passed on in March to those responding to this call for papers. CONTACT DETAILS * Deadline for Offers: 27th February 1998. * Papers should generally be either 20 or 30 minutes long, workshops two hours. * Please forward a title and 200 word abstract by 27th February 1998, indicating preferred length to: Dr. William Peterson Conference Convenor Drama Department University of Waikato Private Bag 3105 Hamilton NEW ZEALAND Fax: 0064 7 838 4922 Email: william@waikato.ac.nz http://www2.waikato.ac.nz/drama/conference/html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 08:50:40 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1038 New Lear/Cordelia Website MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1038. Tuesday, 14 October 1997. From: Bob Marks Date: Tuesday, 14 Oct 1997 10:00:29 -0700 Subject: New Lear/Cordelia Website A current Sydney production of King Lear focuses on his proposing the division of his kingdom in a futuristic Sydney, where Goneril and Regan try to impress their father with a fiercely theatrical dance routine while Cordelia speaks the plain truth. Coca Cola, I'm told, is currently running an advertizement in the US in which Cordelia responds to her father's request by giving him a Coke! It seems that we're constantly presented with variations on Lear, and when we consider that in Shakespeare's day the Lear legend was already older than Shakespeare's version is today, and that there were several variations on Lear then, it seems appropriate that there be variations today. But we've not really found a reading of Shakespeare's versions that has wide acceptance today, and Shakespeare, being the figure in English literature that he is, should command greater respect than to just continually carve him up and reassemble him in any way we like. For 100 years we have considered that the parts of Cordelia and Fool were played by the same boy actor, but we have been slow to take the matter a step further and admit that the motley was itself a disguise which would have allowed Cordelia to remain behind and serve her father without his knowing it, as Edgar does his father in the sub-plot. If you enjoy seeing Rosalind disguised as Ganymede, Celia as Aliena, Viola as Cesario, Imogen as Fidele, or Portia and Nerissa as Antonio's doctor of law and law clerk, then you will love seeing Cordelia disguised as Lear's Fool. Visit the expanded website dedicated to the promotion of Cordelia, Lear's Fool. http://www.ar.com.au/~rgm/student.html Bob Marks rgm@ar.com.au========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 07:56:51 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1039 Re: Classroom Strategies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1039. Wednesday, 15 October 1997. [1] From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Tuesday, 14 Oct 1997 00:01:52 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1033 Re: Classroom Strategies [2] From: Tanya Gough Date: Tuesday, 14 Oct 1997 11:59:52 -0400 Subj: re: classroom strategies [3] From: Karen Krebser Date: Tuesday, 14 Oct 1997 09:29:45 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1033 Re: Classroom Strategies [4] From: Rick Jones Date: Tuesday, 14 Oct 1997 14:53:39 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1027 Re: Classroom Strategies [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Tuesday, 14 Oct 1997 00:01:52 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1033 Re: Classroom Strategies My two cents on classroom strategies for the Immortal Bard: I've taught Shakespeare plays in high school for twenty years in grades 9 - 12. We "perform" the play in the classroom. Usually we read a short story version of the play first in order to learn the plot and characters, thus removing one roadblock to understanding the language. Then I like to show the first act of whatever play we are studying on video, usually the BBC version. Now the kids have a mental picture of the characters and have heard the language spoken by professional actors. We then perform the play in the classroom, using a number of props with me "directing" with the proviso that students are encouraged to offer staging suggestions, etc. I "teach" the language as we work through the play - Act I usually takes a while, but as the understanding increases, the play moves much more smoothly. If a particular scene goes well (or so badly it is hilarious) we often repeat it. Last year my World Lit class performed Act V Hamlet, sword fights and all with scripts in hand, for other classes and parents. We staged it in the foyer to our auditorium which allowed the audience to stand at Ophelia's graveside and be splashed with sweat from the actors. I teach the poetry and we perform the play and watch video presentations of the play. We have few, if any, opportunities to see live Shakespeare theatre, living on an island in the Gulf of Alaska. Mike Sirofchuck Kodiak High School [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tanya Gough Date: Tuesday, 14 Oct 1997 11:59:52 -0400 Subject: re: classroom strategies To add to the continuing debate regarding text versus enactment, I would like to put forth my own experience. Having taught English as a second language abroad for a handful of years, I am a strong supporter of the performance technique for learning. In Japan, text is treated as something to memorize, to master and to catalog, but in terms of understanding the *sense* of text, their system fails entirely. Ask students to memorize and regurgitate, and they will do precisely that. Then ask them to explain what they have memorized and you will receive nothing but blank stares. Enactment reinforces knowledge, makes it tangible and real. My suggestion is to start off with only as much linguistic knowledge as the students require to grasp the general concept. Then let them run with it. Do a read through, but stop occasionally to point out difficult concepts or spot check to make sure they a grasping the plot. Show them a film clip if you have one. Let them struggle a bit, but don't let them flounder. Then sit down and focus on the specifics of language and poetic discourse. Let's face it, no one can cover a Shakespeare play in its complex entirely during a single school semester. So shouldn't we be concentrating on giving students the basic tools they require to handle the subject, plus the ability to approach future encounters with confidence and curiosity? There is no greater gift one can pass on to a student. Tanya Gough [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Krebser Date: Tuesday, 14 Oct 1997 09:29:45 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1033 Re: Classroom Strategies Dale Lyles says: > Karen Krebser has perhaps inadvertently proven my point when she says > that "These plays are mostly read, and studied on the page, rather than > on the stage." I live to serve, Professor Lyles (inadvertently or otherwise). > There lies the most serious error in most literature classrooms today. Your opinion (as the opposite is mine). Perhaps we may agree to disagree. Also, it seems that I must point out that I am NOT a teacher (in the conventional sense of the word). I am a poet (and since the "publish or perish" mantra is as insidious in the poetry publication business as it is in the academic business, I shall present my credentials, for whatever they're worth: I have been published multiple times during the last four years both on line and off, and was a finalist for the 1996 T.S. Eliot Prize for the best book-length collection of American poetry; I also have a master's degree in English Lit., with a special emphasis in creative writing). I am a teacher, however, in the following sense (and the following is only an example): When I go to see productions of Shakespeare's plays with friends (who, btw, are as well-educated as I am), I am literally bombarded with "whatdyshesay? what's that? what happened? why's that there?" and the ever-popular "what's *that* mean?", at which point I either launch into a whispered lecture (that I've gotten from A THOROUGH PRIOR READING OF THE TEXT), or, to save my fellow playgoing patrons, a whispered "I'll tell you later. Pay attention." My grandmother is constantly after me to become a teacher, but this forum has assured me that there are those who are much better suited to that task than I am. and then Rod Osiowy says, in the same digest: > Good Lord, > > Having taught literature and theatre for over 15 years has given me some > good perspective on this issue. There is no way to understand > Shakespeare,(except for the sonnets), without watching them on the > stage. This is rot, and I take offense at it. I have not seen all of Shakespeare's plays performed, and none of Marlowe's or Jonson's, nor most of the other playwrights I mentioned. However, to say (or even to imply) that I am incapable of understanding Shakespeare's plays without seeing them produced is grossly, infuriatingly uninformed. You have absolutely no concept of my mental or imaginative capacity, sirrah, and to assume that I (and, by implication, other students [of all ages] of Shakespeare) need to be spoonfed a production of a play in order to understand it, is so offensive as to be frightening to me. > To think that understanding is taking place off the page is simply > ridiculous. Your concept of "ridiculous" is curious. I shall notify Tom Stoppard about it, and perhaps it will constitute the subject of his next play (to which you must escort your students, because they will not be allowed to read the text aforehand). I shall then write a poem about it. That way, all our bases are covered. > In short, if you are not watching Shakespeare's plays in production, you > are not really doing the work justice. And I cling to this. Barnacle-like, no doubt. Forgive me, but the content of your post (and it's assumptions about me and my capabilities and my level of experience and understanding of literature both on the stage and on the page) really pisses me off. You are making colossal assumptions about me, and that, fella, is a big mistake. I now step back (the barnacle loosens and floats away). I will not be posting further on this subject (a resounding "Huzzah!" drifts, e-wise, through the ether), as I think my opinion is obvious (and maybe this horse [or at least my contributions to it's ill health] is dead). Thank you, Karen Krebser [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Tuesday, 14 Oct 1997 14:53:39 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1027 Re: Classroom Strategies 1). I confess to being a little confused. Isn't it self-evident that a first encounter with a play (read or seen) will enhance the second encounter with that same play (read or seen)? If I read _Hamlet_ and then go see it, I will understand things in the production that would have eluded me without my prior reading. If I see _Hamlet_ and then read it, I will understand things in the script that would have eluded me without my prior viewing. Duh. 2). It has been my experience that even bad productions accomplish more "teaching" in two or three hours than my lectures could. Students, once they understand that Mistress Quickly doesn't *have to* wear a red leather mini-skirt, seem more ready to grapple with the implications of such choices... and to search the *text* for affirmation of their ideas, than if they're encouraged (or even allowed) to look at MWW independent of production. Of course, it could just be that I'm a lousy lecturer. 3). Finally, it's impossible to recreate either what Shakespeare intended or the manner in which an audience would respond. If we don't tell students who the "little eyases" were, they have no idea what's going on; if we do, there's no joy of recognition in finding allusions to the War Between the Theatres: it's like having to explain a joke. Deadly. So perhaps we ought, both in our productions and in our classrooms, to concentrate on what's there for us, rather than what may have been there for someone else 400 years ago. Anyone teaching or directing Shakespeare without being able to address a late-20th-century audience probably ought to be looking for another line of work... Rick Jones rjones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 08:01:17 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1040 Re: Polish Hamlet; A. L. Rowse MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1040. Wednesday, 15 October 1997. [1] From: David Skeele Date: Tuesday, 14 Oct 1997 12:54:54 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1036 Polish Hamlet [2] From: Rick Jones Date: Tuesday, 14 Oct 1997 14:24:40 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1018 Re: A. L. Rowse [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Tuesday, 14 Oct 1997 12:54:54 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1036 Polish Hamlet >For a lecture on *Hamlet* in an international context, I am desperately >looking for the article (or possibly, chapter in a book) that I once >seem to have read on *Hamlet* in Poland. The gist of the argument was, >if I remember correctly, that in a Polish production Hamlet was made out >to be an over-scrupulous fool, who broke the essential national unity, >leaving a state in disarray, so that Fortinbras, the foreign power, >could come and pick up the pieces. To Paul Franssen: I remember a that a fellow Ph.D. student at the University Pittsburgh wrote an article entitled "Fortinbras, Our Contemporary," dealing with the same subject matter you describe, which he presented at a conference or two (definitely ASTR, but perhaps MLA as well). His name is Gregg Dion, and you can reach him through the University of Pittsburgh Theatre Department at (412) 624-6568. Hope this is the one you are looking for. David Skeele [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Tuesday, 14 Oct 1997 14:24:40 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1018 Re: A. L. Rowse John McWilliams asked several days ago if anyone wished to defend A. L. Rowse. I've been waiting for those more qualified than I to do so, but since the silence has been deafening, I offer the following observations: First off, I have read little of Rowse's work on Shakespeare and have been less than overwhelmed by what I have read. And the man did not lack for ego (at least in his public persona). That said, I must say that his _Elizabethan Renaissance_ was invaluable to me in preparing my MA thesis on Lyly, and the mere fact that a trained historian chose to write about Shakespeare and other writers helped to counter-balance the intellectual isolationism of New Criticism. [N.B. I do not wish to suggest that NC had no good points or that reactions to it necessarily constitute improvements: I suggest only that linking literature to its historical setting is a legitimate approach, and that Rowse did so (even? especially?) when the prevailing critical theory was otherwise. Finally, if we were to eliminate from consideration everyone whose self-regard exceeded his/her real importance, the libraries would be much smaller, the art galleries and theatres empty, and this list very quiet indeed... Rick Jones rjones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 08:04:17 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1041 CFP: Pacific NW Renaissance Conference MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1041. Wednesday, 15 October 1997. From: Paul Budra Date: Tuesday, 14 Oct 1997 09:14:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Pacific NW Renaissance Conference CALL FOR PAPERS Word and Image: Pacific Northwest Renaissance Conference April 24-25, 1998 Western Washington University Bellingham, Washington The theme "Word and Image" is intended to be interpreted very broadly to include considerations of iconography, film, religious images, illustration, maps, set design, costume, painting and other fine arts, descriptions of images, the presentation of manuscripts, documents, books, hypertext, etc. We also welcome papers addressed to the wedding of words and images in the teaching of Renaissance texts. The PNRC is an interdisciplinary conference. Plenary Speakers: Huston Diehl, University of Iowa, "Reforming Spectacle: Visual Regimes and Disciplinary Strategies in Early Modern England" and Susan Karant-Nunn, Portland State University, "Not Like the Unreasoning Beasts: The Rhetorical Separation of Humans and Animals in Sixteenth-Century Germany" Selected papers will be considered for publication in *Studies in Iconography*, a refereed journal supported in part by the English Department at Western. Located on the coast about 90 miles north of Seattle and 50 miles south of Vancouver, B.C., Bellingham is surrounded by evergreen forests, saltwater coves, mountain-fed lakes, and snowcapped peaks. A city of 60,000 residents, Bellingham preserves a mix of urban and rural activity. Western Washington University is situated on hills above the city, overlooking Bellingham Bay with views of the San Juan Islands and the Cascade mountain range. Bellingham International Airport offers ten arrivals and ten departures daily, or one may fly into Seattle's SeaTac Airport and take a convenient shuttle to Bellingham. Please submit a one-page abstract of your paper by January 10, 1998, to: Marc Geisler Department of English Western Washington University Bellingham, WA 98225 fax: 360-650-4837 geisler@cc.wwu.edu Proposals for panels are also welcome and should include, in addition to the abstracts, a 100-word statement of intent from the organizer, as well as the addresses and e-mails of all participants. Selection/notification will be sent by February 16, 1998. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 08:06:57 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1042 Q: Joe Macbeth MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1042. Wednesday, 15 October 1997. From: Ron Ward Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 14:52:13 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Re: Macbeth Can anyone give details about an early Movie Called "Joe Macbeth" which stuck in my mind for 30 or so years as an interesting gangster interpretation of Macbeth. Ron Ward ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 08:36:13 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1043 Re: Joe Macbeth MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1043. Thursday, 16 October 1997. [1] From: Pervez Rizvi Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 13:44:16 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 8.1042 Q: Joe Macbeth [2] From: Tom Marshall Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 10:02:38 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1042 Q: Joe Macbeth [3] From: Richard Nathan Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 15:14:39 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1042 Q: Joe Macbeth [4] From: Martin Jukovsky Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 12:27:11 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1042 Q: Joe Macbeth [5] From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 08:34:57 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1042 Q: Joe Macbeth [6] From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 12:56:09 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1042 Q: Joe Macbeth [7] From: Stephen Orgel Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 15:31:20 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1042 Q: Joe Macbeth [8] From: John Drakakis Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 17:23:32 +0100 Subj: RE: SHK 8.1042 Q: Joe Macbeth [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pervez Rizvi Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 13:44:16 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 8.1042 Q: Joe Macbeth Curiously, just 5 minutes before this query arrived, I'd discovered the following website: http://www.romeoandjuliet.com/author/films.html This gives very brief info on Joe Macbeth among others. You might also try the Internet Movie Database. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Marshall Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 10:02:38 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1042 Q: Joe Macbeth Nothing on Joe Macbeth, but you might look at _Men of Respect_, a gangster-noir film of the early 1990's that is a contemporary version of Macbeth as a power struggle within a mafia family. The language is modern New York vernacular, but the plot follows the play and characters very closely. It stars John Turturro and Peter Boyle. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Nathan Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 15:14:39 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1042 Q: Joe Macbeth Ron Ward asked about Joe Macbeth. This was a British film made in 1955, in which the story of Macbeth was done as a contemporary gangster story. I saw it on television sometime in the late sixties or early seventies, and remember being delighted by how weirdly awful it was. I don't remember any details, except that the Banquo character was called "Bankie." According to Halliwell's film guide, it was produced and distributed by Columbia and Frankovich. It was written by Philip Yordan and directed by Ken Hughes. It starred Paul Douglas, Ruth Roman, Gregoire Aslan, Bonar Colleano, and Sidney James. Halliwell's review was, "Amost too bad to be funny, this effort to update Shakespeare has actors behaving as though they were stuck in treacle, and its gimmick quality is quickly dissipated by an indifferent production." In its defense, I will say that it wasn't as bad as "Female Hamlet," a Middle Eastern film, with female versions of Hamlet, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern. Instead of being sent to England, they went to the beach to play vollyball in their bikinis. At the end, everyone blew everyone else away with shotguns. [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Jukovsky Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 12:27:11 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1042 Q: Joe Macbeth It's a 1955 Britsh movie directed by Ken Hughes, starring Paul Douglas and Ruth Roman (who were American). I remember little about it, except that its attempts to emulate the original were flatfooted. I prefer the more recent MEN OF RESPECT with John Turturro, Peter Boyle, and Rod Steiger, which is also gangland. its ventures into Shakespearean dialogue are well done, albeit bizarre ("Hey, what'd he mean by that-'I can only be killed by man who is not of woman born'?"). [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 08:34:57 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1042 Q: Joe Macbeth Dear Ron Ward, You might consult the Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com) and/or Ruby Cohn's MODERN SHAKESPEAREAN OFFSHOOTS, and there's a pretty thorogh but concise entry on it in McKernan and Terris's WALKING SHADOWS: SHAKESPEARE IN THE NATIONAL FILM AND TELEVISION ARCHIVE. The date of the movie was 1955. If gangster Macbeths are your thing, you might also check out MEN OF RESPECT, a few years old now, and see if Marv Rosenberg has anything about gangster-themed productions of the play in his exhaustive MASKS OF MACBETH. Good luck. [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 12:56:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1042 Q: Joe Macbeth Yes-it was a rather crude update of Macbeth into 40s or 30S gangsterdom. Banquo became "Banky" etc. I believe the Macbeth was played by character actor Paul Douglas. Film is better in the recollection than actually. More interesting if flawed film recently was a gangster Macbeth starring John Turturro-MEN OF HONOR-or somesuch. [7]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Orgel Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 15:31:20 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1042 Q: Joe Macbeth I liked Joe Macbeth: the 1955 British film turned the play into a grade B gangster movie. It starred Paul Douglas and Ruth Roman. Halliwell says of it, "Almost too bad to be funny, this effort to update Shakespeare has actors behaving as if they were stuck in treacle...", but I recall being quite intrigued by the ... um ...intertextuality. The recent 'Men of Respect' is a whole lot better in the same style-though it too has its silly moments. [8]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Drakakis Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 17:23:32 +0100 Subject: RE: SHK 8.1042 Q: Joe Macbeth Yes, 1955, Paul Douglas and Ruth Roman with Sidney James as Banquo! There's a more recent version, Men of Respect (1989) with John Turturro in the lead role. Many of the names have been taken over from the earlier Joe Macbeth. This is how Shakespeare should be done! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 08:41:55 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1044 Re: Classroom Strategies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1044. Thursday, 16 October 1997. [1] From: Hilary Zunin Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 17:51:00 -0700 Subj: Classroom Strategies [2] From: Paul Smith Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 18:05:40 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1039 Re: Classroom Strategies [3] From: Peggy O'Brien Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 21:52:09 -0500 Subj: Classroom strategies [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hilary Zunin Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 17:51:00 -0700 Subject: Classroom Strategies "Let us not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments!" Surely we're not dividing along pedogogical lines that suggest reading the play texts VERSUS watching productions VERSUS having students own the works through their own perfomance efforts. For a terrific perspective on the relative merits of "Shakespeare in the Study; Shakespeare on the Stage", I draw your attention to the article of that name by Jonas Barish (Professor Emeritus - UC Berkeley) *Theatre Journal* (1988) 40:33-47. Suffice it to say that when students are asked, as part of their final, to argue the merits of studying the scripts versus seeing/performing them, they'll readily create lists of specific pros and cons for each strategy, but typically come to see both processes as essential. These are students from remedial to honors classes, aged 14-18 years. If we provide the right tools, they are capable of so much understanding! [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Smith Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 18:05:40 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1039 Re: Classroom Strategies Reading the plays has one major advantage, for me, over seeing them. When you read, you can be much more active in the language, breaking the poetry apart, studying the meanings of difficult words, analyzing metaphors, etc. When seeing a play, you cannot be as active with the production simply because you cannot halt the play whenever you feel like it to examine what is being said. Seeing a play is a tremendous experience which should be encouraged. But it is an experience which simply cannot replace the reward of sitting down for several hours with the language of Shakespeare. And one more note in favor of reading a play first. For me a very rewarding manner of studying Shakespeare is to imagine myself the director of the play and figure out from the language which is the most appropriate and effective way to stage each scene. Again, seeing the play first jams one director's intepretations down your throat, often times permanently removing the chance to figure the language out for oneself. If I were teaching a high school class, which I will be next year, I believe I would spend some time having small groups decide on ways to enact particular scenes and then have them act them out themselves in front of the class. Showing a production, to me, seems like it would be much less effective (although admittedly much easier). Paul E. Smith San Diego State University smithpe@flash.net [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peggy O'Brien Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 21:52:09 -0500 Subject: Classroom strategies How wonderful to join this conference at last and find myself in the midst of a discussion on teaching. Eureka! What I find really interesting is the distinction that some folks make between reading the play and enacting the play. Getting into a play through performance IS reading-it is absolute close reading and textual analysis, though done vertically, and within the context of physical action. It's ALL about language. (That Skip Nicholson is a genius.) Could we extend the discussion on teaching to include learning? As best we can tell, what's happening inside students' minds and hearts as we teach them using these various methods under discussion? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 08:59:10 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1045 Re: Polish Hamlet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1045. Thursday, 16 October 1997. [1] From: John Velz Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 21:38:12 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Polish Hamlet [2] From: Balz Engler Date: Thursday, 16 Oct 1997 09:00:52 +0200 Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 14 Oct 1997 to 15 Oct 1997 [3] From: Paul Franssen Date: Thursday, 16 Oct 1997 13:05:13 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: Polish Hamlet [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 21:38:12 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Polish Hamlet Paul Franssen asks about a Polish *Hamlet*. The place to look is in Dr. Hab. Krystyna Kujawinska-Courtney's article on *Hamlet* in Poland in *Shakespeare Jahrbuch* ca. 1995 (in German but written orig. in English). I do not remember whether the prod. you want is discussed, but I think maybe so. The article is about political interpretations of the play as a reflection of Polish history. Based on a paper written for the SAA seminar on Intercultural Shak. in Albuquerque earlier in the '90s. I may be off in my dates. Mayhap ShJ 1994 (of course in the West version of the *ShJ*). Dr. K-C is very knowledgeable about theater and film in Poland, and surely can identify and explicate the prod. in question even if it is not in the article. She teaches at University of Lodz, in Poland. The e-mail address I have for her is quite old, but worth a try: miranda@PLUNL051.BITNET Success in the hunt is my wish for you. John Velz [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Balz Engler Date: Thursday, 16 Oct 1997 09:00:52 +0200 Subject: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 14 Oct 1997 to 15 Oct 1997 David Skeele is looking for an article on Hamlet in Poland. This may be an opportunity to draw attention to an excellent book (no, I am not involved in its publication, I've just had the pleasure of reviewing it): Michael Hattaway, Boka Sokolova and Derek Roper, eds. *Shakespeare in the New Europe*. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. It deals with Shakespeare interpretation (both on stage and in academic criticism) in Europe before and after the fall of the Berlin wall. Hamlet, not surprisingly, plays an important role in it; and, yes, there is an article on "Polish Hamlets: Shakespeare's *Hamlet* in Polish theatres after 1945" by Marta Gibinska. Balz Engler Basel University, Switzerland [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Franssen Date: Thursday, 16 Oct 1997 13:05:13 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Polish Hamlet Many thanks to Steve Ohmer, Jameela Ann Lares, Jim Harner, David Skeele, and Werner Habicht for their helpful suggestions, via SHAKSPER or privately, on politicized Polish Hamlets. Thanks to their leads I have managed to trace the source I was looking for: John Elsom's *Is Shakespeare Still Our Contemporary?* In case other SHAKSPER-member are interested in Polish *Hamlets* as well: other useful leads were Kujawinska-Courtney in *Shakespeare Jahrbuch* of 1995, Henryk Zbierski and Marzena Czubak, "Das Schickal des Fortinbras," in *Shakespeare Jahrbuch* (Weimar) 1989, and in particular Gregg Dion, "Fortinbras, Our Contemporary" in *Theatre Studies* 38 (1993) 17-27. Paul Franssen Dept. of English University of Utrecht The Netherlands ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:03:44 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1046 Qs: Courses at Globe education centre; Warwickshire words MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1046. Thursday, 16 October 1997. [1] From: Mario Ghezzi Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 23:19:31 +1000 Subj: Courses at Globe education centre [2] From: Abigail Quart Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 11:05:31 -0400 Subj: Warwickshire words [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mario Ghezzi Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 23:19:31 +1000 Subject: Courses at Globe education centre I am thinking of going to England in 1998 from 5 July to 18 July and would like to know how to get in touch with the Globe Education Centre to find out what is available in terms of courses, workshops etc. I have been to the Globe site hosted by the University of Reading where they have a page on the Globe Education Centre mentioning courses and workshops running, but I could not find any contact person or e-mail address for the Centre. Do they offer courses or workshops for visitors? Failing this are there similar things on offer by other institutions around that time? I am a Senior High School teacher of English literature and would love to learn more first hand about the Globe and Shakespeare particularly under Elizabethan conditions. Please let me know. Mario Ghezzi [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Abigail Quart Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 11:05:31 -0400 Subject: Warwickshire words Anybody know where I can get my hands and eyes on G.F. Northall's A Warwickshire Word Book, Publication Number 79, English Dialect Society, 1896? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:06:45 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1047 Position Announcement MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1047. Thursday, 16 October 1997. From: Tony Haigh Date: Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997 15:02:12 -0400 Subject: Job Ad Assistant Professor of English Assistant professor with primary specialty in Shakespeare; secondary emphasis in later Renaissance or dramatic literature desirable. Tenure track. Ph.D. required. Appointment begins August 1998. Teaching duties in Shakespeare, period and genre courses, Brit. Lit. surveys, interdisciplinary humanities, composition. Centre is a national liberal arts college committed to fine undergraduate teaching. Send letter of application and vita to John Ward, Dean of the College, Centre College, 600 W. Walnut St., Danville, KY 40422-1394. Postmark deadline: 17 November 1997. EOE. Women and minorities strongly encouraged to apply. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 08:54:30 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1048 RE: Classroom Strategies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1048. Friday, 17 October 1997. [1] From: Lysbeth Benkert-Rasmussen Date: Thursday, 16 Oct 97 11:26:00 CDT Subj: RE: Classroom Strategies [2] From: Matthew Bibb Date: Thursday, 16 Oct 97 12:00:00 PST Subj: Re: Classroom Strategies [3] From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Thursday, 16 Oct 1997 21:16:31 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1044 Re: Classroom Strategies [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lysbeth Benkert-Rasmussen Date: Thursday, 16 Oct 97 11:26:00 CDT Subject: RE: Classroom Strategies Since we're discussing classroom strategies, I though I would share with you an experiment I will be attempting in the spring with a colleague of mine from the theater department (I teach in the English Department). I will teach my Shakespeare course (part 1, on the comedies and histories), during the same time slot that he teaches his Advanced Acting class. One day a week, our classes will be combined-one week I will talk to the students about the historical context or the texts, and the next week his students will perform scenes after which he can discuss performance issues. Technically, the courses will not be team taught, but there will be as much overlap as we can possibly manage. I'm hoping that in this way, I can strike a balance between the text/performance debate. Depending on how successful the experiment is, we would like to write up a conference presentation or a publishable essay on the results. I would also be more than happy to share what happens with the list in late spring, if folks would be interested. Lysbeth Em Benkert Northern State University [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Bibb Date: Thursday, 16 Oct 97 12:00:00 PST Subject: Re: Classroom Strategies >>There is no way to understand >>Shakespeare,(except for the sonnets), without watching them on the >>stage. > >This is rot, and I take offense at it. Actually, I think it is dead-on accurate, if not perhaps in the way either of you meant. Going to see a performance, valuable as that may be, and reading a play silently (ditto), are, separate from one another, well-nigh useless for the process of LEARNING Shakespeare. The twin arts of performance and analysis are inextricably intertwined. Actors do not simply appear from the wings, knowing exactly what they are supposed to say and what it means. They study the text, deeply, agonizing over the meaning and possible interpretations of every word. This is the exact process students should be put through. Getting them up on their feet, making them think about what the lines mean when they are spoken, is an astonishingly effective technique, and not without reason. >>In short, if you are not watching Shakespeare's plays, you are not >>really doing the work justice. And I cling to this. >Barnacle-like, no doubt. Perhaps if we changed the word "watching" to "performing", the offense would be lessened? Sorry if I'm covering old ground, but I've been ill and haven't checked my mail lately. Matt Bibb Lost Dog Productions UCLA Shakespeare Reading and Performance Group [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Thursday, 16 Oct 1997 21:16:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1044 Re: Classroom Strategies Physicalizing in any possible way brings the text alive to students. Though I would never ever direct the scene in this manner I was side coaching two hs actors in an ACTING SHAKESPEARE class this afternoon in a scene between Tubal and Shylock and it was dead, dead, dead. When one of them made a karate- like gesture I latched onto that and proceeded to develop the scene as a karate piece and the entire piece came totally alive because their energy increased...the scene made sense when they forgot that they were "READING SHAKESPEARE"...anything to get them into it....try anything let Portia squirm sensually on the stage aka Cleopatra when she talks to Bassanio . . . it takes on life and then they actually feel it as well as say it ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 09:02:32 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1049 Qs: Modern WT; van den Berg MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1049. Friday, 17 October 1997. [1] From: Melanie J. Abrams Date: Thursday, 16 Oct 1997 10:32:58 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 14 Oct 1997 to 15 Oct 1997 [2] From: Hiroyuki Todokoro Date: Thursday, 16 Oct 1997 20:02:37 +0900 Subj: van den Berg [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melanie J. Abrams Date: Thursday, 16 Oct 1997 10:32:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 14 Oct 1997 to 15 Oct 1997 Does anyone know any "modernized" adaptations of A Winter's Tale, or any contemporary literature, drama or movies where A Winter's Tale is heavily alluded to? I'm working on a novel where WT has "symbolic" (for lack of a better word) importance, and am curious about what's out there...Any ideas? Melanie Abrams [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hiroyuki Todokoro Date: Thursday, 16 Oct 1997 20:02:37 +0900 Subject: van den Berg If anyone out there knows about Kent T. van den Berg, other than that he is the author of _Playhouse and Cosmos: Shakespearean Theater as Metaphor_, let me know of it. Thanks in advance. todok ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 09:04:49 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1050 Re: Joe Macbeth MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1050. Friday, 17 October 1997. From: Peter L Groves Date: Friday, 17 Oct 1997 09:02:52 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1042 Q: Joe Macbeth > Can anyone give details about an early Movie Called "Joe Macbeth" which > stuck in my mind for 30 or so years as an interesting gangster > interpretation of Macbeth. I can't supply any practical details, but I too would love to se it again. My favourite moment is when Bankie and Dunkie turn up at Joe Macbeth's "castle": DUNKIE: "You know, I kinda like dis place." BANKIE: "Yeah. Lotsa boids about." Peter Groves, Monash ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 08:48:41 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1051 Qs: Vision in Macbeth; Concordance; Early Modern Closet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1051. Monday, 20 October 1997. [1] From: Cameron Thomas Jones Date: Friday, 17 Oct 1997 12:54:47 -0300 (ADT) Subj: Re: Vision in Macbeth [2] From: Alicia Ellison Date: Saturday, 18 Oct 1997 15:38:15 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Concordance [3] From: Cameron Anderson Date: Sunday, 19 Oct 1997 23:40:15 -0400 Subj: Early Modern Closet [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cameron Thomas Jones Date: Friday, 17 Oct 1997 12:54:47 -0300 (ADT) Subject: Re: Vision in Macbeth Considering Macbeth... I thought it would be interesting to bring up the continuous use of vision, or lack there of, in Macbeth. Specifically the first two acts. The eye wink at the hand; yet let that be Which the eye fears, when it is done, to see.(52-53 I, iv) That my keen knife see not the wound it makes (50 I, v) To beguile the time, Look like the time; bear welcome in you eye, ((61-62 I, v) There are quite a few other examples of this forced blindness. If one considers the witches as visionaries, it is interesting that Shakespeare affords some characters the vision outward, and forces others to contain similar vision. ie. The witches tell Macbeth he will be Thane of Cawdor and King...Macbeth/Lady Macbeth must cast blinds on their eyes as to present a front to the others. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alicia Ellison Date: Saturday, 18 Oct 1997 15:38:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Concordance [Editor's Note: Below is a request from a non-member. If you wish to respond, please do so directly to Alicia Ellison .] Hello. I'm not a subscriber to your list, and I really am not looking to become one. However, I would appreciate it if I could post a message to the list, to prevail upon the expertise of the subscribers. I'm looking for a good layman's concordance to Shakespeare, something which perhaps would retail at close to $50 or under. I'm not looking for a lot of commentary, but rather something that would work similar to a Bible concordance, i.e. keyword searching to passages in the plays and sonnets. May I post such a message, with a request that replies be sent directly to me? Thank you. Alicia Ellison, Librarian Tampa-Hillsborough Public Library System Science Library at MOSI (Museum of Science & Industry) 4801 E. Fowler Avenue Tampa, Florida 33617 (813) 987-6378 fax: 987-6381 alicia@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cameron Anderson Date: Sunday, 19 Oct 1997 23:40:15 -0400 Subject: Early Modern Closet Dear all, I am currently writing a senior honors thesis at Wesleyan Universtiy on gendered representations of the closet on the early modern English stage. I am interested in finding closet scenes acted on the stage. I am not interested in bed chamber scenes. I am aware of the closet scenes in Hamlet, The Merry Wives, and The Changling. In connection with closet scenes, I am interested in the change of staging which took place at the beginning of the 17th century, in which closet scenes were brought out of the tiring house alcove to occupy the main stage. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Cameron Anderson ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:16:56 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1052 Shakespeare Job Description MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1052. Monday, 20 October 1997. From: Gwynne Kennedy Date: Friday, 17 Oct 1997 09:50:49 -0700 Subject: Shakespeare Job Description Shakespeare and Film/Performance Studies Assistant Professor in Shakespeare and Film/Performance Studies, tenure-track, for fall 1998. We seek an outstanding scholar-teacher with expertise in both Shakespeare studies and film or performance studies. Applicant must be able to teach undergraduate and graduate courses in Shakespeare as well as courses in early modern drama, film adaptation or history and theory of performance. Demonstrated familiarity with emerging technologies in research and teaching (e.g. Web-based presentation, multimedia approaches) is highly desirable. The position offers an opportunity to pursue research interests in excellent 17th century research collection and as a fellow at the Center for Twentieth Century Studies. Competitive salary and teaching load. The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer. Names of applicants who do not request that their identity be withheld and the names of finalists will be released on request. Applications must be postmarked no later than December 31, 1997. Send cover letter and curriculum vitae to: James A. Sappenfield, Chair, Department of English University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee P.O. Box 413 Milwaukee, WI 53201. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:19:23 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1053 ACTER F97 *Measure* Tour MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1053. Monday, 20 October 1997. From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Saturday, 18 Oct 1997 12:23:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ACTER F97 *Measure* Tour The last four weeks of the very successful ACTER tour of *Measure for Measure* will have performances on the following dates and campuses(contact phone number in parentheses): Oct. 22 and 25, UTSA(210-458-4376); Oct. 29 and 31, U. of Penn, Philadelphia(215-898-5828); Nov. 6-8, Lawrence U., Appleton, WI(414-832-6746); and Nov. 12,13, and 15, UNC-Chapel Hill(919-967-4265). We are booking now for *Tempest* in F98 and *Merchant* in S99. Gareth Armstrong also has a wonderful one-man show, Shylock is My Name, which he is tentatively scheduled to do here in Chapel Hill, Friday, April 17th at the SE Renaissance Conference, and which he is looking for bookings elsewhere. If you can't afford an ACTER residency, perhaps you can enjoy Gareth's show plus some workshops for students. Contact us if you are interested. We hope to hear from you! Cynthia Dessen, General Manager, ACTER csdessen@email.unc.edu 919-967-4265 (phone/fax) ACTER website: http://www.unc.edu/depts/acter/ Mail to: 1100 Willow Drive, Chapel Hill NC 27514 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:23:18 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1054 Re: BBC Petition; Modern WT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1054. Monday, 20 October 1997. [1] From: Tanya Gough Date: Saturday, 18 Oct 1997 08:30:09 -0400 Subj: BBC Petition: Last Call [2] From: Jerry Bangham Date: Friday, 17 Oct 1997 16:58:51 -0400 Subj: Modern WT [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tanya Gough Date: Saturday, 18 Oct 1997 08:30:09 -0400 Subject: BBC Petition: Last Call Many thanks to everyone who has submitted requests for BBC product to our petition. The list is substantial now, and I don't think the BBC will be able to dismiss our plea. For those of you new to the list or back from summer holidays, we are running a petition to encourage the BBC to release their Shakespeare titles for home distribution at a more reasonable price (the lowest going rate is currently about $100 US). This petition does not reflect a preference for the BBC versions over other versions, but we have to start somewhere, and this seemed as good a place as any. Please, please, please, send your BBC wish list, or just your name and a note saying you would like to be added to the list, to . I will be meeting with the BBC in New York next month to hand over the list and to add my own voice to the cause, so there is still time to join us. This petition is open to anyone interested in making these titles more accessible to the public, so tell your friends, family, and colleagues to send us a note, too. The Fall edition of the Poor Yorick Shakespeare Multimedia Catalog is up and running on the net. Visit us at , or write to me to request a hard copy sent via snail mail. Many thanks for all your support. Tanya Gough [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Bangham Date: Friday, 17 Oct 1997 16:58:51 -0400 Subject: Modern WT Cornerstone Theatre toured the country with an updated winter's Tale a few years back. Unfortunately, I was out of the country and missed it. Dave Crosby, who is on the list can provide details. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:38:36 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1055 RE: Classroom Strategies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1055. Monday, 20 October 1997. [1] From: Karen Eblen Date: Saturday, 18 Oct 1997 00:22:37 PDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.1048 RE: Classroom Strategies [2] From: Michael Yogev Date: Saturday, 18 Oct 1997 12:07:30 +0200 Subj: Reading vs/and Watching Shakespeare [3] From: Hayley Grill Date: Saturday, 18 Oct 1997 10:41:00 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Classroom strategies [4] From: Perry Herzfeld Date: Sunday, 19 Oct 1997 15:49:31 +0000 Subj: Classroom Strategies - Student's point of view [5] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Monday, 20 Oct 1997 05:18:48 -0400 Subj: SHK 8.1048 RE: Classroom Strategies [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Eblen Date: Saturday, 18 Oct 1997 00:22:37 PDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.1048 RE: Classroom Strategies I am new to the SHAKSPER, but I have devoted attention to this thread regarding the teaching of Shakespeare. My background is that of a college graduate with degrees in Media Studies and English; currently applying to graduate schools. I hope to teach college courses. My own opinion pertains directly to my experience learning Shakespeare. One of my Shakespeare classes did not allow us to read any criticism or theory-only the plays-but we were also shown the BBC series of Shakespeare's plays on video (which I think are excellent productions). When I had read the play twice, learning the sometimes difficult meanings within the rich wordplay, I would watch these videos and read along with them. I feel reading the play thoroughly and understanding the archetypal psychology Shakespeare wished to share with his future generations is very important. I also think, (and it may be presumptuous of me-I've never performed or directed any play) the kind of understanding and insight into the characters one gains from a thorough reading would be beneficial to any performance. Do we presume that Shakespeare didn't read and revise his plays with his imagination, and then work through the techniques of direction and performance? I suppose I am curious what all the fuss is between drama and literary scholars? Best Regards, Karen Eblen [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Yogev Date: Saturday, 18 Oct 1997 12:07:30 +0200 Subject: Reading vs/and Watching Shakespeare I've been following the thread of the "classroom strategy" discussion for some time now, and the most entertaining and sensible response I've seen thus far is Karen Krebser's. I appreciate and share her umbrage at the idea that one must see in order to fully understand/appreciate/experience the plays of Shakespeare. Isn't this really a case of apples and oranges, with any performance/video of the plays one sort of pleasure, and the text quite another? I always inform my students that there are many delights and shocks attending any live performances that may arrive in Israel and be within their student-or my teacher's-budget (no small consideration these days), but I am absolutely adamant in my claims that the pleasures of the text, whether read silently or aloud, are substantial and not to be discounted. They are simply different pleasures than those of a performance, as the editors of the First Folio themselves clearly recognized in taking on their project. So many of Shakespeare's lines contain lovely, subtle ironies when regarded on the page that can never be as multiple and suggestive in a live performance or film, and careful study of the text can demonstrate how, to take just one example, Kenneth Branagh's _Henry V_ studiously edits out all the lines which make the young king look anything but England's greatest warrior/monarch. Surely this is food for thought at any level of study? Michael Yogev Dept. of English University of Haifa [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hayley Grill Date: Saturday, 18 Oct 1997 10:41:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Classroom strategies I am both a writer and an actor. A believe a student must first understand the basic story and meaning behind the language, as a writer does, and then progress to the physical embodiment, as an actor does. Shakespeare is twofold. It expects you to pay as much attention to the words and the passion behind them. I believe the sooner a student can get over "Oh No It's Shakespeare" and get into the story the better. [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Perry Herzfeld Date: Sunday, 19 Oct 1997 15:49:31 +0000 Subject: Classroom Strategies - Student's point of view I have only recently joined the SHAKSPER list, and I have never posted anything before. So, here we go; there's a first time for everything. I have read a lot of comments about classroom strategies for teaching Shakespeare, however I feel that it has all been very one-sided. To be more specific, all those who are making the comments are teachers. So I have decided to offer my opinion, as a year ten student studying Shakespeare. The first thing my English teacher said when we began studying R&J this term was that he believes there is nothing worse than listening to students reading Shakespeare badly, and thereby ruining it. After having several experiences of this, I must say that I agree with him. So, the way we studied the play was by listening to it on tape, done by professional actors. (The version we are using is by the Renaissance Theatre Company, staring Kenneth Branagh.) This proved to be a very good way of studying the play, as it was far better than having students read it, and far less expensive than taking the whole class to the theatre. I believe that the best way to study Shakespeare in class is first listening to the play on tape (while following with a copy of the text) and then going to see it on stage (the next best thing is seeing it on video). It would be excellent to perform it in class, but it just becomes monotonous, boring, dull and thoroughly lifeless. [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Monday, 20 Oct 1997 05:18:48 -0400 Subject: SHK 8.1048 RE: Classroom Strategies The strategy I've found most helpful over the years involves an unstudied use of eye-contact, vocal inflection and hand gestures which I employ whilst talking at length about the play. Occasionally, I walk to the blackboard and write on it. These outlandish gambits shock the students of course, but I explain that we teachers must always be prepared to take risks in their interests. Several have told me what a relief it is to get away from the traditional routine of emotional outpouring and exhausting physical activity which not only puts so many of them off the Bard, but can also be the cause of muscular problems later in life. Terence Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:41:15 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1056 CFP: Goodly Worlds: Places, Topoi, and Global Riches MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1056. Monday, 20 October 1997. From: Sara Jayne Steen Date: Sunday, 19 Oct 1997 13:07:52 -0500 Subject: CFP Call for Papers: Please cross-post **************** Goodly Worlds: Places, Topoi, and Global Riches **************** The Rocky Mountain Medieval and Renaissance Association invites papers for its annual interdisciplinary conference to be held on 4-7 June 1998 at Big Sky, Montana. The conference offers an opportunity for scholars to explore topics related to the study and teaching of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. This year's topic is "Goodly Worlds: Places, Topoi, and Global Riches," with emphasis upon sites of medieval and Renaissance knowledge and power-geographical, rhetorical, economic, political, scientific, artistic, and cultural. The Big Sky Ski and Summer Resort is a luxury resort with golf, tennis, swimming, mountain biking, and whitewater rafting. The scenic resort is just forty-five miles north of spectacular Yellowstone National Park, the nation's oldest national park, with sites such as Old Faithful and the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone; and forty-five miles south of the town of Bozeman, home of the Museum of the Rockies, with its internationally recognized dinosaur collection. Send two copies of proposals for complete sessions to the conference organizers by 1 December 1997. Send two copies of papers or 250-word abstracts by 28 February 1998. Inquiries, proposals, papers, or abstracts should be addressed to: Sharon A. Beehler and Sara Jayne Steen Department of English Montana State University Bozeman, Montana, USA 59717-0230. E-mail: sbeehler@english.montana.edu or steen@english.montana.edu Phone: (406) 994-3768 Fax: (406) 994-2422 Sara Jayne Steen Professor and Chair Department of English Montana State University steen@english.montana.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:31:16 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1057 Re: Classroom Strategies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1057. Tuesday, 21 October 1997. [1] From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Monday, 20 Oct 1997 11:21:34 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1055 RE: Classroom Strategies [2] From: Bruce Golden Date: Monday, 20 Oct 1997 10:41:47 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1055 RE: Classroom Strategies [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Monday, 20 Oct 1997 11:21:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1055 RE: Classroom Strategies I want to echo and expand Michael Yogev's position on classroom strategies. I find that performance, of all varieties, allows the students to understand how flexible and ambiguous the plays are. Too often (and especially in the introductory classes) students want the Universal Truth that a Shakespeare play holds. To understand that meaning might depend on how the lines are acted or even read is very powerful. From there, it is a short step to the great secret that the very authoritative, hard bound text they have been reading isn't really the text, but an editor's version. And once my students find that the plays are not only open to interpretation but open to editing, they become very excited about their authority with the text. And I find that their readings become much richer and, perhaps surprisingly, much more text based. Annalisa Castaldo [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Golden Date: Monday, 20 Oct 1997 10:41:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1055 RE: Classroom Strategies Regarding the recent Professor Hawkes contribution-uh oh, unpretentious common sense? Any connection with the fact that Kingsley Amis set _Lucky Jim_ in Wales. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:40:05 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1058 Re: ACTER MM; Vision in Macbeth MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1058. Tuesday, 21 October 1997. [1] From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 20 Oct 1997 11:50:19 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1053 ACTER F97 *Measure* Tour [2] From: Stuart Manger Date: Monday, 20 Oct 1997 18:46:57 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1051 Q: Vision in Macbeth [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 20 Oct 1997 11:50:19 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1053 ACTER F97 *Measure* Tour After having had the excellent fortune of being able to bring ACTER to our campus last semester, I am keenly interested in hearing any reviews of the current production, MEASURE FOR MEASURE. Have any SHAKSPEReans seen it? David Skeele Slippery Rock University [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Manger Date: Monday, 20 Oct 1997 18:46:57 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1051 Q: Vision in Macbeth A sequence of body politic as well as body human dysfunctions: the disintegration of the usually integrated functions of eye, hand, disjoined from a moral function / discriminating / judgemental mind functions - this seems to feature even more heavily in the imagery. Schizoid in some senses, tragic heroes do not want to 'see' the consequences of actions they know to be immoral, YET they also crave certainty about the future, even wishing to control the passage of time itself. cf. Faustus? Lear? Hamlet in that wonderfully quiet interlude with Horatio before the very final scene of the play? Interesting addendum: Prospero has complete control over all these means and renounces them - astonishing? Or what! Or is Shak reaching out for a new moral dimension? perhaps an attempt to resolve the unresolvable in the tragic / romance worlds? Just a thought. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:43:41 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1059 POSITION: Medieval/Early Modern Literature MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1059. Tuesday, 21 October 1997. From: Chet Pryor Date: Monday, 20 Oct 1997 21:25:57 -0400 Subject: POSITION: Medieval/Early Modern Literature [Editor's Note: This announcement appeared yesterday on REED-L.] Title: Medieval and Early Modern English Literature Assistant Professor. Specialist in medieval and early modern English literature with background in Western mythology. Tenure track. Begin Fall 1998. Ph.D., teaching strength and scholarly potential required. Applicant should document wide-ranging interests compatible with an emerging Ph.D. in Discourse Studies. Send letter, vita, dossier, writing sample (article or dissertation chapter-20ms. pp. max.), and evidence of teaching strength by November 14, 1997 to David H. Lindstrom, Chair-Search Committee, Department of English, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523. Routine inquiries to . For a complete position description, visit our web site at: www.colostate.edu/Depts/English ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:48:30 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1060 Q: *Troilus and Cressida* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1060. Tuesday, 21 October 1997. From: Caroline Toll Date: Monday, 20 Oct 1997 11:45:14 -0500 Subject: A baffling conundrum [Editor's Note: This is yet another query from someone who is not a member of SHAKSPER. If you respond, please do so directly to Caroline Toll .] My name is Caroline Toll and I am looking for information, criticism and, possibly, dramaturgy logs on Troilus and Cressida. Unfortunately most sites are coming up blank. The purpose of my search is to help a friend doing a dramaturgy internship on this play here in Minneapolis, so there is a certain urgency to my request. If you can help me, it would be most appreciated. Thank you.========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 08:41:37 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1061 Re: Classroom Strategies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1061. Wednesday, 22 October 1997. [1] From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Tuesday, 21 Oct 1997 00:01:16 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1057 Re: Classroom Strategies [2] From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Tuesday, 21 Oct 1997 12:19:30 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1033 Re: Classroom Strategies [3] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Tuesday, 21 Oct 1997 13:26:26 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1057 Re: Classroom Strategies [4] From: Rod Osiowy Date: Tuesday, 21 Oct 1997 17:01:07 -0700 (PDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1057 Re: Classroom Strategies [5] From: Michael Skovmand Date: Wednesday, 22 Oct 1997 10:01:01 MET Subj: Re: SHK 8.1057 Re: Classroom Strategies [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Tuesday, 21 Oct 1997 00:01:16 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1057 Re: Classroom Strategies I feel moved to respond to the young man whose teacher was not about to allow mere high school students to decimate the words of the Immortal Bard. As a genuinely sincere positive student response I do respect his credibility. However, if we are to convince students that Shakespeare is indeed accessible and relevant to all, how can any teacher in good conscience adhere to the philosophy that we dare not let them speak it because they won't do it right? To read the plays and not ever say the words seems to me to be irresponsible, if not downright criminal. My students and I read every word of the plays we study. We attempt to act them out in the classroom and we try to understand the language, the characters, the themes et al. Studying Shakespeare is a joint participatory act during which we all learn a great deal. It's not easy and I do cringe at the pronunciations and lack of rhythmic recognition, but gently correct and try to teach such recognition. Let them say it and act it - what harm beyond the supposed sensibilities of some arrogant pseudo-teacher who thinks we peons may be allowed to hover on the fringe but never enter into the realm until we are worthy. (End of rant) Mike Sirofchuck Kodiak High School [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Tuesday, 21 Oct 1997 12:19:30 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1033 Re: Classroom Strategies This debate puzzles me. I have theatre, dramatic literature and English students in my classes. I reiterate throughout the year that the page contains much of interpretive potential and that the stage represents choices made and new perceptions available only from performance. Students do both theatre research and close reading presentations and we do a workshop - only a morning but it helps the English students and they all enjoy it. The dialogue (and the different skills) make for some interesting classes. One of my nagging problem is that none of them have heard of scansion as a way of getting more out of the text-so I gave in this year ( we had it in grade 9 which dates me) and tried more formally to find a way to help them develop that ear for rhythm. We'll see of I succeeded . Mary Jane [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Tuesday, 21 Oct 1997 13:26:26 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1057 Re: Classroom Strategies By now, it must be clear to anyone who has been reading this thread on classroom strategies for teaching Shakespeare that there are at least two approaches: one from the aspect of examination of the text for performance, the other from the aspect of examination of the text as story or poetry. If a play is examined as poetry or as story, the characters become devices, statements, to convey a structured whole, an argument, a network of significant ideas. This aspect cannot tolerate the approach of an actor, whose attention is given to immediate line-by-line discoveries of the character - as in life itself. For an actor, the character must not presume to know that he is in a play conveying the playwright's structure of ideas; this would be the death of any performance, surely. (*pace*, for the moment, Pirandello). The competent director must be in touch with both aspects; he must know what the play "means" and he must be able to guide his actors in their life-like discoveries without distracting them with his own insight into the ideas of the whole play. The ideal teacher of a play is an ideal director; he or she is able to point out to the student both the structure of ideas of the play and the psychological "rightness" of the character's reactions. L. Swilley [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rod Osiowy Date: Tuesday, 21 Oct 1997 17:01:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1057 Re: Classroom Strategies Some encouraging posts. When I "teach" Shakespeare's plays, I must look at who the clients are. My grad students will certainly enjoy exploring the text and reading essays on possible meanings of passages, and I emphasize "possible" since there are many possible interpretations (hence the work of this listserv, and that of many individuals here). To fully "understand" the text "off the page" is to make an interpretation of it, be it correct, creative or otherwise. My own children have had the experience of acting in many Shakespearean productions and usually develop some earlier understandings of the text than many of the adult actors. I can only attribute this to their youthful lack of fear about making mistakes. High school students enjoy interpreting scripts and making creative hypotheses of textual meanings as much as anyone; for them to support their views with research is sometimes another matter, but for them to act out their work often leads them to new discoveries. What I try to remember in teaching Shakespeare is the same thing which applies to anything that is taught. Learners learn in different styles. Some are better suited for auditory learning (hence the use of professional tapes and oral readings), some learn visually (going to see plays, watching videos, reading books, and chalkboards), and some learn through physical means (acting out, copying notes etc..) If I want someone to understand a text I can make them understand some meanings through book and chalk talk but to make them appreciate what a Shakespeare script is, and to make them enjoy it...hmmm Well, most people enjoy watching plays, acting plays, directing plays, teaching plays...emphasis on the word play. And, I usually start with the names of the characters and their relationships to each other on a chalkboard or with a discussion, or over coffee. When Shakespeare's work is acted out on stage, the better productions are those where you can understand the director's interpretation of the relationships of the characters on stage without having to hear the words at all (although they do help). I've seen some interesting Stoppard productions which I'm sure made sense only to the players. Usually entertaining though, and they always allow the audience some latitude for their own interpretation, like any work of art. RodO [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Skovmand Date: Wednesday, 22 Oct 1997 10:01:01 MET Subject: Re: SHK 8.1057 Re: Classroom Strategies Regarding the Hawkes controversy: Correction, please: Amis did not set Lucky Jim in Wales - it was set at an unspecified red-brick university in England. *That Uncertain Feeling*, however, (as well as * The Old Devils*) was set in Wales... Michael Skovmand U. of Aarhus, Denmark ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 08:45:59 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1062 CFP: Computing Technology and Renaissance Studies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1062. Wednesday, 22 October 1997. From: R. G. Siemens Date: Tuesday, 21 Oct 1997 10:05:46 -0600 Subject: CFP: Computing Technology and Renaissance Studies [please excuse x-posting] "Computing Technology and Renaissance Studies" A joint session of the Canadian Society for Renaissance Studies and the Consortium for Computers in the Humanities at the 1998 Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences Federation of Canada, University of Ottawa, Ottawa (May 28-30, 1998). Reflecting larger societal trends, the past several years have seen a rise in the importance of computing technology to our work; they have also seen an increased recognition of the body of scholarly approaches and tools, influenced by the electronic medium, that aid in one's teaching, study, and research. The New Humanism, Project Gutenberg, the Electronic Renaissance: nominal allusions abound that suggestively ally this late twentieth-century movement with the print-oriented technological revolution in the period of our study; urging that such comparison may not be not ill-founded are a large number of valuable computing tools and resources available today to Renaissance academics (and, of course, far beyond this group). This session seeks to explore ways in which computing technology has added and can add to the field of Renaissance Studies. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 08:50:42 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1063 Re: ACTER MM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1063. Wednesday, 22 October 1997. [1] From: Eric Armstrong Date: Tuesday, 21 Oct 1997 13:08:48 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1058 Re: ACTER MM [2] From: Kathleen Cleary Date: Tuesday, 21 Oct 1997 20:49:28 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1058 Re: ACTER MM [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Armstrong Date: Tuesday, 21 Oct 1997 13:08:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1058 Re: ACTER MM; Vision in Macbeth >After having had the excellent fortune of being able to bring ACTER to >our campus last semester, I am keenly interested in hearing any reviews >of the current production, MEASURE FOR MEASURE. Have any SHAKSPEReans >seen it? >David Skeele I got to see the first half of MM at Brandeis last week and then went out to dinner with the company later on in the week. First off, let me say that they are all great people and they bring an excitement to their work, especially the teaching part, that is palpable and very worthwhile. Keeping in mind that my comments about MM are based solely on the LONG first act, I would say that I enjoyed the performances but felt that there was little that was exceptional about it. It was a solid show, which is quite a feat considering that the whole thing is done democratically, with no director's eye. Simon Day, who plays Angelo and Claudio notably, is a very talented actor and brings the stage to life with his energy, clear choices and considerable technique. The other actors are consistent but not necessarily very imaginative. Their use of the simple staging and costuming were very effective, and for those not accustomed to these kind of theatrics, quite exciting. A colleague was heard to retort that Isabella's choice to be "basically a ninny" seems a bit harsh, but there was an unusual unevenness to her performance. Another colleague remarked that her transformation at the end (which of course I did not see) felt "unjustified" (her word) - it came out of nowhere. I felt that, though it was expensive, the company did a lot for the community as a whole, and that they were involved in (and made a strong impression ) other classes than ones in English and Theatre classes (one actor went into an art class to discuss Shakespeare in PreRaphaelite art). A very intelligent company with much to share based on their view point: contemporary British professional actors working in the U.S. Eric Armstrong. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Cleary Date: Tuesday, 21 Oct 1997 20:49:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1058 Re: ACTER MM; Vision in Macbeth We had the great fortune of bringing ACTER to our campus a couple of weeks ago and their production of _Measure For Measure_ was gripping. Simon Day played both Angelo and Claudio and was outstanding. The doubling of the characters added many interesting layers to the production. All the actors were very solid and their interpretation of the script illuminated what was for me a very dense play. We are hoping to bring ACTER back next year. The workshops were great; highlights included a speaking Shakespearean verse workshop by Richard Simpson and a movement workshop by Simon Day. For more details, feel free to e-mail me at kcleary@freenet.columbus.oh.us Kathleen Colligan Cleary, Ph.D. Performing Arts Program Coordinator Clark State Community College ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 08:57:44 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1064 The Elsinore Appeal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1064. Wednesday, 22 October 1997. From: Linda Hobbet Date: Wednesday, 22 Oct 1997 00:26:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The Elsinore Appeal I have a very amusing book titled "The Elsinore Appeal", which is the transcript of a mock trial of Hamlet (it's an appeal actually. It assumes he survived the duel and was convicted for the deaths of Polonius, Gertrude, Laertes, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and Claudius). Someone recently told me that he saw it on TV; he thought it was a PBS station. It may be the trial in the book, or possibly another mock trial - I understand they have been staged in various parts of the country. Does anyone know about a mock trial of Hamlet that was taped? Might it be possible to get a copy of it? Thanks, Linda Hobbet ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 08:48:17 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1065 Re: The Elsinore Appeal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1065. Thursday, 23 October 1997. [1] From: Jason Rosenbaum Date: Wednesday, 22 Oct 1997 10:51:08 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1064 The Elsinore Appeal [2] From: Patricia E. Gallagher Date: Wednesday, 22 Oct 1997 11:44:09 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1064 The Elsinore Appeal [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jason Rosenbaum Date: Wednesday, 22 Oct 1997 10:51:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1064 The Elsinore Appeal In December 1995, The Shakespeare Globe Centre (USA) sponsored a fundraising event called "Hamlet On Trial" at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. The premise was Hamlet standing trial for the murder of Polonius. The event was chaired by Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., and the judge was The Honorable Robert W. Sweet, United States District Court. The prosecution was led by Raoul Felder, Esq. and Hamlet was defended by Herman Badillo, Esq. Hamlet was played by Tony Award winning actor Stephen Lang. Linda Thorson played Gertrude, Michael Allinson played Claudius and Ophelia was played by Beth Lincks. Douglas Broyes played the Ghost. The event was written and directed by Elizabeth Falk. This event was videotaped, but only for in-house and archival purposes of the Shakespeare Globe Centre. Special requests for viewing the tape would be considered on an individual basis, with the understanding that a copyright is held by Ms. Falk. Mrs. Falk is currently restaging "Hamlet On Trial" for the UK/AZ Festival in Phoenix, Arizona. It will be presented on this Saturday, October 25. For ticket information, call the UK/AZ Festival office, at 602-534-2995. Also, for those in the Phoenix area, for the duration of the Festival, there is a display of a scale model of the International Shakespeare Globe Centre at "dupuis" in the Biltmore Fashion Park. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patricia E. Gallagher Date: Wednesday, 22 Oct 1997 11:44:09 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1064 The Elsinore Appeal I think that a tape was available (though quite costly). You might contact Court TV regarding purchase of the tape or a rerun date. Patricia Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 08:53:35 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1066 Re: Shakespeare's Vocabulary; MTV Rom. Parody MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1066. Thursday, 23 October 1997. [1] From: Marvin Spevack Date: Wednesday, 22 Oct 1997 21:14:58 -0700 Subj: Shakespeare's Vocabulary [2] From: Richard A Burt Date: Wednesday, 22 Oct 1997 11:43:06 -0400 (EDT) Subj: MTV Video Awards R and J Parody [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marvin Spevack Date: Wednesday, 22 Oct 1997 21:14:58 -0700 Subject: Shakespeare's Vocabulary Newer technology cannot count any better than older technology. What is important (in addition to the text used) is the definition of "different words." For my count I used the concept of word-type (29,066). Using the concept of the lemma would of course reduce the total considerably, especially also if names were then omitted. Marvin Spevack [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A Burt Date: Wednesday, 22 Oct 1997 11:43:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: MTV Video Awards R and J Parody Dear SHAKSPER subscribers, Oops! I erred in a recent post when I said that a parody of the balcony scene with Mike Meyers and Jenny McCarthy is in Austin Powers, International Man of Mystery. I saw it while channel surfing on the MTV video awards and concluded it was a clip from the movie. I have since discovered that it was a short clip (with Meyers in his Powers character) made specifically for the awards. Claire Danes was the presenter after the clip aired. There's a transcript on a Romeo and Juliet website if anyone wants to read it. Best, Richard ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 08:58:25 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1067 Dream in Baltimore MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1067. Thursday, 23 October 1997. From: Jimmy Jung Date: Wednesday, 22 Oct 1997 10:22 -0500 Subject: Dream in Baltimore Center Stage, in Baltimore, is doing Midsummer Night's Dream and Mom had a free ticket and the Orioles have been eliminated from the series. It's as if event conspired. I know doubling has been discussed on this list before, but this was the first time I had actually seen it used (that I recall). And now I can't imagine doing Midsummer without it, primarily because of what it does for Hippolyta, who was once a queen, but always came off as this secondary character in the productions that I remember. What with only five lines before Act 5, it is easy to forget she's in the play. But the Baltimore production gives her a fair amount of business in the first scene, allowing her to actively sympathize with Hermia and relate Hermia's enforced marriage to her own. Hippolyta wears a long leather gown, her Amazonian fashion a stark contrast with the Napoleonic-style of the Athenias and when she reappears as Titiania, you feel it is that Amazonian fighter spirit that keeps the changeling from Oberion. They even give Hippolyta a gun in Act 5; in short, Hippolyta goes from being a trophy wife to power figure. They double Oberion and Theseus, Hippolyta and Titania, and, in a move that seems so obvious, but had never occurred to me before, Puck and Philostrate. Center Stage typically offers a casting quirk to all their Shakespearean productions, and their choice for Puck is unique and inspired; as a result, there is a grouchy element added to his mischief. Mustardseed, Cobweb and Peaseblossom are played by three young girls,(ages 11- 13) and they are some of the strongest members of the cast, they can sing, act, and are the key element in giving fairyland its fairy-like ambiance. The Baltimore set is a colorful floral greenhouse motif, that becomes a playground gym set when the lovers start running about. The lovers take a boisterous slapstick approach to their confusion that surpasses the mechanicals physical humor. As a last note, the show had one of those spontaneous interactive moments that caught me by surprise. Puck should be about to administer the corrective herb to the eyes to the eyes of Lysander, but instead leans towards Demetrius, prompting loud "no"s from the crowd. I'm guessing that it was not a moment they planned on, but the cast now seems to actively exploit. Just a clue as to how this production seems to draw you in. jimmy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 09:05:25 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1068 Re: Classroom Strategies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1068. Thursday, 23 October 1997. [1] From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 22 Oct 1997 16:23:53 -0400 Subj: Hawkes and Doves [2] From: Peter L Groves Date: Thursday, 23 Oct 1997 08:26:45 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1061 Re: Classroom Strategies [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 22 Oct 1997 16:23:53 -0400 Subject: Hawkes and Doves I liked it better when I could be scheduled into the old dissecting theater, with all that dark paneling, and the ineluctable odor of formaldehyde. But it works OK in the student center Kiva, one of those late 60s spaces with carpeted platforms all round, like an inverted ziggurat. Anyway, I sit at a table in the center and read the text-I like the Hinman Folio facsimile, but switch sometimes to the Oxford or even, for April 1 and November 5, the Rowse, with all those pictures-for the most part silently, though now and again I'm moved to mutter a few lines _sotto voce_, or underline something, or write in the margin. Attendance is 50% of the grade, with a 5% penalty for each cut (arriving late or leaving early counts as a cut), and the exam, the other 50%, simply asks them to identify the 5 most important passages in each play, so the students come, and watch quite attentively, looking for clues. I see them after the class, in pairs or groups, talking; I think sometimes they talk about the plays, and perhaps they learn. It's quite restful, really. Nice work if you can get it. Collegially, Harold Hill, Jr. Iowa International University River City, IA [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter L Groves Date: Thursday, 23 Oct 1997 08:26:45 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1061 Re: Classroom Strategies > One of my nagging problem is that none of them have heard of scansion > as a way of getting more out of the text-so I gave in this year ( we had > it in grade 9 which dates me) and tried more formally to find a way to > help them develop that ear for rhythm. We'll see if I succeeded . Good luck, though I suspect you'll find a proportion who are just rhythm-deaf. I recall a student, after a two-hour seminar on Sh.'s metre, who began reading MND thus: "Now, fair HIPpoLYta, our nuptial hour..." I was reminded of this because I've just been listening to a professional recording of in which the malcontent is called BoSOla throughout, thus scuppering the metre of just about every line in which the name occurs. Peter Groves, Monash ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 15:31:41 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1069 Re: Dream in Baltimore; Elsinore Appeal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1069. Friday, 24 October 1997. [1] From: Kristine Batey Date: Thursday, 23 Oct 1997 09:50:17 -0500 Subj: Dream in Baltimore [2] From: James P. Lusardi Date: Thursday, 23 Oct 1997 14:03:25 -0500 (CDT) Subj: RE: SHK 8.1067 Dream in Baltimore [3] From: Larry Weiss Date: Thursday, 23 Oct 1997 11:02:59 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1064 The Elsinore Appeal [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kristine Batey Date: Thursday, 23 Oct 1997 09:50:17 -0500 Subject: Dream in Baltimore >They double Oberion and Theseus, Hippolyta and Titania, and, in a move >that seems so obvious, but had never occurred to me before, Puck and >Philostrate. Wow! Yes! I recently saw a production that really emphasized Philostrate's role as the essence of the obedient servant. Doubling the role really points out that Puck is the alternate Philostrate, the looking glass Philostrate, the changeling twin. Puck gets ordered around, just like Philostrate does, and does what he's told . . . sort of; in the faerie way, where wishes are always fulfilled to the letter, but don't get you what you really wanted. That's how DOS works, too. Kristine Batey Office of the Associate Dean for Administration Northwestern University School of Music [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: James P. Lusardi Date: Thursday, 23 Oct 1997 14:03:25 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: SHK 8.1067 Dream in Baltimore Dear Jimmy J: In Peter Brook's extraordinary 1970 MND for the RSC, Alan Howard doubled as Theseus and Oberon, Sara Kestelman as Hippolyta and Titania, and John Kane as Philostrate and Puck. Yours--Jim Lusardi, Shakespeare Bulletin [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss Date: Thursday, 23 Oct 1997 11:02:59 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1064 The Elsinore Appeal "The Elsinore Appeal" is a transcript of a mock appellate argument held at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. The TV program Ms. Hobbet is referring to is probably a broadcast of a mock trial, involving expert witnesses on insanity, etc., which I think was broadcast by C-Span. If this is the one I am thinking of, Justice Anthony Kennedy was the presiding judge. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 15:48:07 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1070 Qs: Cosby Show; Gay Merchant; Eliz Accents; Spring Conferences MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1070. Friday, 24 October 1997. [1] From: Richard A Burt Date: Thursday, 23 Oct 1997 15:34:51 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Cosby Show Episode [2] From: Troy A. Swartz Date: Friday, 24 Oct 1997 09:07:14 -0400 Subj: Q: Gay Merchant? [3] From: Matthew Bibb Date: Friday, 24 Oct 97 09:02:03 PST Subj: Elizabethan Accents [4] From: Michelle Haslem Date: Friday, 24 Oct 1997 16:30:23 +0000 Subj: Spring Conferences [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A Burt Date: Thursday, 23 Oct 1997 15:34:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Cosby Show Episode Does any happen to have copy I could borrow or ask you to copy (I'd send a blank tape and return postage) of a Cosby Show episode involving Shakespeare? If not, doesn't anyone happen to be familiar with the episode? Thanks for any help. Best, Richard [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Troy A. Swartz Date: Friday, 24 Oct 1997 09:07:14 -0400 Subject: Q: Gay Merchant? Dear Shakespeareans: Right now I'm working on a paper on the Merchant of Venice. One thing I'm looking at is the relationship between Antonio and Bassanio (like many people before me have done). I admit, like the rest, that there is some homoerotic tension between the two. However, I'm wondering if we could go a bit further and say that there is an actual homosexual relationship between the two men? I've done a decent amount of reading on the 'history' of homosexuality, which is rather blurred. It ranges from Bruce Smith's "Yes, there were homosexuals in the Renaissance, but there was no term for those people, ergo there were no affiliations" to Joseph Cady's "Yes, there were homosexuals and yes, they did have terms such as 'heavenly love' or 'masculine love'." Obviously, there are different outlooks. I've come across several places in the Merchant text where I believe Shakespeare is alluding to a sexual relationship between the two. What are your thoughts? I automatically know some of you are probably cringing at the idea, and thinking that I'm becoming a Shakespearean heretic. Are there any other sources out there? In fact, has anyone ever encountered an essay where my perspective is taken, that there is sexual relations between Ant. and Bas.? I haven't come across any. Much thanks, Troy [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Bibb Date: Friday, 24 Oct 97 09:02:03 PST Subject: Elizabethan Accents Dear Everyone, In the course of a discussion on another listserv (devoted to Stephen Sondheim) the issue of accents in Shakespeare came up (don't ask how). I've heard several different theories on this, and I'm curious about two things: 1) Is there any sort of consensus on how the British (well, London at least) accent of Shakespeare's time sounded? Was it in fact close to American Southern? 2) What is your opinion on the issue of using British accents in current productions of Shakespeare? Does it lend the text something that an American accent would lack? My own feeling as a director is that it couldn't matter less, and that the use of accents should be a directorial choice based on the needs of the production, but you wouldn't believe the arguments I've had over this. Matt Bibb Lost Dog Productions UCLA Shakespeare Reading and Performance Group [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michelle Haslem Date: Friday, 24 Oct 1997 16:30:23 +0000 Subject: Spring Conferences I am a postgrad research student in the UK and I have some funding available to attend conferences abroad. I am planning to give a paper at the Shakespeare at Kalamazoo session in early May 1998, and I would be grateful if any list members could suggest other American conferences at around this time that might be worth going to. My research project is concerned specifically with the Jonsonian masque and the culture of the Jacobean court, although this obviously ties in with the drama of the public theatres especially Shakespeare's late plays. Any suggestions would be gratefully received. You can reply off list to me at m.haslem@chester.ac.uk Thanks, Michelle ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 15:51:51 -0400 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1071 RSA's Phyllis Goodhart Gordan Book Prize MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1071. Friday, 24 October 1997. [Editor's Note: This announce appeared yesterday on Ficino.] From: William R. Bowen Date: Thursday, 23 Oct 1997 15:35:51 -0400 Subject: RSA's book prize The Phyllis Goodhart Gordan Book Prize The Renaissance Society of America has instituted an annual book prize of $1,000 in memory of the late Phyllis Goodhart Gordan, a strong supporter of the RSA from its early days. The purpose of the prize is to recognize significant accomplishment in Renaissance Studies by members of the RSA and to encourage Renaissance scholarship. The Gordan Prize will be awarded to the author of the best book in Renaissance Studies published between 1 July 1996, and 30 June 1997. Authors of book submissions must be current members of RSA. The winner will be announced at the annual national meeting in College Park, MD, 26-29 March 1998. The prize will be awarded to a book written in one of the disciplines recognized by the RSA. Please see the inside cover of the bi-annual Directory of Members of the RSA for the list of disciplines. The prize will be awarded for a book dealing with a Renaissance topic within the chronological period, 1300-1700. The following are offered as examples of Renaissance topics: a vernacular or neo-Latin literary author, topic, or text; humanism in any of its forms; printing; a Renaissance city-state and/or its institutions; the art or an artist of the period. These topics are not meant to exclude other possibilities. Bibliographical works and scholarly aids are eligible for the Gordan prize, but editions of texts and translations will not be considered. The book must be written in English. Books will be judged on the following criteria: 1.Contribution to Renaissance studies 2.Originality in insight and research 3.Clarity and eloquence 4.Thoroughness and accuracy in documentation For more information, contact the RSA office: rsa@is.nyu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 18:50:25 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1072 Qs: Macbeth / Children; Shakespeare Editions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1072. Sunday, 26 October 1997. [1] From: Stuart Manger Date: Friday, 24 Oct 1997 21:30:04 +0100 Subj: Macbeth / Children as icons [2] From: Ron Ward Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 10:28:24 +1300 (NZDT) Subj: Re: Shakespeare Editions [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Manger Date: Friday, 24 Oct 1997 21:30:04 +0100 Subject: Macbeth / Children as icons I am about to teach a unit on Macbeth and in both reading, and seeing the Polanski film (again!!), I am struck by the almost eerie, haunting presence of children, child apparitions, child images, child substitutes - and almost all of them are BOYS. Indeed, are there any girls mentioned, except in disparaging terms as the likely mother for wimps and cowards. The children are victims, witnesses, and sons. BUT many of them are on the most amazingly steep learning curve. e.g. lady Macduff's son: starts scene as innocent, vulnerable, playful, perky even cheeky, but by the end he has learnt about honour, recognised the need to be 'the man' of the house and defend his mother, and in one final awful moment, realises his own mortality and the reality of death. In one scene, he is on stage for about three minutes at most, but I can think of few scenes of such swift and brutal education and poignancy. Other children are bloodied, have their brains bashed out, warn Macbeth, are untimely ripped, chased and attacked, frightened into escape. I do not think it is my imagination that Shak seems obsessed in a quiet way with the fragility of life, and the fragility of boys - of whom in those days so much was expected - seems to be uppermost in his mind? To bring forth men children is M's ultimate accolade to his wife, and yet more boys are chopped down in this play than in almost any other play I can think of. Stuart Manger [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Ward Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 10:28:24 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Re: Shakespeare Editions A bit of a tall order this. are there any comprehensive lists of Shakespeare editions? I am particularly interested in dating a 19th century edition in my possession. Although well presented with embossed leather bindings it is undated. Here is the description: The title page states The Complete Works of William Shakespeare; including the whole of his Plays, Sonnets and other Poems: With explanatory and critical notes and a carefully compiled Biography of Shakespeare, Illustrated with Beautiful Chromo Engravings designed expressly for this edition; published by John G. Murdoch 41 Castle Street, Holborn, London , printed by McGready, Thomson & Niven. (Glasgow, Melbourne, Dunedin). The engravings appear to have been done by Kronheim & Co.London, and are also labelled Ent.at Sta. Hall. It is bound in full leather Gold embossed with cover scenes from MV, Macbeth, Two Gentlemen of Verona and Winters Tale. Any help appreciated. Ron Ward ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 19:02:06 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1073 Re: Elizabethan Accents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1073. Sunday, 26 October 1997. [1] From: Tiffany Rasovic Date: Friday, 24 Oct 1997 22:05:12 +0100 Subj: Elizabethan Accents [2] From: Virginia Byrne Date: Friday, 24 Oct 1997 17:07:08 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.1070 Q: Eliz Accents [3] From: Julie Blumenthal Date: Friday, 24 Oct 1997 22:06:17 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Eliz. Accents [4] From: Brooke Brod Date: Saturday, 25 Oct 1997 02:23:12 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1070 Eliz Accents [5] From: Peter Hillyar-Russ Date: Saturday, 25 Oct 1997 08:48:48 +0100 Subj: Elizabethan Accents [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tiffany Rasovic Date: Friday, 24 Oct 1997 22:05:12 +0100 Subject: Elizabethan Accents Perhaps you could check out Anthony Burgess' book A Mouthful of Air- in one chapter he speculates on what the Elizabethan accent sounded like-he characterizes it as sort of a Scottish brogue, and I recall as I read some lines according to Burgess' description they sounded quite good, especially in rhyming parts. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia Byrne Date: Friday, 24 Oct 1997 17:07:08 EDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.1070 Q: Eliz Accents Regarding the question of Eliz accents...it is my understanding that the eliz accent was closer to the contemp Scots accent and that in fact the American accent provides an easier flow with the words than the Brits' [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julie Blumenthal Date: Friday, 24 Oct 1997 22:06:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Eliz. Accents Matt (and any others interested): In John Barton's excellent _Playing Shakespeare_ series (done with the RSC, tapes and paperback book transcript available), there is a nice little discussion of accents in the original times, and a few examples of particular rhyme schemes, etc. Hope that helps- Cheers! Julie [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brooke Brod Date: Saturday, 25 Oct 1997 02:23:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1070 Eliz Accents > 1) Is there any sort of consensus on how the British (well, London at > least) accent of Shakespeare's time sounded? Was it in fact close to > American Southern? Southern Accents? Do you mean a generalized southern accent or one from a particular state? They do differ. Just a bit curious, Brooke Brod [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Hillyar-Russ Date: Saturday, 25 Oct 1997 08:48:48 +0100 Subject: Elizabethan Accents I regret I know nothing in answer Matthew Bibb's question about accents in Elizabethan London. However, any suggestion that a 20th century British accent is particularly appropriate for the plays is insupportable. To imply it was essential would be ludicrous. Shakespeare was an associate of the people who set up early North American colonies, and there is no reason to suppose the shared original, c1600, English accent was preserved better in England than, for example, in Virginia. One respected English theatre company "Northern Broadsides" tours, internationally, with north of England actors who use their natural local accents - to very great effect. This sounds very different from BBC English, but it has no less claim to validity. A recent production of the Dream directed by Jonathan Miller in London did use the very strong "Upper class" English accentuation of the first half of the century: it was wonderful to listen to, because so unusual. It was, of course, done (I presume) to place the action where Shakespeare places so many of his plays, on the boundary between the known world and the exotic - in an age the oldest might recall, and a place the wealthier might visit. (The RSC loves setting plays in "Ruritania", late 19th century, central Europe.) American directors might well feel that a southern British accent conveys, to a North American audience, this sense of being almost known but a little exotic. That would be a valid dramatic choice, but only one of many - to allude to the Spanish era in south western North America would be as valid, and might be just as effective. To import UK accents into US theatres (sorry, Theaters) as an attempt to recover a purer form of the original would be about as daft as building a tourist attraction with a thatched roof in central London (but cheaper). Peter Hillyar-Russ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 19:08:40 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1074 Re: Gay Merchant MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1074. Sunday, 26 October 1997. [1] From: Julia MacKenzie Date: Saturday, 25 Oct 1997 08:51:32 +1000 Subj: Gay Merchant [2] From: Steven Marx Date: Friday, 24 Oct 1997 16:23:55 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1070 Q: Gay Merchant [3] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Friday, 24 Oct 1997 21:38:12 -0500 (CDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1070 Q: Gay Merchant [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julia MacKenzie Date: Saturday, 25 Oct 1997 08:51:32 +1000 Subject: Gay Merchant Dear All, Troy Swartz posted a question about articles that treat the relationship between Antonio and Bassanio as a homosexual one. I have recently come across one by Joseph Pequigney called 'The Two Antonios and Same-Sex Love in Twelfth Night and The Merchant of Venice', in the book edited by Deborah E. Barker and Ivo Kamps (1995) - "Shakespeare and Gender - A History", published by Verso, London & New York. Regards Julia MacKenzie [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Marx Date: Friday, 24 Oct 1997 16:23:55 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1070 Q: Gay Merchant On Antonio and Bassanio, Richard Levin's "Odd Man Out" in _Love and Society in Shakespeare's Comedy_ has an illuminating treatment of the topic. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Friday, 24 Oct 1997 21:38:12 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1070 Q: Gay Merchant Would it make any difference in the argument of the play that the relationship between the two men was homosexual rather than homoerotic? (Is the relationship between Bassanio and Portia heteroerotic rather than heterosexual, and would *that* make any difference in the play?). Surely this play is about loving relationships that transcend physical/sexual urges? This is no Antony & Cleopatra. L. Swilley ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 19:11:05 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1075 Shakespeare Reference MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1075. Sunday, 26 October 1997. From: L. Radke Date: Sunday, 26 Oct 1997 06:48:10 -0700 Subject: Re: Shakespeare Reference We recently updated our Shakespeare site. You might want to visit us at: www.fivestarsupport.com/shakespeare.html ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 08:20:55 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1076 Re: Elizabethan Accents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1076. Monday, 27 October 1997. [1] From: Richard A Burt Date: Sunday, 26 Oct 1997 22:25:09 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1073 Re: Elizabethan Accents [2] From: Kristie West Date: Sunday, 26 Oct 1997 19:44:39 PST Subj: Re: SHK 8.1070 Q : Eliz Accents [3] From: Joseph Tate Date: Sunday, 26 Oct 1997 22:35:45 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1073 Re: Elizabethan Accents [4] From: Norm Holland Date: Monday, 27 Oct 97 07:51:50 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.1073 Re: Elizabethan Accents [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A Burt Date: Sunday, 26 Oct 1997 22:25:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1073 Re: Elizabethan Accents Does anyone happen to know of anything written on the value placed on British as opposed to American accents in productions of Shakespeare? (An account of why critics are interested in Elizabethan pronunciation would presumably be a part such an article of articles (or book chapters). Best, Richard [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kristie West Date: Sunday, 26 Oct 1997 19:44:39 PST Subject: Re: SHK 8.1070 Q : Eliz Accents Dear all, While reading Matthew Bibb's query regarding the place of accents when performing/producing Shakespeare, my mind immediately turned to a production of Measure for Measure which I saw a couple of months ago here in Sydney. My boyfriend, who until then professed to hate the Bard enjoyed the performance as it was done wholly in a broad Australian accent! He said that he half expected them to say G'Day mate as a part of the script. I guess what I'm saying is that we maybe shouldn't be too puritanical in approaches to Shakespeare, and if the dropping of British accents in favour of local accents helps to make the plays more accessible, then more power to you! I would also direct you to seek out any opinions on the recent "Festival of the Dreaming" production of MND, which was performed by an exclusively Australian Aborigine/Torres Strait Islander cast. I'm sure that they would have some interesting remarks to make about accents in their interpretation and performance of the play. A starting point might be a Sydney 2000 website or you could try trawling through the archives of the Sydney Morning Herald(www.smh.com.au) Good luck, Kris University of Sydney. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Tate Date: Sunday, 26 Oct 1997 22:35:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1073 Re: Elizabethan Accents Why has the desire to have "authentic" early modern music instruments in the theatre not carried over into a desire to hear an Elizabethan accent? Have market forces dictated that we keep the language modernized? Has anyone tried such a production? using Elizabethan accents throughout? Joseph Tate Univ. of Washington [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Monday, 27 Oct 97 07:51:50 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.1073 Re: Elizabethan Accents Re: Elizabethan accents. I remember from forty years ago, Helge K:okeritz' book on Shakespearean pronunciation. He was a historical linguist (Yale), and his work was then regarded as definitive. Has he been disproved, or simply forgotten? As I practiced the sounds he described, they came out as an Irish (not Scottish) brogue. --Best, Norm Holland P.S. That's Kokeritz with an umlaut over the o. If I remember correctly. No books with me at the moment. N. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 08:23:59 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1077 Re: Macbeth / Children MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1077. Monday, 27 October 1997. From: Abigail Quart Date: Sunday, 26 Oct 1997 23:56:37 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1072 Qs: Macbeth / Children This play does seem to be all about heirs, inheritance, no one to carry on. It was ten years after Hamnet's death. Ten years is surely an arbitrary amount of time to bury a hurt and then see it surface, but I remember noting with surprise it was ten years after the end of the Vietnam War when all the movies and memoirs suddenly appeared. He was older. His wife was 50. He would likely have no other legitimate sons. Then, to honor the king, he writes a play in which all these images of inheritance begin to take over. Along with that horrible fate of sons. Macbeth would be a king but father none? Shakespeare was a king of playwrights, and would father none. It is reasonable to believe that the theme awoke many images and feelings he had shoved aside in the press of daily life, particularly since that life was so far from Stratford where his son had died. Ever notice how when people die out of town, they're not really dead, just still out of town? Maybe Macbeth is when Will faced the fact that Hamnet wasn't out of town. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 08:29:13 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1078 CFP: CRRS History and Literature Conference MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1078. Monday, 27 October 1997. From: Stephen Pender Date: Friday, 24 Oct 1997 16:45:03 -0400 Subject: CRRS History and Literature Conference [Editor's Note: This Call for Papers appeared on Ficino.} `Motives, pretexts, speeches and events': literature, history and the use of the past in early modern Europe _________________________________________ An interdisciplinary conference at Victoria College in the University of Toronto, 12 and 13 March 1998 CALL FOR PAPERS The Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies is pleased to announce `Motives, pretexts, speeches and events,' a conference that will focus on the relationship between history and literature in early modern Europe. We welcome abstracts and papers that address this relationship in the early modern period or in current academic inquiry. `Case studies' are also welcome. Please send abstracts (300-500 words) or completed papers (20 minutes speaking time; approximately 10-12 double-spaced pages), by 1 December 1997, to Stephen Pender, Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, Victoria University in the University of Toronto, 71 Queen's Park Crescent, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1K7. Electronic submissions to spender@chass.utoronto.ca. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 08:31:43 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1079 Q: Mary Wroth's Urania MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1079. Monday, 27 October 1997. From: David Schalkwyk Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 13:38:13 SAST-2 Subject: Mary Wroth's Urania Does anyone know whether the promised edition of Mary Wroth's Urania has been published yet, or how and where people at the extremities of the world might get to read it? David Schalkwyk English Department University of Cape Town ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 07:44:51 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1080 Re: Elizabethan Accents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1080. Tuesday, 28 October 1997. [1] From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 12:13:57 -0500 Subj: Re: Eliz. Accents [2] From: Juul Muller-van Santen" Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 19:09:10 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1076 Re: Elizabethan Accents [3] From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 03:58:00 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1073 Re: Elizabethan Accents [4] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 13:54:51 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1076 Re: Elizabethan Accents [5] From: Ronald Moyer Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 14:51:37 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1076 Re: Elizabethan Accents [6] From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 16:12:39 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1076 Re: Elizabethan Accents [7] From: Robin P. Newbegin Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 16:47:34 -0500 Subj: ELIZABETHAN ACCENTS [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 12:13:57 -0500 Subject: Re: Eliz. Accents Though it is of course impossible to know what the Elizabethan accent sounded like, there are some who are regarded as experts on the subject. John Barton has made an extensive study, and has concluded that the accent mixed elements of Southern-ish "American" and Scottish brogue. On one Playing Shakespeare video, he actually speaks a soliloquy in this hypothetical accent (I can't remember which tape or which soliloquy at the moment). Others insist that a straight Appalachian dialect is truest, arguing that their almost complete isolation has kept their accent "pure" for centuries. The truth is probably that, given the influx of people from around the globe, there were a number of variants on the Elizabethan accent, and no one "true" accent. One thing we KNOW, however, is that no one went around speaking like David Niven (barring, of course, some fantastic linguistic coincidence). Anyone who insists that Shakespeare must be spoken with an aristocratic English accent is being patently absurd. This attitude stems from the worship of some dim idea of Victorian Shakespeare, the same attitude which insists, against all evidence and logic, that Shakespeare must be produced with pedagogic attention to historical detail, because "that's the way Shakespeare did it." David Skeele Slippery Rock University [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juul Muller-van Santen" Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 19:09:10 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1076 Re: Elizabethan Accents Yes, some people do try to reproduce Elizabethan accents. I confine this to the classroom, as I teach. My students are interested, to an extent. It's nice to see that people link this to period instruments. In fact, the Dutch Early Music Movement got me interested. Dutch Baroque vocal groups now ask me to help with the pronunciation of 16-17-18th C English when anything from Dowland to Handel is being performed. Undoubtedly some of the things I do are wrong, but most of what I have learned comes from E.J.Dobson, >English Pronunciation 1500-1700< Oxford U.P., second ed. last printed in 1985, as far as I know. This is a two-volume work, with Volume I containing a survey of the (orthoepist) sources and Volume II Dobson's sound-by-sound discussion. Fascinating stuff! Julia Muller, Amsterdam [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 03:58:00 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1073 Re: Elizabethan Accents In regard to Elizabethan accents, check out Program 2 "Mother Tongue" of The Story Of English video series that was on PBS a while ago and is available commercially. There are clips of native Brits and Americans speaking in similar accents that are supposed to be similar to the Elizabethan accent. Mike Sirofchuck Kodiak High School P.S. I sent a post giving a source for obtaining the C-Span Trial of Hamlet. If you need that phone number, send me a note. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 13:54:51 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1076 Re: Elizabethan Accents >I remember from forty years ago, Helge K:okeritz' book on Shakespearean >pronunciation. He was a historical linguist (Yale), and his work was >then regarded as definitive. Has he been disproved, or simply >forgotten? As I practiced the sounds he described, they came out as an >Irish (not Scottish) brogue. No, Norm, Kokeritz hasn't been forgotten. But any reconstruction of accents from 500 years ago has to be conjectural. If you recall my question about "th" some weeks ago, in F Troilus and Cressida Antenor/Anthenor appears in both forms. Antenor appears early in the script, and Anthenor later-and Anthenor appears more often. Did Shakespeare prefer the "th" form? And, if he did, how did he vocalize the "th"? Obviously any answer to these questions must be based on argument rather than voice recordings from the 16th century. And the shift in spelling may be compositorial (or scribal) rather than au"th"orial. Yours, Bill Godshalk [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronald Moyer Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 14:51:37 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1076 Re: Elizabethan Accents Mr. Burt, Hypothetical examples of Elizabethan accents are available from a variety of sources, including _The Story of English_ (Peter Hall, as I recall) and John Barton's _Playing Shakespeare_ videos. While there is a wonderful richness to the sound-a hint could usefully add relish to a modern production, I think most audiences would find it curious and, perhaps, a bit humorous and off-putting. Regarding use of British accents, there seems no good reason for a production in the USA to do so-except possibly playing with varieties of accents in the histories (notably the mixture in H5). Certainly an American production adopting modern RP for Rome or Illyria seems wrong-headed. John Barton notes that Elizabethan pronunciation seems to be "a funny mixture of West Country, Ireland, a bit of American," and goes on to suggest, "I think that American is actually closer to Elizabethan English than our current English speech. That's ironic, because American actors are often worried about not speaking what they call Standard English, yet they're actually doing it closer to Shakespeare's way than we are" (_Playing Shakespeare_, 53; the "Language and Character" video). Best, Ron Moyer [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 16:12:39 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1076 Re: Elizabethan Accents As I recall, Tyrone Guthrie said that he wanted the Canadian actors at Stratford Ont. to use their own accents not some fake English or mid Atlantic accent (common in the 50's) because he thought their delivery was closer to the Elizabethan originals than mid 20th century English accents were. Of course that also made the plays more accessible to the audience - and did not particularly create problems when those accents were played against those of Alec Guiness, Irene Worth or even the strange mix that was James Mason's. Jason Robards, on the other hand, sounded very American indeed but when I look back that may also have been playing style. [7]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robin P. Newbegin Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 16:47:34 -0500 Subject: ELIZABETHAN ACCENTS Dear All, Although I have no books or readings to suggest to the posed question on the effects of differing accents in Shakespeare, I do however have some feedback on the subject. I recently watched a video version of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" in which Puck was portrayed as having an extremely cockneyed accent (and not to mention a very evil and frightening nature too.) Despite my distaste for this version of Puck, I found myself very intrigued by his accent and felt that it added greatly to the overall effect of his character. I also recently watched a South African version of "Othello" that was both filmed in and portrayed by South African actors. With the over bearing issue of racial tension and discrimination in South Africa, I felt that to portray the characters with a S.A. accent was extremely effective. after recently studying in South Africa and witnessing first hand the on-going racial tension there, I felt the accent made for an even more powerful effect in respect to the build up of tension between the characters in the play. -Sincerely, Robin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 07:51:34 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1081 Re: Mary Wroth's Urania MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1081. Tuesday, 28 October 1997. [1] From: Daniel Traister Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 09:52:54 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1079 Q: Mary Wroth's Urania [2] From: Lila Geller Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 08:12:16 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1079 Q: Mary Wroth's Urania [3] From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 08:40:23 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1079 Q: Mary Wroth's Urania [4] From: Maria Concolato Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 19:08:49 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1079 Q: Mary Wroth's Urania [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Traister Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 09:52:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1079 Q: Mary Wroth's Urania David Schalwyk asks "whether the promised edition of Mary Wroth's Urania has been published yet, or how and where people at the extremities of the world might get to read it?" Is this a moment to mention that MANY library catalogs (both union catalogs, such as-in North America-OCLC and RLIN, and individual library catalogs) are available online, so that (*even* for people at the round earth's imagined corners) to search such catalogs is almost immediately to find, e.g. (from the RLIN database), AUTHOR: Wroth, Mary, Lady, ca. 1586-ca. 1640. TITLE: [Countesse of Mountgomeries Urania. Part 1] The first part of The Countess of Montgomery's Urania / by Lady Mary Wroth ; edited by Josephine A. Roberts. PUBLISHED: Binghamton, N.Y. : Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, State University of New York at Binghamton, 1995. PHYSICAL DETAILS: cxx, 821 p. : ill. ; 25 cm. SERIES: Medieval & Renaissance texts & studies ; v. 140. OTHER AUTHORS: Roberts, Josephine A. SUBJECTS: Romances--Adaptations. Women--Fiction. NOTES: Includes bibliographical references and indexes. LC CALL NUMBER: PR2399.W7 C68 1995 DDC: 823/.3 LCCN: 95-2654 ISBN: 0-86698-176-4 (acid-free paper) In addition, Ashgate Scolar now makes available a facsimile edition, also edited by the late Josephine Roberts [ISBN 185928101X] for US$99.50; but you might, at present, have to search their website to know about this. An enormous amount of basic bibliographical information is now readily available for anyone who has (as many academics *do* have) access to the web. To discover it requires a bare minimum of "search sophistication." While many of the highly-touted benefits of the web have yet to be real-ized, and the amount of sheer garbage that it makes available is (more or less literally) stunning, *this* sort of information at least tends to be vast, reliable, and accessible. It may even, now and again, be useful. Daniel Traister, Department of Special Collections Van Pelt-Dietrich Library, University of Pennsylvania [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lila Geller Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 08:12:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1079 Q: Mary Wroth's Urania The First Part of The Countess of Montgomery's Urania by Lady Mary Wroth has been edited by Josephine A Roberts and published by the Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies , Binghamton, New York, 1995. You can probably send an order to Mario A. DiCesare at SUNY Binghamton. Lila Geller California State U Dominguez Hills Carson, CA [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sara Vandenberg Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 08:40:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1079 Q: Mary Wroth's Urania The First Part of the Countess of Montgomery's Urania, edited by the late Josephine A. Roberts, is available as vol. 140 of Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, from the Renaissance English Texts Society, ISBN 0-86698-176-4. The cost is $60, and worth it. Sara van den Berg University of Washington [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maria Concolato Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 19:08:49 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1079 Q: Mary Wroth's Urania As far as I know there is no complete edition of this work. A chapter of Mary Wroth's 'Urania' is included in 'An Anthology of Seventeenth Century Fiction' (ed. by P.Salzman, Oxford, O.U.P., 1991); the whole text (STC 26051) is available, however, in microfilm (UMI). Maria Concolato ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:49:02 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1082 Re: Macbeth / Children MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1082. Tuesday, 28 October 1997. [1] From: Steve Sohmer Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 10:04:20 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1072 Qs: Macbeth / Children [2] From: Billy Houck Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 10:33:12 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1077 Re: Macbeth / Children [3] From: Ronald Moyer Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 09:44:25 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1072 Q: Macbeth / Children [4] From: Skip Nicholson Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 17:28:33 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1077 Re: Macbeth / Children [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Sohmer Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 10:04:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1072 Qs: Macbeth / Children Dear Friends, Macbeth, a former friend once told me, is Shakespeare's play about the difficulty of founding an hereditary monarchy. Stuart Manger rightly detects the play's curiosity about the place (and function) of boys in this scheme. It has become a scholarly commonplace to note that James VI of Scotland (James I of England after 3/1603) was descended from Banquo, and that Shakespeare sanitizes the historical (murderous) Banquo for the purpose. It's also thought Lady M's claim "I have given suck" is immaterial (cf. "How many children had Lady Macbeth?" etc.). However, Macbeth as "tanaise" may have had a legitimate claim to succeed Duncan, and one of Lady M's children was in fact called (briefly) to the Scottish throne. James could trace his claim to the title of Scotland through the female line back to Duncan, and to the throne of England via the female line to Malcolm, who married Margaret, the granddaughter of King Edmund II of England, thereby uniting the Celtic and Anglo-Saxon crowns. Considering the basis of James' claim to the throne of England in 1603, any descent of title along the female line could hardly be dismissed as irrelevant. Three of Malcolm's sons by Margaret held the Scottish throne: Edgar (1097-1107), Alexander I (1107-24), and David I (1124-5). These boys were the legitimate heirs to the throne of England, too, which had been usurped by William the Conqueror in 1066. William was aware of this, and arranged the marriage Malcolm's daughter, Matilda, to his son Henry I of England. Malcolm may have also played a decisive role in the Norman conquest. It's thought he intrigued with Tostig and Harald Haardrade and abetted their campaign against King Harold, who had succeeded to the English throne (1/1066) on the death of Edward the Confessor. King Harold whipped and killed Tostig and Harald H at Stamford Bridge ca. 25 September 1066 while Malcolm sat discreetly on the sidelines in Scotland. Harold's weary and diminished forces lost a narrow defeat to William at Hastings three weeks later. In a way, Malcolm was the Benedict Arnold of Anglo-Saxon England. I expect English schoolboys knew some of this. Not incidentally, it was Malcolm's wife, *not* his mother who "Oft'ner upon her knees than on her feet, Died every day she liv'd." Margaret became Saint Margaret of Scotland. No minor saint, she was named Patron Saint of Scotland after Shakespeare's time. But the papal inquiry into her life and miracles occurred before 1250. Her body (and Malcolm's) were conspicuously removed to Spain during the Reformation, and her head went to the Jesuits at Douai. (Her son David also made sainthood.) So when Macduff chides Malcolm about his saintly "mother" there's another game afoot. Generally, the received wisdom about "Macbeth" needs to be received with skepticism. Hope this is useful. Steve Sohmer [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 10:33:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1077 Re: Macbeth / Children If your primary source of visions of butchery is from the Polanski film, it must be remembered that his pregnant wife had been butchered by Charles Manson about a year earlier. His pain is evident in every frame of that film. Billy Houck Arroyo Grande High School [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronald Moyer Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 09:44:25 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1072 Q: Macbeth / Children Mr. Manger, Heirless Macbeth makes war on children, on heirs, and is tortured by his "fruitlesse Crowne," "barren Scepter," and "vnlineall Hand." Perhaps explicable by Eliz. pronunciation and/or the vagaries of Eliz. spelling (or, more wonderfully, an anachronistic "Freudian slip" by author or typesetter on behalf of character), but I've always enjoyed the F1 reading of Macb.'s response to the Witches' prophecies: "If good? why do I yeeld to that suggestion,/Whose horrid Image doth vnfixe my Heire" (TLS245-6). Best, Ron Moyer [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Nicholson Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 17:28:33 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1077 Re: Macbeth / Children As Abigail Quart points out, "This play does seem to be all about heirs, inheritance, no one to carry on." That's true of all the tragedies, isn't it? Part of what makes them tragic to us (and, as she points out, maybe even more so to an Elizabethan audience) is the snuffing out of the entire line. Caesar (or Brutus, if you prefer), Othello and Macbeth are childless. Hamlet, Juliet and Romeo are only children. Lear's daughters all die. So the personal or political tragedy is always the tragedy of the end of a family as well. Skip Nicholson ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:56:25 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1083 A New Home For EMLS; EMLS 3.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1083. Tuesday, 28 October 1997. [1] From: R. G. Siemens, Editor, EMLS Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 08:32:37 Subj: A New Home For EMLS [2] From: R. G. Siemens, Editor, EMLS Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 08:32:10 Subj: EMLS 3.2 now available [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: R. G. Siemens, Editor, EMLS Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 08:32:37 Subject: A New Home For EMLS [please excuse x-posting] It is with considerable pleasure that we are able to announce EMLS' new home, at the University of Alberta's Department of English. Publication from the University of Alberta begins with the September 1997 issue (3.2). The EMLS editorial group wishes to express its gratitude to Alberta's Department of English, and its Faculty of Arts, for their generous promise of support for EMLS, and also to our past sponsors at the University of British Columbia, where EMLS was founded in 1994: the Department of English, the Faculty of Arts (including the Arts Computing Centre), and the University Library. While distributed from a new location, our Persistent Universal Resource Locator (PURL) will remain the same, at http://purl.oclc.org/emls/emlshome.html Our new contact and mailing addresses are listed in the document below. R.G.S. ===== Submission Information EMLS invites contributions of critical essays on literary topics and of interdisciplinary studies which centre on literature and literary culture in English during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Contributions, including critical essays and studies (which must be accompanied by a 250 word abstract), bibliographies, notices, letters, and other materials, may be submitted to the Editor by electronic mail at EMLS@UAlberta.ca or by regular mail to Early Modern Literary Studies, Department of English, 3-5 Humanities Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6G 2E5. Electronic mail submissions are accepted in ASCII format. Regular mail submissions of material on-disk are accepted in ASCII, Wordperfect, or Microsoft Word format; hard-copy submissions must be accompanied by electronic copies, either on-disk or via electronic mail, and will not be returned. All submissions must follow the current MLA Handbook, in addition to the following conventions used by Early Modern Literary Studies for ASCII text: bold text is indicated by tags which surround the text that is to appear in bold, likewise with italicized text, underlined text, and superscript; superscript is used for note numbers in the text, and notes themselves appear at the end of the document. A document outlining the representation of non-ASCII characters is available on-site or by request. Reviews and materials for review may be sent to Lisa Hopkins, the Associate Editor (Reviews), at L.M.Hopkins@shu.ac.uk or by regular mail to the School of Cultural Studies, Sheffield Hallam University, Collegiate Crescent Campus, Sheffield, UK, S10 2BP. Please note that all unsolicited materials sent to EMLS for the purposes of review must be plainly marked with the word "Donation" on the front of the mailing cover. Brief hard-copy correspondence may also be sent by fax to (403) 492-8142. General Information EMLS (ISSN 1201-2459) is published three times a year for the on-line academic community by agreement with, and with the support of, the University of Alberta's Department of English. EMLS is indexed by the MLA International Bibliography, the Modern Humanities Research Association's Annual Bibliography of English Language and Literature (ABELL), Web-Cite, the Lycos and InfoSeek indexing services and others, as well as being linked to resource pages of scholarly journals, libraries, educational institutions, and others worldwide. EMLS does not appear in print form, but can be obtained free of charge in hypertextual format on the World Wide Web at http://purl.oclc.org/emls/emlshome.html The EMLS site is mirrored at Oxford University. EMLS is a participant in the National Library of Canada's Electronic Publications Pilot Project, where it is also archived; it is also archived by the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) Electronic Journals Collection. Contact Points Journal Information, Comments, Mailing List: For more information, to join our mailing list, or to offer your comments on EMLS, please contact our Assistant Editor, Sean Lawrence, at sean@unixg.ubc.ca. Site Information, Comments, &c.: All correspondence pertaining to our site may be sent our Associate Editor, Paul Dyck, at Paul.Dyck@UAlberta.ca. Editor: Correspondence to the Editor may be sent to EMLS@UAlberta.ca. Hard-copy correspondence may be addressed to: Early Modern Literary Studies, Department of English, 3-5 Humanities Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. T6G 2E5. Fax: (403) 492-8142. ____ R.G. Siemens Department of English, U of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. T6G 2E5. Editor, Early Modern Literary Studies: http://purl.oclc.org/emls/emlshome.html wk. phone: (403) 492-7801 fax: (403) 492-8142 e-mail: EMLS@UAlberta.ca [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: R. G. Siemens, Editor, EMLS Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 08:32:10 Subject: EMLS 3.2 now available [please excuse x-posting] Early Modern Literary Studies 3.2 (September 1997) Editor's Note: - A New Home for EMLS (The University of Alberta's Department of English). Articles: - Article Abstracts / Résumés des Articles. - Marlowe, Edward II, and the Cult of Elizabeth. [1]. Dennis Kay, University of North Carolina, Charlotte. - The Poetic Nocturne: From Ancient Motif to Renaissance Genre. [2]. Chris Fitter, Rutgers University, Camden. Professional Note: - The Perdita Project: A Database for Early Modern Women's Manuscript Compilations. [3]. Victoria Burke and Elizabeth Clarke, Nottingham Trent University. Reviews: - John Rogers. The Matter of Revolution: Science, Poetry, and Politics in the Age of Milton. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1996. [4]. Andrew McRae, University of Sydney. - Warren Chernaik. Sexual Freedom In Restoration Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. [5]. Andrew P. Williams, North Carolina Central University. - Stephen Orgel. Impersonations: The Performance of Gender in Shakespeare's England. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997. [6]. Anthony Dawson, University of British Columbia. - Louis Montrose. The Purpose of Playing: Shakespeare and the Cultural Politics of the Elizabethan Theatre. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996. [7]. Paul Budra, Simon Fraser University. - Joan Ozark Holmer. The Merchant of Venice: Choice, Hazard and Consequence. New York: St. Martin's P, 1995. [8]. Bryan N.S. Gooch, University of Victoria. - Elizabeth Cary. The Tragedy of Mariam. Ed. Stephanie J. Wright. Staffordshire: Keele UP, 1996. [9]. Carrie Hintz, University of Toronto. - Charles Ross. The Custom of the Castle: From Malory to Macbeth. Berkeley: U of California P, 1997. [10]. J.B. Lethbridge, University of Tuebingen. - Reviewing Information, Books Received for Review, and Forthcoming Reviews. Readers' Forum: Responses to articles, reviews, and notes appearing in this issue that are intended for the Readers' Forum may be sent to the Editor at EMLS@UAlberta.ca. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:02:42 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1084 Re: Gay Merchant MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1084. Tuesday, 28 October 1997. [1] From: Troy A. Swartz Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 14:21:07 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 8.1074 Re: Gay Merchant [2] From: Andrew Murphy Date: Tuesday, 28 Oct 97 13:28:06 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.1070 Q: Gay Merchant [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Troy A. Swartz Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 14:21:07 -0500 Subject: RE: SHK 8.1074 Re: Gay Merchant Dear SHAKSPERians, Louis Swilley recently questioned whether or not it is important to differentiate between homosexual and homoerotic content in regard to Bassanio and Antonio. He also mentioned interpreting the relationship between Portia and Bassanio as heterosexual or heteroerotic. Interestingly enough, I tend to wonder if there is even a relationship between Portia and Bassanio. Firstly, Bassanio has really no idea who this woman is, except for the fact that she's rich. Bassanio does not necessarily want to be hetero- sexual or erotic, with Portia. In his mind, he sees this as an economic relationship...a way to get out of debt. If it means he happens to get a little sexual fun on the side, so be it. His main priority, though, is to marry this woman not for sexual or emotional fulfillment as marriages often do, but to secure himself financially. His wife becomes his property; ergo, her property becomes his. Now, of course, we can't completely rule out the relationship between Portia and Bassanio. After all, I think the contempt Antonio carries for Portia is rather blatant. Antonio describes Bassanio's desire for 'marriage' as "ripe wants". During the 15th-16th centuries 'ripe' was used to refer to river banks, oftentimes where brothels existed. Portia, a princess, in Antonio's perspective, is nothing more than a whore. (See Frankie Rubenstein, "A Dict. of Shake's Sexual Puns and Their Sig." ISBN: 0-312-12677-8) The relationship between Antonio and Bassanio is, by far, a very necessary question. A homoerotic relationship, particularly in comedy, can be used as jesting, for instance. It allows something for the audience to laugh at. ("Look at that guy! He wants Bassanio and Bassanio's so ignorant to it all!) But if there is some sexual gratification between the two men, then Antonio's melancholy and eventual disgust for Portia is easily understandable-Antonio's upset because he's going to lose a lover (as many people do). Well, I guess I'll stop for now. Although I know I can't change people's opinions on the significance of the relationships in "Merchant", I do hope that this does shed some light on why I feel it's important. Sometimes I wonder if now in the 20th century we are seeing Shakespeare's plays performed as they were 400 years ago. Although this is a completely different question, let's throw this one out on the floor: Could it be possible that theatre has taken steps backwards rather than forwards concerning Shakespeare since his plays were first performed? Much thanks, Troy [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Murphy Date: Tuesday, 28 Oct 97 13:28:06 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.1070 Q: Gay Merchant Troy -- Alan Sinfield has a very interesting piece on _Merchant_ and issues of same-sex desire in _Alternative Shakespeares 2_. See also recent work by Jonathan Goldberg, Jonathan Dollimore and Jeffrey Masten. Andrew ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:21:30 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1085 Britannica Internet Guide and Editor's Note MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1085. Tuesday, 28 October 1997. From: Tim Richards Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 21:43:26 +0800 Subject: Britannica Internet Guide Regarding the recent discussion of refereed Shakespeare websites for students... Encyclopedia Britannica has just set up the 'Britannica Internet Guide' site which attempts to rate and list worthy websites on various topics. A search on 'Shakespeare' brought up some useful and intelligent sites... might be a good starting point for students. The 'BIG' is at: http://www.ebig.com/ Tim Richards. [Editor's Note: The other day under the heading Shakespeare Reference, I posted to the membership this URL . As Michael Best points out to me this site is purely commercial and is merely advertising its product. Thus, as Cora Wolfe notes, there are no hypertext links. I am sorry if I inadvertently mislead anyone. Do visit the site to find out about the product, but do not expect the site to provide you with any reference links. The Britannica Internet Guide mentioned above is genuinely a great place to do research on the Internet. Among similar sites, I am fond of The Internet Research Pointer and The Library of Congress Tools . As for Shakespeare specific sites, you might wish to try these: 1. Mr. William Shakespeare and the Internet 2. Shakespeare & Internet Search Tools & Resources 3. Shakespeare on the Internet: Sites of Interest 4. The Works of the Bard 5. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare 6. Shakespeare Web 7. The Folger Shakespeare Library 8. Encyclopedia Britannica Shakespeare and the Globe 9. Related Links 10. Shakespeare Resources on the Internet 11. International Globe Centre 12. Shakespeare Globe USA 13. The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust 14. The Shakespeare Authorship Page Enjoy, Hardy] ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:45:02 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1086 Enter Running MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1086. Tuesday, 28 October 1997. From: Syd Kasten Date: Tuesday, 28 Oct 1997 00:00:05 +0200 (IST) Subject: Enter Running A short while back the list discussed the manner of Helena's entry in the first act of Midsummer Night's Dream. The implications of "God speed" raised the issue and the true meaning of the greeting resolved that discussion. I was surprised that no one mentioned a passage where someone is indeed meant to enter running. Although there is no stage direction to that effect, it is clear from the text itself that this was the author's intention. The play is Measure for Measure. An hour having been set for Claudio's execution, time and its passage become important factors in the play. The disguised Duke has instructed Isabella to make an appointment with Angelo and having done so to meet him (the disguised Duke) at the door of St. Luke's church for further instructions. The Duke has arrived at the meeting point and from his question to Mariana we understand that Isabella should have been there by then. Isabella enters and this is what follows: Act iv scene 2 Duke: Very well met, and well come. What is the news from this good deputy? Isab. He hath a garden circummured with brick, Whose western side is with a vineyard back'd; and to that vineyard is a planched gate, That makes his opening with this bigger key; This other doth command a litle door which from the vineyard to the garden leads; there have I made my promise Upon the heavy middle of the night to call upon him. Duke. But shall on our knowledge find this way? Isab. I have ta'en a due and wary course upon't: With whispering and most guilty diligence, In action all of precept, he did show me The way twice o'er. Isabella is clearly in a hurry when she appears: she doesn't respond to the Duke's greeting with so much as a by your leave. She immediately launches into a description of Angelo's garden, or should I say lurches into it. I don't move my lips when I read, but I think there is something in my temporal lobe that measures cadence. The first three lines of her description of the garden lack the rhythmic flow one expects from Shakespeare. Each ends abruptly enough to stop the flow of the narrative and have me take a second look (reading a play,as opposed to watching a performance, allows instant replay). This is how the lines fell into place: Act iv scene 2 ...... Enter Isabella (running} "Duke: Very well met, and well come. What is the news from this good deputy?" "Isab. He hath a garden" (omits the implied "which is" for lack of breath)"circummured with brick,(deep breath) "Whose western side is with a vineyard back'd;" (gets the whole sentence in before having to take a deep breath) "And to that vineyard is a planched gate," (another deep breath, although the stop isn't as severe as the "ck"s of the previous lines; she can afford to to pronounce the "e" in planched) "That makes his opening with this bigger key;" (Again stops to take a breath, but she is getting her breath back: the "k" at the line's end introduces a syllable rather than closing one.) "This other doth command a litle door which from the the vineyard to the garden leads;" (she is finally able to utter two lines before stopping to breathe.) "There have I made my promise / ^ / (pause for an unforced deep breath) Upon the heavy middle of the night to call upon him. / ^ / ^ /". (another u.d.b.) "Duke. But shall on our knowledge find this way? "Isab. I have ta'ena due and wary course upon't: With whispering and most guilty diligence, In action all of precept, he did show me The way twice o'er." (finally speaking freely and embellishing her lines with adjectives and repetitions: 'due and wary', 'whispering' and 'diligence')." I went to the text of Midsummer Night's Dream to see if Helena was out of breath. She wasn't. I also went to the text Romeo and Juliet (Act 2, scene 5) to see if the nurse was really out of breath as she claimed to be. In spite of her having come "apace" I couldn't find any sign of breathlessness, so I see her using bodily complaints to tease Juliet, which is in keeping with the content of her lines. (On the other hand, the expirative efforts of Lady Macbeth's "Help me hence, ho!" might be an intimation of hyperventilation, a condition that can indeed lead to swooning). I have never seen M for M performed, so my first question is, How is this passage treated in productions? If it is done as I have described, is there a term for this use of words? Does it qualify as "business", which I have assumed to be activities of the actor in ways not prescribed in the text, but allowed? Does it qualify as "subtext" which I would take to imply emotional undertones rather than physiological ones? I think the foregoing may have some bearing on the question as to whether the text is primarily a script to be performed or narrative literature that has its own value as an art form. I think that author has so chosen and arranged his words as to tickle the auditory, visual and associative areas of the readers brain to evoke images, tones and emotional responses at least as well as a novelist. If this is all well rendered material from 1st year lit. you will have trashed this by now, so there's no use apologizing. Sincerely Syd Kasten ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:53:52 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1087 Macbeth Whodunit? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1087. Tuesday, 28 October 1997. From: Stephen Boyd Fowler Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 16:02:42 -0400 (AST) Subject: Macbeth Whodunit? Dear SHAKSPEReans, I have been doing some general research regarding some questionable aspects of *Macbeth* and have stumbled across something interesting: in a book entitled *Macbeth with Related Readings* (apparently designed as a teaching aid for junior high and high school level instructors), there was a short story called "The Macbeth Murder Mystery" that deals with just that-Whodunit? Now, it is a common-and justified-assumption that Macbeth killed Duncan, but this story attempts to cast a shadow of doubt upon that which we feel is so obvious. The author, James Thurber, tries out a couple of other hypotheses concerning the identity of the murderer with different degrees of success. But the surprising thing is how each alternative gains a little plausibility when compared with the equally disturbing traditional line of argument. I won't try out his hypotheses here, but rather let anyone who is interested read it for themselves. The book: *Macbeth with Related Readings* is edited by Dom Saliani, Chris Ferguson and Tim Scott and is published by ITP, Albany (NY?), 1997. It is part of "The Global Shakespeare Series" and they have a web address at http://www.thomson.com for those interested. The article: "The Macbeth Murder Mystery" is written by James Thurber. (copyright 1970 by Rosemary Thurber) and is from *My World - and Welcome To It*, published by Harcourt Brace (no date here, but the original publication date is 1942). Who killed Duncan? Isn't it obvious? --Stephen Fowler ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:56:25 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1088 Q: Hamlet/Ophelia MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1088. Tuesday, 28 October 1997. From: Amy Turner Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 15:42:09 -0400 (AST) Subject: Hamlet In the grave scene in Hamlet, Hamlet and Laertes get into a messy little row in over Ophelia's corpse. Not only is Laertes attempting to physically protect his sister's virtue from the brooding Hamlet when carnal lust is no longer a viable danger, but it also seems as though he may be fighting over her love as well. It is rather telling that they are battling it out in the six foot hole in the ground which is undoubtedly a sexual metaphor. Hamlet exclaims: "Dost thou come her to whine, / To outface me with leaping in her grave?" (V.1.262-3). Why does Hamlet feel that his romantic love for Ophelia is threatened by her own brother?========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:56:17 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1089 Re: Macbeth Whodunit? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1089. Wednesday, 29 October 1997. [1] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 28 Oct 1997 13:02:29 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1087 Macbeth Whodunit? [2] From: James Marino Date: Tuesday, 28 Oct 1997 14:16:29 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1087 Macbeth Whodunit? [3] From: Michael Mullin Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 02:56:09 +1100 Subj: Macbeth Whodunit? [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 28 Oct 1997 13:02:29 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1087 Macbeth Whodunit? Who killed Duncan? I know who did. Lady Macbeth's father. Remember she thinks that Duncan looks like her father as he (i.e., apparently Duncan) is sleeping. Well, it really is her father. He's already done in Duncan, hears Lady coming, hides Duncan under the bed, and jumps into the bed himself. Probably Ross(e) has a part in the plot too, of course. Almost everyone else in the play is a dupe. Yours, Bill Godshalk [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Marino Date: Tuesday, 28 Oct 1997 14:16:29 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1087 Macbeth Whodunit? Thurber is wily, having, amongst other sly accomplishments, written a book about himself disguised as a memoir of Harold Ross. Richard Tobias in *The Art of James Thurber* writes: "The sketches in *My World and Welcome To It* frequently use for their arbitrary law fools who push the freedom of an easy permissive society to an absurd conclusion. An American lady in "The Macbeth Murder Mystery" reads *Macbeth* against all fact, as if it were a murder story." Tobias comments on parallels in the other stories in the collection and concludes "The freedom to think and act in error leads these characters astray until the noble folly of the comic hero in each story asserts itself in comic victory." (By the way, Tobias's phrase about fools pushing their freedom to error has a special echo that resounds in academic halls today.) Regards James [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Mullin Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 02:56:09 +1100 Subject: Macbeth Whodunit? Of course it was Lady Macbeth's father, she even says so, having spotted him in Duncan's bed. He killed Duncan, jumped into the bed when he heard her come in, and then spooked Macbeth with that eerie stuff about murdering sleep, then hung around as an "Old Man" to case the reaction. before heading back to England to pull his quackery with the King's Evil mumbo jumbo. Never willing to leave well enough along, he sent Lady M's nasty English stepsisters to dope up Macbeth at the banquet _ all because she'd been a teen-age mother who'd embarrassed the family by attempting infanticide (the baby lived and was named Edmund, but that's another play). MM ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:05:26 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1090 Qs: Iago; Puck; Student Journals MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1090. Wednesday, 29 October 1997. [1] From: Jennifer Joy Lowery Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 13:04:46 -0600 (CST) Subj: Q: Iago [2] From: Mathias Lehn Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 01:13:15 +0100 Subj: Puck [3] From: Michael Ullyot Date: Tuesday, 28 Oct 1997 17:58:08 -0500 Subj: Shakespeare Journals for Students [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jennifer Joy Lowery Date: Monday, 27 Oct 1997 13:04:46 -0600 (CST) Subject: Q: Iago I am currently doing research on the character "Iago" from Othello. I have heard that the character can be played with homosexual tendencies. I cannot see it. Can someone enlighten me with this perspective and/or provide me with links to critical reviews on this. Thank you much, Jennifer Lowery English Program Governors State University [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mathias Lehn Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 01:13:15 +0100 Subject: Puck I am working on the Puck character in operas composed after MND. Puck can be played by an actor or an actress, but many Elizabethan drawings really shows him as a man. What do you think of that ? Are fairies sexed ? Oberon and Titania ARE, but their attendants ? Is Puck a fairy-like character, or a human-like ? If you have any opinion on these points, or have something to add, I would be happy if you can send me a copy : Mathias LEHN, Paris (France), mathlehn@worldnet.net [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Ullyot Date: Tuesday, 28 Oct 1997 17:58:08 -0500 Subject: Shakespeare Journals for Students Is anyone aware of any Shakespeare academic journals that accept submissions exclusively from undergraduate or graduate students? Most institutions tend to have student-run journals, but I wonder if there are any with a more widespread circulation. Michael Ullyot McGill University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:08:32 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1091 Submission Invitation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1091. Wednesday, 29 October 1997. From: Malcolm Keithley Date: Tuesday, 28 Oct 1997 09:29:36 -0800 Subject: Submission Invitation The "Shakespeare's World" CD-ROM is nearing completion. Submissions of video and audio tape clips of performances by festivals, performers or theatre companies are now being sought. The CD-ROM contains a listing of major festivals and companies and this is an opportunity to showcase sample performances. Submission details are available by request. Malcolm Keithley CD Cinema, LLC 509-886-5139 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:14:43 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1092 Re: Hamlet/Ophelia MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1092. Wednesday, 29 October 1997. [1] From: Richard Bovard Date: Tuesday, 28 Oct 1997 10:37:28 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1088 Q: Hamlet/Ophelia [2] From: Stacy Mulder <00ssmulder@bsuvc.bsu.edu> Date: Tuesday, 28 Oct 1997 13:54:05 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1088 Q: Hamlet/Ophelia [3] From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 28 Oct 1997 16:54:52 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1088 Q: Hamlet/Ophelia [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Bovard Date: Tuesday, 28 Oct 1997 10:37:28 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1088 Q: Hamlet/Ophelia Is it a response based upon his love or his offense at all things apparent, all lies, all exaggerated styles? His focus might be "whine" and "outface"? Doesn't he go on to complain about prating and ranting? [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stacy Mulder <00ssmulder@bsuvc.bsu.edu> Date: Tuesday, 28 Oct 1997 13:54:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1088 Q: Hamlet/Ophelia Given the entire Oedipus/incestuous gamut through which Hamlet and his mother have been repeatedly thrust, why WOULDN'T Hamlet feel threatened by "romantic" love that Laertes feels (open to interpretation, as always) for Ophelia. To Hamlet, that would be the natural reaction. S. Mulder Ball State University [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 28 Oct 1997 16:54:52 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1088 Q: Hamlet/Ophelia It seems leaping in the grave is not the sort of thing brothers are supposed to do at funerals. Only the grief of a lover "bears such an emphasis." Anyway that's Hamlet's complaint: >...the bravery of his grief did put me >Into a tow'ring passion. (Others have found Laertes a little beyond brotherly--even, in some productions, downright incestuous.) In spite of "I loved you ever" Laertes and Hamlet are in competition (and thematic contrast) from the moment we first see them-in 1.2, where Laertes gets to go to France with everyone's blessing while Hamlet not only has to stay home but endures a long patronizing lecture to boot. Laertes sabotages Hamlet's chances with Ophelia (fodder for the incest interp) and later (like Fortinbras) provides a model for how sons ought to behave whose fathers have died. For Hamlet the refusal to be outgriefed at the grave might also be a kind of self-improvement after his encounter with the first player, when he lamented >What would he do >Had he the motive and the cue for passion >That I have? Why he would drown the stage with tears, >...Whiles I, a dull and muddy-mettled rascal, >...can say nothing. S. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:28:46 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1093 Mac.; Merchant; Urania; Running; Accents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1093. Wednesday, 29 October 1997. [1] From: Matthew J. Clark Date: Tuesday, 28 Oct 1997 11:46:07 -0400 (AST) Subj: Re: Macbeth / Children [2] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Tuesday, 28 Oct 1997 17:10:25 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1084 Re: Gay Merchant [3] From: Robert E. Bjork Date: Tuesday, 28 Oct 1997 12:02:17 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1081 Re: Mary Wroth's Urania [4] From: Abigail Quart Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 00:39:04 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1086 Enter Running [5] From: Rosalind King Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 11:43:25 GMT0BST Subj: Re: Accents [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew J. Clark Date: Tuesday, 28 Oct 1997 11:46:07 -0400 (AST) Subject: Re: Macbeth / Children I agree with the thread of comments about the child-centred theme in Macbeth. As seen in others of Shakespeare's plays, this theme of heredity and inheritance, and innocent children seems to be continued. I saw a version of Macbeth, perhaps one done by the BBC, and remember the scene with Lady Macduff and the Macduff children. They did seem to have grown up quite a bit in such a short time, and the focus was put on their innocence and goodness and lack of any of the conceit or bile so characteristic among the adults in the play. It is hard to believe that all of these pitiful people were once such innocent people. Is Shakespeare using these innocent children as a reminder that evn the most evil and ambitious man was once a trusting, loving child? OR is he simply using them to show the intense evil of some characters in the play? They are certainly an interesting theme, and much more could be said. I hope it will. Matthew J. Clark University of King's College, Halifax [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Tuesday, 28 Oct 1997 17:10:25 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1084 Re: Gay Merchant Concerning Troy Swartz's observation: > Antonio's melancholy and > eventual disgust for Portia is easily understandable-Antonio's upset > because he's going to lose a lover (as many people do). Antonio's disgust must be relatively short-lived. At the end of the play, Antonio, having earlier pledged his life to Shylock for Bassanio's loan, he now pledges his soul to Portia to guarantee Bassanio's fidelity to her. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert E. Bjork Date: Tuesday, 28 Oct 1997 12:02:17 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1081 Re: Mary Wroth's Urania Dear Colleagues: "Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies," which does publish Wroth's _Urania_ moved a year ago to the Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies under my direction. The most recent catalogue is on line at the website listed below (add "/MRTS"), and you may order books from Cornell University Press Services, Box 6525, Ithaca, NY 14851; fax 800 688-2877. Orders outside North America are handled by Plymbidge Distributors, Plymouth, UK. Vol. 2 of the Urania, by the way, is in preparation. With best wishes, Robert E. Bjork Director, ACMRS (Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies) ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY TEMPE AZ 85287-2301 602/965-5900 FAX 602/965-1681 ACMRS Home Page: http://www.asu.edu/clas/acmrs [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Abigail Quart Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 00:39:04 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1086 Enter Running Yeoww! Syd Kasten's information on breath sent me running to my favorite hotbed of innuendo and subtext, Measure II ii. From Lucio's "He's coming, I perceive't" to Angelo's "What's this? What's this?" the meter gets undependable, erratic. Angelo's lines become strangled and abrupt. His aside, "She speaks, and tis / Such sense that my sense breeds with it" scans perfectly. But when he speaks the end of the line aloud to Isabella, "Fare you well" something is wrong. It isn't iambic and it makes the line too long. Also, Angelo has now turned away from Isabella. We know because Shakespeare makes her request Angelo to turn back: "Gentle, my lord, turn back." and "Hark how I'll bribe you; good my lord, turn back." (Isabella doesn't seem to be having trouble with iambic pentameter.) Now, it's pretty obvious what sense is breeding. After Angelo hurries Isabella out of the room, he looks down and asks: "What's this? What's this? Is this her fault or mine? The tempter or the tempted, who sins most? Ha, not she. Nor doth she tempt; but it is I That, lying by the violet in the sun, Do as the carrion does, not as the flow'r, Corrupt with virtuous season..." The violet was the flower of lust from its association with Venus/Aphrodite. What carrion does in the sun is swell. But, not in contradiction but maybe further proof, I was checking lines for meter when I realized that in Angelo's "when prayers cross" prayers is the two syllable pray-ers unless you pronounce "hours" as a two-syllable word. Ang: (Aside) Amen: For I am that way going to temptation, Where prayers cross. Isa: At what hour tomorrow Shall I attend your lordship? A few lines earlier, in Isabella's "but with true prayers" prayers is one syllable. My slang dictionary says "cross" meant "copulate" in the 1700s for sure, and maybe earlier. "Where pray-ers cross" may have a whole other meaning than "cross purposes" which is its usual gloss. Can anybody give me more information on this? Usage and pronunciation of "prayer" and/or any early citing of "cross" as "copulate?" [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rosalind King Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 11:43:25 GMT0BST Subject: Re: Accents; To my mind the only thing that matters is that the accent should be authentic to the actor - there's nothing worse than one that travels round the world in the course of a single speech to end in some mid-Atlantic puddle. More important than any particular accent - and there's no reason why the production as a whole shouldn't contain a variety of accents provided they're each consistent with themselves - is pace, shape and clarity. It needs to be *interesting* to *listen* to. Best wishes Rosalind ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 08:39:34 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1094 Re: Student Journals MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1094. Thursday, 30 October 1997. [1] From: David Skeele Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 12:45:11 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1090 Q: Student Journals [2] From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, October 30, 1997 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1090 Q: Student Journals [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 12:45:11 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1090 Q: Student Journals >Is anyone aware of any Shakespeare academic journals that accept >submissions exclusively from undergraduate or graduate students? Most >institutions tend to have student-run journals, but I wonder if there >are any with a more widespread circulation. To Michael Ulyot: I'm blanking on the name of this journal, but it is published through the Ohio State University theatre Ph.D. program. It accepts work only from graduate students, but it is not specifically devoted to Shakespeare-any and all areas of theatre history and theory are acceptable. I don't think they are as interested in lit. crit., but I could be wrong about that. You can investigate by calling the department. David Skeele [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, October 30, 1997 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1090 Q: Student Journals For undergraduates at HBCU's, "The Morgan Journal of Undergraduate Research (MJUR) is a referred journal which publishes superior research papers written by undergraduate students at the nation's historically black colleges and universities." Dr. Linda M. Carter, Managing Editor The Morgan Journal of Undergraduate Research Morgan State University Baltimore, Maryland 21239 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 09:31:02 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1095 Re: Hamlet/Ophelia MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1095. Thursday, 30 October 1997. [1] From: Abigail Quart Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 08:58:01 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1092 Re: Hamlet/Ophelia [2] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 12:54:21 -0500 Subj: SHK 8.1092 Re: Hamlet/Ophelia [3] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 19:59:19 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1088 Q: Hamlet/Ophelia [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Abigail Quart Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 08:58:01 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1092 Re: Hamlet/Ophelia What makes Laertes jump into Ophelia's grave is not love but guilt. Ophelia did not die immediately after her father's murder. There was an interval long enough for all of Hamlet's England adventure. Where was Laertes? Rushing to his sister's side as soon as the news reached him? Well no. It takes time to gather an army. And don't forget he didn't plan to rely on simple force of arms either. He also stopped for a vial of poison. While he was turning his father's death into a career opportunity, Ophelia had no one. She loved her father's killer. If Laertes had an obligation to avenge his father, as Hamlet did, what was Ophelia's obligation? To hate where she loved? If you couldn't hate your father's murderer, and knew you must, wouldn't you rather be dead before you saw him again? Before you faced your brother? Laertes abandoned his sister when she needed his forgiveness. Hamlet abandoned her when she needed his love. Come to think of it, it was guilt that sent both those fellows over the edge of the grave. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 12:54:21 -0500 Subject: SHK 8.1092 Re: Hamlet/Ophelia When Hamlet leaps into Ophelia's grave he's emphasising once more a disconcerting relationship between funerals and marriages that runs throughout this play. At the level of a connection between death and sex, it also features in others (e.g. Antony's 'I will be a bridegroom in my death, and run into't /As to a lover's bed'.). However, such conjunctions are by no means limited to Shakespeare. That a place of extinction (a grave) should be capable of metaphorical linkage with a place of generation (a bed) tells us a lot about a wholesale reinvention of death that the culture at large had embarked upon. This and much more is brilliantly explored in Michael Neill's fascinating new book 'Issues of Death: Mortality and Identity in English Renaissance Tragedy' (OUP). T. Hawkes [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 19:59:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1088 Q: Hamlet/Ophelia Hope this response isn't too late-it has been my understanding that it's not so much being threatened by Laertes' love, as being appalled by the extremity of its expression. Hamlet comes to the graveyard to be alone with Horatio-it's my strong impression that, if it weren't for the funeral, he'd remain in hiding until it was time for him to go to the castle and take his revenge. What draws him out from his hiding place is the spectacle of Laertes putting on what he believes to be a ridiculously extreme show of affection-"what wouldst thou do for her?" and what follows, culminating in the image of great Mount Ossa reduced to a wart, indicates to me he thinks Laertes is being insincere. Andy White Arlington, VA ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 09:45:42 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1096 Assorted Macbeth Postings MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1096. Thursday, 30 October 1997. [1] From: Bruce Golden Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 10:31:45 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1093 Macbeth and Children [2] From: William P Williams Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 13:27:26 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1089 Re: Macbeth Whodunit? [3] From: Barrett Fisher Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 15:26:36 -0600 (CST) Subj: Macbeth Whodunit? [4] From: Joseph Tate Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 20:58:13 -0800 (PST) Subj: Macbeth, 4.1 [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Golden Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 10:31:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1093 Macbeth and Children I don't recall any post mentioning Bennet Simon, _Tragic Drama and the Family_, (Yale UP, 1988). Chapter 5 has an interesting take on the subject. -Bruce Golden [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: William P Williams Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 13:27:26 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1089 Re: Macbeth Whodunit? Are Michael Mullin and Bill Godshalk perhaps related? Do they look alike? I think we should be told. W. P. Williams [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barrett Fisher Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 15:26:36 -0600 (CST) Subject: Macbeth Whodunit? I like to use the Thurber piece in the context of literary theory; it nicely illustrates both the power of genre (to adopt Adena Rosmarin's phrase) and the ability of the reader to construct a text. If one thought it worth the time, one could also ask students to discuss ways in which the reading is "valid" according to standard criteria (e.g., is it coherent? inclusive of a range of textual date? is it plausible? is it well-supported?, etc.). Of course, one should also not take it too seriously, or one could become the very reader Thurber is satirizing! I sometimes use it as a companion piece to Laura Bohannan's "Shakespeare in the Bush" (re: a West African reading of "Hamlet"), which is an instructive exercise in the constitutive force of cultural presuppositions. Barrett Fisher Bethel College (MN) [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Tate Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 20:58:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Macbeth, 4.1 Dear SHAKSPEReans, As a favor to a colleague, I've been asked to post a question to the list. Are these lines a summary of *Macbeth*? Double, double, toil and trouble; Fire burn, and cauldron bubble. Let it be known that this was a question asked by a notoriously difficult high school teacher and I'm far from sure how I would answer the question myself! Many thanks, Joseph Tate Graduate Student Department of English University of Washington, Seattle ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 09:54:41 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1097 Re: Gay Iago; Gay Merchant MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1097. Thursday, 30 October 1997. [1] From: Mike Jensen Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 16:46:47 +0000 Subj: SHK 8.1090 Q: Iago [2] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 16:14:31 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1084 Re: Gay Merchant [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Jensen Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 16:46:47 +0000 Subject: SHK 8.1090 Q: Iago Jennifer Joy Lowery wondered about the attempts to read Iago as a homosexual. Olivier played him that way to Ralph Richardson's Othello at the New Theater in the 40s. (Facts about theater and decade are from my leaky memory. Double check me.) This production, not considered a success, was much commented upon. Reading up on it may bear fruit. Cheers, Mike Jensen [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 29 Oct 1997 16:14:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1084 Re: Gay Merchant Not to complicate the debate here, but I recall a recording of Merchant in which Jeremy Brett (RIP) did an astounding rendition of Bassanio, the Casket Scene in particular was deeply moving. Having heard him in the role, I have my doubts as to Bassanio's orientation. Bisexual, perhaps? If we accept the idea that the language between him and Antonio indicates that they are on intimate terms as well? I know he's in it at least at first for the money, but since their romance is supposed to be the centerpiece of the play, reducing the marriage to a financial proposition would undermine the comedy and render the play a tawdry piece not worth the watch. Just my two cents ... Andy White Arlington, VA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:34:01 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1098 Re: Assorted Macbeth Postings MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1098. Friday, 31 October 1997. [1] From: Richard Nathan Date: Thursday, 30 Oct 1997 15:48:18 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1096 Assorted Macbeth Postings [2] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Thursday, 30 Oct 1997 15:37:39 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1096 Assorted Macbeth Postings [3] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 30 Oct 1997 13:20:47 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1096 Assorted Macbeth Postings [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Nathan Date: Thursday, 30 Oct 1997 15:48:18 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1096 Assorted Macbeth Postings Joseph Tate asked, >Are these lines a summary of *Macbeth*? > > Double, double, toil and trouble; > Fire burn, and cauldron bubble. I can certainly see how someone might argue that the first line is a summary of Macbeth. The "double, double," could refer to things having a surface appearance but actually being something else entirely - i.e., looking like the innocent flower but being the serpent under it. And there is certainly a lot of toil and trouble in the play. However, I have no idea how someone could argue that the "Fire burn, and cauldron bubble" is a summary of the play. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Thursday, 30 Oct 1997 15:37:39 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1096 Assorted Macbeth Postings If they are, we can delete Macbeth from the corpus of Shakespeare's works - and good riddance. This is simplification gone mad. L. Swilley [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Thursday, 30 Oct 1997 13:20:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1096 Assorted Macbeth Postings Dr. Mullin, whom I have had the great pleasure of working with (as a humble Grad student, eager to learn about Motley's work with Sir John Gielgud) has a full growth of beard, and sports a rather natty beret-at least when he's biking around Illinois. Can't speak for our friend in Ohio. Cheers, Andy White Arlington, VA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:37:32 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1099 Re: Student Journals MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1099. Friday, 31 October 1997. [1] From: Rick Jones Date: Thursday, 30 Oct 1997 09:20:23 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1094 Re: Student Journals [2] From: Peggy O'Brien Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 00:10:51 -0500 Subj: Student Journals [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Thursday, 30 Oct 1997 09:20:23 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1094 Re: Student Journals The journal David Skeele is thinking of is, I suspect, Theatre Studies. Address: Theatre Research Institute, The Ohio State University, 1430 Lincoln Tower, 1800 Cannon Drive, Columbus, OH 43210-1230. Submissions are accepted only from graduate students enrolled in theatre programs [apparently not in English programs] which grant the Ph.D., although articles from MA and MFA candidates in those programs are also accepted. Rick Jones [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peggy O'Brien Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 00:10:51 -0500 Subject: Student Journals Shakespeare Magazine, published by Cambridge University Press and Georgetown University, entertains submissions from students-and its circulation is widespread. Submissions should be sent to SHAKESPEARE, 2200 Custer, Clinton OK 23601 or queries to editors@shakespearemag.com. This publication-which reaches students, faculty, actors, directors, and a range of people interested in Shakespeare-is of course interested in submissions from secondary, undergraduate, and graduate students. It flies in the face of the more traditional, segmented journals! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:43:36 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1090 Re: Gay Iago; Gay Merchant MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1090. Friday, 31 October 1997. [1] From: Troy A. Swartz Date: Thursday, 30 Oct 1997 14:48:20 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 8.1097 Re: Gay Iago; Gay Merchant [2] From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 30 Oct 1997 15:07:02 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1090 Q: Iago [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Troy A. Swartz Date: Thursday, 30 Oct 1997 14:48:20 -0500 Subject: RE: SHK 8.1097 Re: Gay Iago; Gay Merchant >Andrew Walker White wrote: > >I know he's [Bassanio] in it at least at first for the money, but since their >romance is >supposed to be the centerpiece of the play, reducing the marriage to a >financial proposition would undermine the comedy and render the play a >tawdry piece not worth the watch. Interestingly enough, I find the argument for a gay Antonio/Bassanio more convincing than a gay Iago. The reason for this is that "Merchant" is a comedy, and "Othello" a tragedy. Much of the comedy comes from the sexual 'confusion' in "Merchant". We see this in almost all his other comedies where there is some type of gender/sexuality role-switch. The question for a bisexual Bassanio would not "undermine" the comedy, but fortify it. Take for instance, the giving of the rings: one person to another person to another person. A married threesome of sorts. Look at the film "Threesome", for instance, where the comedy comes from the namesake. I do agree, however, that a 'financial proposition' would undermine the play to an extent, but a bisexual Bassanio (an indecisive one, for that matter) would ADD comedy. Troy Swartz [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 30 Oct 1997 15:07:02 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1090 Q: Iago Some temptations toward reading gay leanings in Iago: 1. His intimate scenes are all with men, usually "seducing" them somehow. 2. He has no "loving" scenes with his wife. 3. His jealousies, even when they involve his wife, fixate on men (unlike Othello, whose fixation is Desdemona, not Cassio). 4. He tells a story, apparently a fantasy of his own invention, in which Cassio, lying with him in bed, performs various sexual acts (I mean hard kissing, hand wringing, "laying his leg over my thigh," etc) upon him while sleeping. S. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:49:43 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1091 Re: Hamlet; Puck; Accents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1091. Friday, 31 October 1997. [1] From: Matthew Gretzinger Date: Thursday, 30 Oct 1997 11:42:59 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1088 Q: Hamlet/Ophelia/Laertes [2] From: Juul Muller-van Santen Date: Thursday, 30 Oct 1997 18:56:54 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1090 Q: Puck [3] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 30 Oct 1997 21:49:31 +0 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1073 Elizabethan Accents [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Gretzinger Date: Thursday, 30 Oct 1997 11:42:59 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1088 Q: Hamlet/Ophelia/Laertes >Why does Hamlet feel that his romantic love for Ophelia is threatened by >her own brother? Another answer to this question (as there is probably no end to conjecture): Hamlet may recognize in Laertes his familial bond of love w/Ophelia, something with which he cannot compete. In performances of _Hamlet_ I often see directors paint Laertes as a selfish [insert expletive], overly concerned with his sister's sex life, quick to thoughts of death & revenge, and in general a snotty, kiss-up-to-Daddy little man who has little or no business interfering in Hamlet's personal life. Wouldn't it be interesting if this were not so, if in fact he were very much more like the Hamlet we love: strong, full of potential, very concerned with his obligations to his father and his family. It is certainly recognized by some that the author was attempting to draw a parallel between them. What if the bond between L. and O. was very, very strong? if they loved each other very much? People who love each other often do treat one another poorly. All of Laertes' mistakes and terrible decisions then take on a painful quality, and his corruption via Claudian politics becomes tragic. True, he does turn "his father's death into a career opportunity," but it is possible to see that as an attempt to defend/restore his fallen House-to defend the rights of his dead father. I think in so many ways H. and L. are more alike than they are different. I think the lapse of their love ("I loved you ever") is a huge part of the tragedy. Anyway, to salvage a point: yes, the jumping in the grave is sexual competition, yes, 'the bravery of his grief' puts Hamlet into a 'towering passion,' and certainly Hamlet's guilt plays a part. But may it not also be a little jealousy of the authentic and rightfully brave grief of a man who loses his father and his sister and who isn't afraid to get torqued off about it? -Matthew [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juul Muller-van Santen Date: Thursday, 30 Oct 1997 18:56:54 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1090 Q: Puck Minor fairies (see Lang aven FANTASIA) look female, usually, but major one can be gendered, it seems. In the 1670/74 TEMPEST (Dryden & Davenant) Puck certainly appears to be male. Discussions about their status however often turns on mortality rather than sex. And Gilbert's parliamentary Strephon was "only a fairy from the waist down" (IOLANTHE)... Julia Muller Amsterdam [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 30 Oct 1997 21:49:31 +0 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1073 Elizabethan Accents Peter Hillyar-Russ writes > One respected English theatre > company "Northern Broadsides" tours, internationally, with north of > England actors who use their natural local accents - to very great > effect. This sounds very different from BBC English, but it has no > less claim to validity. Northern Broadsides get through Antony and Cleopatra in two and a half hours with almost a full text. Since this is a good hour less than many modern companies can manage, and is about as long as original performances seem to have been, they could have a strong claim to be using near-original pronunciation. Of course, we can argue about the evidence for length of original performances and, most interestingly, whether original performances cut text. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:56:50 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1102 Richard III vs. Iago MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1102. Friday, 31 October 1997. From: Brian P. Pezza Date: Thursday, 30 Oct 1997 22:02:25 -0500 Subject: Richard III vs. Iago "Who is more 'evil,' Richard III or Iago?" This is a question I asked my Shakespeare class (for which I am teaching assistant) today as we discussed _Richard III_. Their responses were limited to comparisons; no one would venture an opinion. How about the portrayed 'evilness' of Kenneth Branagh as Iago and Sir Ian McKellan as Richard? McKellan (RSC Iago ) v. McKellan???? I would love to hear any arguments. Brian Pezza Susquehanna University========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 08:56:01 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1103 Re: Assorted Macbeth Postings MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1103. Sunday, 2 November 1997. [1] From: David Evett Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 10:36:05 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1096 Assorted Macbeth Postings [2] From: Michael Best Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 10:29:54 -0800 Subj: Macbeth summarized [3] From: Narrelle Harris Date: Saturday, 01 Nov 1997 00:17:25 +0800 Subj: Simplified Macbeth [4] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 01 Nov 1997 19:04:57 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1098 Re: Assorted Macbeth Postings [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 10:36:05 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1096 Assorted Macbeth Postings >Are these lines a summary of *Macbeth*? > > Double, double, toil and trouble; > Fire burn, and cauldron bubble. Joseph Tate might tell his friend that they apply at least equally well to *The Comedy of Errors*. Dave Evett [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Best Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 10:29:54 -0800 Subject: Macbeth summarized Sure -- it's a summary of life, the universe, and everything. Have others noticed how many times we are prepared to announce that a given play is "about" this or that? Is it because we are teachers of students who want answers rather than questions that we are so willing to treat plays as though they could be solved? Thurber's lovely parable is a perfect example of the tendency taken to its extreme. By the way, Bill Godshalk and Michael Mullins are distantly related through a common ancestor who bore an uncanny resemblance to James Thurber. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Narrelle Harris Date: Saturday, 01 Nov 1997 00:17:25 +0800 Subject: Simplified Macbeth Richard Nathan gives a few insights into why the first line of: > Double, double, toil and trouble; > Fire burn, and cauldron bubble. would summarise Macbeth (as suggested by Joseph Tate) but says: >However, I >have no idea how someone could argue that the "Fire burn, and cauldron >bubble" is a summary of the play. Given the quote as a challenge, I immediately thought of causality in relation to the second line. The witches are the fire applied to Macbeth (or the whole Scottish court) to make that 'cauldron bubble'. Lady M must apply fire to Mac's cauldron as well, to make him act. She herself must call upon 'murdering ministers' to spur her into action. MacDuff is not moved to act openly until the murder of his family. Off-hand, it seems some people in this play have to be *provoked* into action, rather than *choosing* to act. I don't know how far you can take this idea - not very, I suspect, but it's one way of interpreting these lines as encapsulating Macbeth. I wouldn't really recommend it as more than an exercise, myself, but it might be fun to see what students could pull out of it as a discussion. Narrelle Harris [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 01 Nov 1997 19:04:57 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1098 Re: Assorted Macbeth Postings >Dr. Mullin has a full growth of beard, and sports a rather natty beret-at >least when he's biking . . . . That proves it! Godshalk and Mullin are the same person. Or, perhaps, they've both read Thurber. Yours, Bill Mullin, ur a Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 09:06:29 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1104 Re: Hamlet/Ophelia/Laertes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1104. Sunday, 2 November 1997. [1] From: Abigail Quart Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 10:12:12 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1091 Re: Hamlet [2] From: Elizabeth Dietz Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 11:25:46 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1095 Re: Hamlet/Ophelia [3] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 17:28:46 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1095 Re: Hamlet/Ophelia [4] From: Parviz Nourpanah Date: Saturday, 1 Nov 1997 12:54:04 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1088 Q: Hamlet/Ophelia [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Abigail Quart Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 10:12:12 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1091 Re: Hamlet Mathew Gretzinger has a good point about Hamlet's jealousy of people who can express emotion. The "what's he to Hecuba" is a sore point with Hamlet, and he keeps trying to bring himself up to the performance level of acted emotion. But I still see Laertes as a worm. He seemingly acts as Hamlet would like to see himself act, full of bravado and panache, without hesitation. Hamlet wouldn't kill Claudius in the act of prayer, but Laertes swears he'll kill Hamlet even in church. Sounds good. Bold. But when the jig is up, Laertes doesn't take the risk. He rats on Claudius and begs Hamlet's forgiveness. Hey, I thought the guy murdered your father! Hamlet is willing to face God with Claudius' blood on his hands, but Laertes wants to make sure his own are pristine for that difficult interview. Little wuss. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth Dietz Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 11:25:46 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1095 Re: Hamlet/Ophelia Another angle on the scuffle at Ophelia's grave: instead of love, or guilt, a look at the tradition of the blazon suggest competitive self-interest. Early modern lit has a long tradition of praising a beloved lady-and dismembering her in the process (see Nancy Vickers' "Diana Described," among others). The verbal conquest/dismemberment of the lady serves to (1) prove the poet's virtuosity (even as by cataloging her parts, he claims to immortalize her) and (2)rescue the poet from himself being shattered by the inadequacy of language to allow him to speak fully (which Vickers describes as a sort of Medusa-effect). In this scenario, Laertes and Hamlet triangulate their own aggressive competition through Ophelia, each claiming a defining relationship with her. It's somewhat witty, given the blazon's function, that both of them have arguably "put her in her grave" through their actions. Elizabeth Dietz elizabeth-dietz@uiowa edu [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 17:28:46 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1095 Re: Hamlet/Ophelia Terence Hawkes writes: >That a place of >extinction (a grave) should be capable of metaphorical linkage with a >place of generation (a bed) tells us a lot about a wholesale reinvention >of death that the culture at large had embarked upon. This and much more >is brilliantly explored in Michael Neill's fascinating new book 'Issues >of Death: Mortality and Identity in English Renaissance Tragedy' (OUP). Doesn't the womb/tomb connection go way back? If you don't want to see it in Homer (and why not?), surely it's present in Virgil's Aeneid. The cave into which Dido and Aeneas go, I think, is a teasingly ambiguous example. Aeneas goes in as a Trojan (you may laugh), and comes out, reborn, as a Carthaginian. At least for a little while. Yours, Bill Godshalk [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Parviz Nourpanah Date: Saturday, 1 Nov 1997 12:54:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1088 Q: Hamlet/Ophelia > Hamlet exclaims: "Dost thou come her to > whine, / To outface me with leaping in her grave?" (V.1.262-3). Why > does Hamlet feel that his romantic love for Ophelia is threatened by her > own brother? I have been a member of SHAKSPER for a couple of weeks now, although this is my first contribution to it. Here goes: What has struck me as quite unusual and surprising in these discussions on Shakespeare's plays is the tendency to read abnormal/unnatural (I am quite hesitant over the choice of words, I hope I am giving offense to nobody) forms of love, e.g. incestuous or homosexual, into what seem to me to be the most perfectly obvious and natural relationships between fathers and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends of the same gender, etc. As an Iranian who has spent only four years in the North of England studying literature (where the atmosphere was, if anything, pruder and more conservative than here in Iran), I even find some of the terminology that modern Westerners use (like homo-erotic (?) quite bewildering. For me, brought up in a very close family community, the reaction of Laertes to Hamlet, and vice versa, (or even the Duchess of Malfi and her brother) is not only perfectly obvious, but indeed, I do not see how it could be otherwise, (even without postulating the existence of a sexual relationship between them). Even today, in Iran, brothers and fathers get annoyed or upset if they find a girl of their family has been having some form of relationship; even perfectly legal, above-board courting is quite difficult for them to accept. This attitude is not only tolerated, but in fact lauded, and is distinguished from mere jealousy with a word with has more positive connotations. A brother *should* be jealous of his sister, it is a perfectly acceptable feeling. I think that maybe in the west (pardon the huge generalization), where family bonds are somewhat more relax, Laertes's attitude is rather difficult to accept, but maybe in Shakespeare's time, family ties were rather more similar to eastern countries today. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 09:15:24 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1105 Re: Gay Iago; Gay Merchant; Gay Mercutio MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1105. Sunday, 2 November 1997. [1] From: David Evett Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 10:47:46 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1097 Re: Gay Iago; Gay Merchant [2] From: Elizabeth Dietz Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 11:27:36 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1097 Re: Gay Iago; Gay Merchant [3] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 17:07:13 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1090 Re: Gay Iago; Gay Merchant [4] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Saturday, 1 Nov 1997 07:54:39 -0500 Subj: SHK 8.1090 Re: Gay Iago; Gay Merchant [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 10:47:46 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1097 Re: Gay Iago; Gay Merchant Andy White and others interested in a possible homoerotic element in the friendship of Antonio and Bassanio will be stimulated but not, I think, made certain by the treatment it gets in Jonathan Miller's made-for-TV film, with Laurence Olivier as Shylock, Joan Plowright as Portia, and Jeremy Brett (he whose reading Andy so much admires) as Bassanio; the film is now available on tape, and is well worth seeing on many other grounds. It is certainly the case that in this production Bassanio's approaches to Portia are markedly less passionate than hers to him, and that at the end of the play a not obviously ecstatic Bassanio has followed Portia into what she still calls her house and that a still-melancholy Antonio seems to have included himself out (along with Jessica) of the cozy new domestic group. Dave Evett [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth Dietz Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 11:27:36 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1097 Re: Gay Iago; Gay Merchant In "Players of Shakespeare," v.2, Roger Allam writes about acting a queer Mercutio (a choice echoed in Lehrman's Romeo and Juliet). Elizabeth Dietz [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 17:07:13 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1090 Re: Gay Iago; Gay Merchant Regarding gay Venice, has anyone mentioned Richard Levin's Love and Society in Shakespearean Comedy? Richard has two chapters on Merchant in which he gives a off-beat reading of both Shylock and Antonio. To my knowledge, the first critic to publish a gay reading of Merchant was Graham Midgley in 1960, but I don't recall seeing his name again. Is it a pseudonym? Yours, Bill Godshalk [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Saturday, 1 Nov 1997 07:54:39 -0500 Subject: SHK 8.1090 Re: Gay Iago; Gay Merchant Dear Scott Shepherd: How right you are. I too have noticed that a number of men in Shakespeare's plays 1. Speak 'poetically' 2. Kiss each other on the lips 3. Wear brightly coloured clothes 4. Cry One of my students tells me that most of the women are in fact men in drag. I think they should all be reported to the Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival. Terence Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 09:18:29 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1106 Identification MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1106. Sunday, 2 November 1997. From: Shaul Bassi Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 21:17:44 +0100 (MET) Subject: Identification I am interested in the subject of identification, with special reference to Shakespearean characters. How do we identify with literary characters, and with actors who embody Hamlet, Juliet, Macbeth, etc...? Norman Holland (*The Dynamics of Literary Response*, 1968) traces the history of identification in Shakespeare criticism. Patrice Pavis (*L'analyse du spectacle*, 1997), drawing on the work of Hans Robert Jauss, theorizes different form of spectators' identification with actors. Janet Adelman ("Iago's Alter Ego: Race as Projection in Othello", SQ, 48/2,1997) convincingly applies Melanie Klein's concept of projective identification to the relationship between Iago and Othello. I have found these three texts, with their very different perspectives, a good starting point. I now seek the help of SHAKESPEReans to expand this bibliography. I am above all interested in your perspective on identification. Sympathetically, Shaul Bassi (Venezia, Italy) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 09:28:01 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1107 Re: Journals; Pronunciation; Cuts; R3/Iago; Prayers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1107. Sunday, 2 November 1997. [1] From: Al Cacicedo Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 11:56:08 -0400 Subj: Re: Student Journals [2] From: Michael Best Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 10:29:54 -0800 Subj: Elizabethan Pronunciation [3] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 17:13:23 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1091 Cuts [4] From: Gary Kosinsky Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 19:22:41 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1102 Richard III vs. Iago [5] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 01 Nov 1997 12:54:43 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1093 Running [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Al Cacicedo Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 11:56:08 -0400 Subject: Re: Student Journals It is not a specifically Shakespearean journal, but the _Rectangle_, published by the English Honor Society, Sigma Tau Delta, publishes undergraduate work. Of course, one has to be a member of the organization and pay for the privilege-but that may be good training in joining the profession.-Al Cacicedo [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Best Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 10:29:54 -0800 Subject: Elizabethan Pronunciation What modern accent best approximates Shakespeare's? When I was preparing a CD ROM on Shakespeare's Life and Times, I worked with a colleague-both an actor and a medievalist-to reconstruct some passages as an original audience might have heard them, specifically to resurrect puns we no longer hear (reason/raisin; room/Rome, and so on). We worked with Ko:keritz, both the book and an LP on which he read (very carefully, very academically) passages in his reconstruction of various periods of English. The result on the CD ROM is an accent that sounds distinctly Welsh. But then again that might be because my colleague is Antony Jenkins, and you can guess where he came from originally. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 17:13:23 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1091 Cuts Gabriel Egan writes: >Of course, we can argue about the evidence for length of original >performances and, most interestingly, whether original performances cut >text. From the extant promptbooks (call them that if you wish), we have evidence (cross-hatching) that passages were cut for performance. Unfortunately, none of the extant promptbooks contain a known play by Shakespeare. Yours, Bill Godshalk [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gary Kosinsky Date: Friday, 31 Oct 1997 19:22:41 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1102 Richard III vs. Iago >"Who is more 'evil,' Richard III or Iago?" >This is a question I asked my Shakespeare class (for which I am teaching >assistant) today as we discussed _Richard III_. Their responses were >limited to comparisons; no one would venture an opinion. I was puzzling over a variation of this problem in another group in a different context: If Iago had been the middle son instead of George, Duke of Clarence, would Richard still have been able to manipulate his way to the throne? [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 01 Nov 1997 12:54:43 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1093 Running >But, not in contradiction but maybe further proof, I was checking lines >for meter when I realized that in Angelo's "when prayers cross" prayers >is the two syllable pray-ers unless you pronounce "hours" as a >two-syllable word. > >Ang: (Aside) Amen: > For I am that way going to temptation, > Where prayers cross. Is there a distinction between "prayers" (people who pray, two syllables) and "prayers" (the product of praying, one syllable)? If so, Angelo may thinking about devout people (prayers) copulating. Eh? It works in context. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 09:30:52 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1108 Burton and Branagh Hamlets MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1108. Sunday, 2 November 1997. From: Tanya Gough Date: Saturday, 1 Nov 1997 17:09:37 -0500 Subject: Richard Burton and Branagh Hamlets The Burton Hamlet is now available on video and cd. We should have copies of the video arriving next week, at a retail price of $115 Canadian (approx. $85 US). Columbia Pictures tells me that Branagh's Hamlet won't be released at the lower sell-through price until early March. Check out the information page on our website for the most up-to-date information. Also, Trevor Nunn's Twelfth Night will be available at $19.99 Canadian, as of Tuesday, November 4. And while I'm here, many thanks to all who have responded to our BBC petition to reduce prices for their Shakespeare titles. I believe we have enough names to attract some serious consideration at this point. I'll be taking the list down to NYC on November 16. Yours, Tanya Gough Poor Yorick CD & Video Emporium, Stratford, Ontario ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 08:56:45 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1109 Re: Identification MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1109. Monday, 3 November 1997. [1] From: Norm Holland Date: Sunday, 02 Nov 97 12:54:59 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.1106 Identification [2] From: Jarrett Walker Date: Sunday, 2 Nov 1997 13:20:36 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1106 Identification [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Sunday, 02 Nov 97 12:54:59 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.1106 Identification Sr. Bassi should take a look at Freud's comments on identification where he distinguishes three kinds. His most extended comments, I believe, are in _Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego_ and the _New Introductory Lectures_.-Best, Norm Holland [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jarrett Walker Date: Sunday, 2 Nov 1997 13:20:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1106 Identification On identification, I recommend Bruce Wilshire's ROLE PLAYING AND IDENTITY, which actually develops, within the language of British analytic philosophy, a concept of identification that looks much like Lacan's Cheers, Jarrett Walker ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 12:35:46 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1110 Re: Assorted Macbeth Postings MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1110. Monday, 3 November 1997. [1] From: Gregory C. Koch Date: Sunday, 2 Nov 1997 09:46:05 -0500 Subj: Re: Assorted Macbeth Postings [2] From: Norm Holland Date: Sunday, 02 Nov 97 12:44:26 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.1103 Re: Assorted Macbeth Postings [3] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Sunday, 2 Nov 1997 16:53:07 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1103 Re: Assorted Macbeth Postings [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gregory C. Koch Date: Sunday, 2 Nov 1997 09:46:05 -0500 Subject: Re: Assorted Macbeth Postings >Have others noticed how many times we are prepared to announce that a >given play is "about" this or that? Is it because we are teachers of Because your students are on to something? I find it more enlightening to deduce the reason Shakespeare wrote a play than to argue The Great Pile of scholarship. >Off-hand, it seems some people in this play have to be *provoked* into >action, rather than *choosing* to act. Unless you care to develop that, that sounds like... >Sure -- it's a summary of life, the universe, and everything. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Sunday, 02 Nov 97 12:44:26 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.1103 Re: Assorted Macbeth Postings Re: Macbeth summarized. The lines obviously cannot be a summary, but they can be used to aid in the aesthetic perception of the play. That is, part of our aesthetic appreciation of a work is to sense how the parts relate to the whole and vice versa-any work: play, painting, movie, whatever. Here, one can look at the key words and syntax as relating to various themes running through the play as a whole: the twos and threes, the stimulus (fire) to evil, toiling and troubling to gain a crown that should be given one, the "primal scene" elements (says this psychoanalytic critic), and so on. Long ago, I used to challenge my Shakespeare students to give me any line in the play, and I would show how it related to the whole and vice versa. And, in turn, I would ask them to do the same on the exam with 5-10 line passages. So, what else is new? --Best, Norm Holland [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Sunday, 2 Nov 1997 16:53:07 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1103 Re: Assorted Macbeth Postings Apropos of the current Macbeth/Thurber remarks, does anyone recall an article, published years ago, by Lysander Kemp (of happiest critical memory), in which he argued and "proved" something ridiculous about - I think - Hamlet? He was answered, attacked, inveighed against by several indignant scholars who took his remarks seriously. And although he wrote again and again telling everyone his article was written tongue-in-cheek, the protests continued. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 12:42:34 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1111 Re: Assorted Hamlet and Hamlet Query MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1111. Monday, 3 November 1997. [1] From: Abigail Quart Date: Sunday, 2 Nov 1997 10:49:14 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1104 Re: Womb/Tomb [2] From: Gregory C. Koch Date: Sunday, 2 Nov 1997 15:25:04 -0500 Subj: Re: Hamlet/Ophelia/Laertes [3] From: Joanne Walen Date: Sunday, 2 Nov 1997 19:03:16 -0500 (EST) Subj: Gertrude and Hamlet Query [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Abigail Quart Date: Sunday, 2 Nov 1997 10:49:14 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1104 Re: Womb/Tomb Virgil is late. The ancient Egyptians used the word 'mut' (hieroglphic: vulture) to mean both 'mother' and 'death.' [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gregory C. Koch Date: Sunday, 2 Nov 1997 15:25:04 -0500 Subject: Re: Hamlet/Ophelia/Laertes >Laertes swears he'll kill Hamlet even in church. Sounds good. Bold. >But His followers wanted him king. No one wants a wuss, king. He had threatened the king! - by god, isn't that brave enough for you? Today, a parallel to threatening the President. >relationship with her. It's somewhat witty, given the blazon's >function, that both of them have arguably "put her in her grave" >through their actions. Don't think so. Not her brother Laertes. >> does Hamlet feel that his romantic love for Ophelia is threatened by her >> own brother? Because he wants to slay Hamlet. Isn't that reason enough? >studying literature (where the atmosphere was, if anything, pruder and >more conservative than here in Iran), I even find some of the The right thing to say, I'm sure... >brother *should* be jealous of his sister, it is a perfectly >acceptable Especially when he has designs on the throne himself and knows her lover's favored, knows he skewered his father, knows he drove her to madness... Hamlet was going through a classic identity crisis, namely, he knew his chances for the throne were in the dogheap when he knew the "truth," that he had to fulfill its end - without choice. Something really to get down about. It was a difficult family situation, you must admit - for an Eastern or Western family. Remember when the king read Hamlet's letter to Laertes?... Laertes asks "Know you the hand?" The king replies, "'Tis Hamlet's character: - 'Naked,' - And in a postscript here, he says, 'alone.' Can you advise me?"... [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Walen Date: Sunday, 2 Nov 1997 19:03:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Gertrude and Hamlet Query I received the following from a college-student friend and put it out as a request to the list for resources. If any would care to reply, you can send to me off list, unless this is a topic of interest to all. Many thanks. Joanne Walen I'm writing you to see if you can help me. I am in a class in college called Theatre Appreciation, and I'm doing a research paper for my term project. My topic is the different interpretations of the relationship between Gertrude and Hamlet. My interest was piqued this summer at the RSC by Adrian Noble's production, because it was totally different than the production with Mel Gibson. I still haven't seen the new movie with Kenneth Branaugh, but I will as soon as possible. I was wondering if you could help me find resources so that my paper will be a success. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 12:53:43 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1112 Re: Mercutio; R3/Iago MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1112. Monday, 3 November 1997. [1] From: Tim Richards Date: Monday, 3 Nov 1997 14:36:46 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1107 Re: R3/Iago [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Richards In "Players of Shakespeare," v.2, Roger Allam writes about acting a >queer Mercutio (a choice echoed in Lehrman's Romeo and Juliet). People keep saying this, but if you watch Luhrmann's 'Romeo + Juliet' there's no clear evidence that Mercutio is gay. He dresses up as a woman for a raucous costume party and has a flamboyant manner... that's it. Tim Richards. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Parviz Nourpanah Date: Monday, 3 Nov 1997 14:36:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1107 Re: R3/Iago Without a doubt, Iago. Iago is purely malevolent, and enjoys destruction for the sake of it, with no possible gain to himself. Richard III is more human, I mean, you can sort of sympathise with him, or at least imagine yourself in his place. If I had been a crooked, ugly hunchback, overlooked all my life and slighted, also clever and ambitious, I could not guarantee that I would not act like R. III. But Iago?? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:54:20 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1113 Re: Graham Midgely; Mercutio MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1113. Tuesday, 4 November 1997. [1] From: Thomas H. Blackburn Date: Monday, 3 Nov 1997 09:50:50 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Graham Midgely [2] From: Richard A Burt Date: Monday, 03 Nov 1997 14:02:09 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1112 Re: Mercutio [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas H. Blackburn Date: Monday, 3 Nov 1997 09:50:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Graham Midgely Graham Midgley is by no means a pseudonym, but the name of a long-time tutor in English at St. Edmund Hall, Oxford. In 1969 or so when I had the privilege of taking over the Shakespeare tutorials while my own old Oxford tutor R. E. ALton was on leave and I was also on leave in Oxford Graham, graciously allowed me to use his rooms as my base. Cheers, Tom Blackburn [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A Burt Date: Monday, 03 Nov 1997 14:02:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1112 Re: Mercutio On gay Meructios, see Joseph Porter's book on Mercutio. He (and Peter Donaldson) discuss Zeffirelli's interpretation of Meructio as in his R and J film. The Luhrmann film clearly follows in this tradition notably by having Perineau play Mercutio as a gay teen who is just figuring out that he's gay but by developing what Donaldson calls the "bi-sexual gaze" in Zeffirelli's film. Apart from Mercutio's appearance in drag (in two different forms, by the way), at the Capulet party, he appears in full drag with a much larger fright wig-minus his guns and gun holster, which he checked at the door), Mercutio flirts with Tybalt at the beach before Romeo appears and clearly takes Tybalt's insult that he "consorts" with Romeo to have a sexual meaning. Best, Richard ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:57:53 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1114 Re: Assorted Macbeth Postings MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1114. Tuesday, 4 November 1997. From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 03 Nov 1997 13:00:59 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1110 Re: Assorted Macbeth Postings Louis C Swilley writes: >Apropos of the current Macbeth/Thurber remarks, does anyone recall an >article, published years ago, by Lysander Kemp (of happiest critical >memory), in which he argued and "proved" something ridiculous about - I >think - Hamlet? No, but I remember Douglas Bush's essay, I believe called, "Mrs. Bennett and the Dark Gods" in Sewannee Review. Bush used Classical mythology to explain Jane Austen-a spoof, and some scholars took him seriously. One of my friends opined that "Bush may have gone too far." Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 09:03:06 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1115 Re: R3/Iago MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1115. Tuesday, 4 November 1997. [1] From: James Marino Date: Monday, 03 Nov 1997 14:26:01 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1112 Re: R3/Iago [2] From: Peter T. Hadorn Date: Monday, 03 Nov 1997 18:24:41 -0600 Subj: RE: SHK 8.1102 Richard III vs. Iago [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Marino Date: Monday, 03 Nov 1997 14:26:01 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1112 Re: R3/Iago Greetings all: Richard III is >more human, I mean, you can sort of sympathise with him, or at least >imagine yourself in his place. If I had been a crooked, ugly hunchback, >overlooked all my life and slighted, also clever and ambitious, I could >not guarantee that I would not act like R. III. But Iago?? It seems that every year at least one of my students has presented a defense of Gloucester on the grounds of imagined abuse in his childhood because of his shape. I have used the observation to lead into a discussion of the ways that we can realize a role in the play. I do feel obliged to point out to the student that millions have suffered similar difference without justifying murder and melodrama, and that probably, on average, malice is no more extensive in that group than in the population as a whole. More interesting is the question of what Shakespeare would see as cause and effect in disfigured villains. Regards, James Marino [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter T. Hadorn Date: Monday, 03 Nov 1997 18:24:41 -0600 Subject: RE: SHK 8.1102 Richard III vs. Iago "Who is more 'evil,' Richard III or Iago?" At first blush I questioned the relevance of the question, but then I got wondering. Is there a relevant difference between a villain who threatens on a merely personal level (Iago, Caliban (?), Don John) and someone who threatens society's foundation (R3, Macbeth)? Or is all social villainy really personal and personal villainy social? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 12:44:13 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1116 Iago/R3; Bogus; PBS H5; Gay Merchant; Accents; Polanski MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1116. Wednesday, 5 November 1997. [1] From: Tanya Gough Date: Tuesday, 4 Nov 1997 10:01:15 -0500 Subj: Re: Iago vs Richard [2] From: David Evett Date: Tuesday, 4 Nov 1997 12:49:34 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1114 Re: Assorted Macbeth Postings [3] From: Don Weingust Date: Tuesday, 04 Nov 1997 22:36:52 -0800 Subj: Globe's Henry V on PBS [4] From: Werner Habicht Date: Wednesday, 5 Nov 1997 12:54:14 +0200 Subj: SKS 8.1070 Gay Merchant [5] From: Jonathan Hope Date: Wednesday, 5 Nov 1997 08:26:18 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1070 Eliz Accents [6] From: Jonathan Hope Date: Wednesday, 5 Nov 1997 09:07:49 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1082 Re: Macbeth / Children [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tanya Gough Date: Tuesday, 4 Nov 1997 10:01:15 -0500 Subject: Re: Iago vs Richard >Is there a relevant difference between a villain who >threatens on a merely personal level (Iago, Caliban (?), Don John) and >someone who threatens society's foundation (R3, Macbeth)? Peter Hadorn makes an interesting, but highly revelatory point, and I am fascinated by his use of the word "merely." To me the question lies in whether "evil" in these particular instances should be determined by the highest body count, or in the villain's ability to corrupt. Richard's followers seek their own personal gain, and their affiliation reveals an inherent immorality which validates their ultimate loss. Those who oppose Richard are killed, BUT they retain their innocence and faith - a point which, in Shakespeare's time would have at least guaranteed them a place in heaven. Iago, on the other hand, takes innocent people and forces an individual hell upon them. He forces good people to perform heinous deeds on his behalf by feeding them lies. And in Cassio's case, damages his reputation beyond repair (or, at least until the plot has run its course), which vindicates Iago's perceived attack on his own reputation when he is passed over as Othello's lieutenant. Vis-a-vis the question of Branagh vs. McKellan, I found Branagh's Iago was played with a straightforward determination, which did not veer from his ultimate goals of revenge. His manipulation is transparent, at least from the audience's perspective. I must admit, however, that Branagh presents one moment of true humanity when Othello finally buckles under his insinuations and embraces Iago as his only friend, and Branagh's eyes fill with tears and misery. On the other hand, McKellan's Richard has a much more difficult task - make himself attractive to people who find him both morally and physically repulsive. And he accomplishes this task admirably - I personally found him much more "likable" than Branagh's Iago. Thus I pose the following question to all you 3 am philosophers: which is worse, to corrupt people who trust you, or to force people who hate you to find you irresistible? Tanya Gough [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Tuesday, 4 Nov 1997 12:49:34 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1114 Re: Assorted Macbeth Postings Among persiflageous scholarship on Shakespeare there is a charming essay by Alfred Harbage (actually an address to the annual banquet the Shakespeare Association used to have) which gives the text of some hitherto unknown letters purportedly come into Harbage's hands. It's reprinted in his *Conceptions of Shakespeare", 1966. Dave Evett [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Weingust Date: Tuesday, 04 Nov 1997 22:36:52 -0800 Subject: Globe's Henry V on PBS Greetings all, I believe there was mention on this list that the program about the Shakespeare's Globe HV would be aired on November 5th. While that might be the case in some markets, the PBS affiliate in San Francisco, KQED, have scheduled the program for Thanksgiving night. Their program listing follows: GREAT PERFORMANCES #2302 HENRY V AT SHAKESPEARE'S GLOBE 11/27/97 8:00 PM CC ST length - 0:56:46 celebrates the rebirth of the English-speaking theater's most revered playhouse. Mark Rylance, acclaimed actor and the Globe's artistic director, portrays the young king who leads the English to victory over the French at Agincourt. Performed in the presence of Queen Elizabeth II at the theater's official June 12, 1997, opening, the Act IV excerpts are preceded by the play's famed prologue, recited by actress Zoe Wannamaker in tribute to her late [father]. Cheers, Don Weingust UC Berkeley weingust@uclink.berkeley.edu [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Werner Habicht Date: Wednesday, 5 Nov 1997 12:54:14 +0200 Subject: SKS 8.1070 Gay Merchant Has anyone seen that a gay relationship between A. and B. was balanced by a lesbian relationship between Portia and Nerissa? One production that achieved such an equilibrium was performed in Frankfurt in 1993. W.H. [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Hope Date: Wednesday, 5 Nov 1997 08:26:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1070 Eliz Accents >1) Is there any sort of consensus on how the British (well, London at >least) accent of Shakespeare's time sounded? Was it in fact close to >American Southern? (a) sort-of - see Charles Barber, 1997, *Early Modern English* (Edinburgh University Press) chapter on phonology, and the references there to Dobson's work. (b) no >2) What is your opinion on the issue of using British accents in >current productions of Shakespeare? Does it lend the text something that >an American accent would lack? My own feeling as a director is that it >couldn't matter less, and that the use of accents should be a >directorial choice based on the needs of the production, but you >wouldn't believe the arguments I've had over this. Of course it shouldn't matter, but people are people, and we all react irrationally to accents. Some audiences will have been trained to expect RP English in Shakespeare and nothing else - others will find that laughable. We can't recreate 'Shakespearean' accents, and even if we could, we can't recreate a sense in the audience of what they would have meant (in social terms) - so better to follow your own instinct. Good luck, Jonathan Hope Middlesex University [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Hope Date: Wednesday, 5 Nov 1997 09:07:49 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1082 Re: Macbeth / Children Polanski's Macbeth is indeed dedicated to Sharon Tate. The spookiness of the film, and in particular the children, is, however somewhat undercut for British audiences of a certain age by the casting of a very young Keith Chegwin as Banquo's son. Keith, of course went on to do his best work as a member of Noel Edmonds' Saturday Morning Swap Shop team, not to mention the classic 'Cheggers Plays Pop'. He then lived the celebrity lifestyle to the full, marrying his Swap Shop co-star Maggie Philbin, descending into drink problems, and making a triumphant recovery. No doubt videos of these performances are available from BBC enterprises for the Chegwin completists out there. Jonathan Hope Middlesex University ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:09:18 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1117 Evil Characters (Iago/R3) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1117. Thursday, 6 November 1997. [1] From: Steve Neville Date: Wednesday, 5 Nov 1997 15:21:57 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1116 Iago/R3 [2] From: Sylvia Schmidt Date: Wednesday, 05 Nov 1997 23:31:09 +0100 Subj: RIII and Iago [3] From: William Williams Date: Wednesday, 05 Nov 1997 20:21:05 -0600 Subj: Evil characters [4] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Wednesday, 5 Nov 1997 20:39:46 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1116 Iago/R3 [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Neville Date: Wednesday, 5 Nov 1997 15:21:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1116 Iago/R3 Tanya Gough writes: << Thus I pose the following question to all you 3 am philosophers: which is worse, to corrupt people who trust you, or to force people who hate you to find you irresistible? >> Both are equal fun, surely? Regards Steve Neville [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sylvia Schmidt Date: Wednesday, 05 Nov 1997 23:31:09 +0100 Subject: RIII and Iago I don't think the fact Iago lacks motivation for his deeds indicates a greater criminal energy than that of villains more easily understood from a modern point of view - it should be kept in mind that psychological motivation of the kind Shakespeare usually gives his villains is not a necessary feature of drama in his time. Rather, I see Iago's lack of "sufficient" motivation - a lack probably not felt as such by contemporary audiences - as being in itself part of his effectiveness as a villain. Since no one suspects him of evil intent, he is able to build his plots on the trust and gullibility of his victims. A Iago surrounded by less gullible people - let alone ones hatching malicious plans of their own - would not have been able to achieve his ends by the means he employs. Richard III. and Iago act under incomparable circumstances and on different levels (the difference of personal and social villainy has been mentioned), so a comparison between the two may not be valid, but I do find it interesting. My purely subjective opinion is that Iago would be pitifully transparent to Richard, who not only operates on a larger scale, but is infinitely more skilled in manipulation (I cannot picture Iago successfully convincing someone who hates him and regards him as the incarnation of evil that they are completely wrong and should, in fact, marry him). Sylvia Schmidt [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Williams Date: Wednesday, 05 Nov 1997 20:21:05 -0600 Subject: Evil characters I'm sorry if I missed it, but if we are looking for "really" evil characters in Shakespeare it is hard to beat Aaron in _Titus_ "If one good thing" he did, he does repent it. William Proctor Williams Northern Illinois University wwilliam@niu.edu [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Wednesday, 5 Nov 1997 20:39:46 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1116 Iago/R3 Tanya Gough asks: > which is worse, to corrupt people > who trust you, or to force people who hate you to find you irresistible? May I suggest a study of Dante's Inferno? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:13:46 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1118 Re: Gay Iago; Queer Mercutio MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1118. Thursday, 6 November 1997. [1] From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 5 Nov 1997 16:56:21 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1105 Re: Gay Iago [2] From: Elizabeth Dietz Date: Wednesday, 5 Nov 1997 10:41:13 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1112 Re: Mercutio; R3/Iago [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 5 Nov 1997 16:56:21 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1105 Re: Gay Iago Dear Terence Hawkes: Tell me about it. Actually, I hadn't noticed the bright clothing myself. But I think too much can be made of this sort of thing. Someone once showed me an old amphora depicting sodomies and fellationes and tried to convince me that homosexuality was actually practiced in ancient Athens and ought to enter into our understanding of Greek literature! Scott Shepherd [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth Dietz Date: Wednesday, 5 Nov 1997 10:41:13 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1112 Re: Mercutio; R3/Iago Re the "queer Mercutio" dialogue, and Tim Richards' assertion that Luhrman's Mercutio is not obviously gay-I agree. I used the word "queer" to distinguish Mercutio's self-presentation as neither overtly gay nor straight. This is what I understand queer to mean-a "queering" or disruption of an either-or sexuality. In other filmed versions (Zeffirelli's for instance) Mercutio's love for Romeo might be characterized as homosocial-a bonding between men achieved through markedly misogynistic language-a mode which strengthens the oppositions between men and women we understand as "heterosexuality." In the Lurhman however Mercutio seems to me to "queer" his scenes, and thus the gender relations of the play as a whole, by being unclassifiable. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:18:35 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1119 Re: Gertrude/Hamlet; Q: H5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1119. Thursday, 6 November 1997. [1] From: Hayley Grill Date: Wednesday, 5 Nov 1997 18:56:26 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 2 Nov 1997 to 3 Nov 1997 [2] From: Nely Keinanen Date: Thursday, 6 Nov 1997 12:43:37 +0200 Subj: Henry 5 [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hayley Grill Date: Wednesday, 5 Nov 1997 18:56:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHAKSPER Digest - 2 Nov 1997 to 3 Nov 1997 Try looking under feminism first - I did my undergraduate thesis, a large part of it anyway, on their relationship try anything by Lenze, Green, Neely. Hope that gives you a place to begin [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nely Keinanen Date: Thursday, 6 Nov 1997 12:43:37 +0200 Subject: Henry 5 Dear SHAKSPEReans: I've been teaching Henry 5, and one of my students asked whether it is significant that Henry pays Montjoy for delivering his message to the French king, "There's for thy labour, Montjoy" (3.6.157). Would it have been standard practice for an opposing king to pay the other's messenger, either in the early 15th or in the late 16th centuries? Is this gesture meant to highlight Henry's magnanimity? Might it also be meant as an ironic contrast to Henry's attempt to pay off Williams in 4.8, where Williams refuses Henry's money? Thanks in advance for your help. Nely Keinanen Department of English University of Helsinki ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 09:56:21 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1120 Re: Mercutio: Queer, Homosexual, Gay, Bisexual MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1120. Friday, 7 November 1997. [1] From: Christine Gilmore Date: Thursday, 06 Nov 1997 08:54:38 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1118 Re: Gay Iago; Queer Mercutio [2] From: Peter Hillyar-Russ Date: Friday, 7 Nov 1997 09:37:18 -0000 Subj: Mercutio and Allied Gay's [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Gilmore Date: Thursday, 06 Nov 1997 08:54:38 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1118 Re: Gay Iago; Queer Mercutio Elizabeth Dietz writes that: > Re the "queer Mercutio" dialogue, and Tim Richards' assertion that > Luhrman's Mercutio is not obviously gay-I agree. I used the word > "queer" to distinguish Mercutio's self-presentation as neither overtly > gay nor straight. This is what I understand queer to mean-a "queering" > or disruption of an either-or sexuality. In other filmed versions > (Zeffirelli's for instance) Mercutio's love for Romeo might be > characterized as homosocial-a bonding between men achieved through > markedly misogynistic language-a mode which strengthens the oppositions > between men and women we understand as "heterosexuality." In the > Lurhman however Mercutio seems to me to "queer" his scenes, and thus the > gender relations of the play as a whole, by being unclassifiable. I think some queering is being done here! Now we have a verb, "to queer," that means a "disruption of an either-or sexuality," meaning, to make it queer. This is queer-in the old sense! If we have this quite useful term of Eve Sedgewick (I think and someone can correct me if I'm wrong), i.e., "homosocial" why do we need a neologism that seems simply a bit of twisted lingo and perhaps over-determined thinking? Is this usage of "to queer" common, or am I out of the loop? Mercutio's gender is classifiable, is it not? Homosocial bonding exists (predominates) in Shakespearean drama. But does Baz Luhrman QUEER Mercutio by making him "not obviously gay," which means he does not highlight for us the character's sexual preference? This seems a contradiction in terms and also an example of late 20th century term envy! Some more work needs to be done on this idea-"queering" as not underscoring but ignoring sexual preference and through this non-display establishing a character as gay-to help me understand its vitality (and its ethic!). At the moment, I'm wondering how this idea of "queering" helps me to understand anything much about the play, the movie, the character. from the hinterlands, cg. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Hillyar-Russ Date: Friday, 7 Nov 1997 09:37:18 -0000 Subject: Mercutio and Allied Gay's I have often seen the suggestion that Mercutio is modeled on Kit Marlowe, which would certainly lend support to the thesis that he was one of "Those who love[d] boys and tobacco". But is it not anachronistic to use 19th ("homosexual") and 20th ("bisexual", "gay") century terminology to discuss attitudes to sexuality which may not have existed in any comparable form in the Elizabethan - Jacobean period. My reading of the sonnets is one of "ambivalence" - which might imply (in today's terms) some sort of universal bisexuality; but without today's insistence that we identify ourselves (at least to ourselves) as one thing or another before we start. We know that gay activities were practised, and that intense friendships between men were common. However the limitations placed on women's freedom to make friendships with men makes that society so totally different from ours, it is hard, if not impossible, to apply today's conceptualisation to the period. Peter Hillyar-Russ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:00:22 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1121 Re: R3/Iago MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1121. Friday, 7 November 1997. [1] From: Terence Martin Date: Thursday, 6 Nov 1997 11:53:08 -0600 (CST) Subj: Iago and Richard [2] From: Parviz Nourpanah Date: Friday, 7 Nov 1997 12:26:23 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1115 Re: R3/Iago [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Martin Date: Thursday, 6 Nov 1997 11:53:08 -0600 (CST) Subject: Iago and Richard One thing Richard has going for his villainy is power of the very real kind which surely gives him an edge. As for Iago being surrounded by gullible people, I think our view of them is colored by the way Iago is typically portrayed on stage. In every production I have seen over many years, he was clearly a character the average person would not trust farther than the cliché suggests he/she could throw him. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Parviz Nourpanah Date: Friday, 7 Nov 1997 12:26:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1115 Re: R3/Iago > It seems that every year at least one of my students has presented a > defense of Gloucester on the grounds of imagined abuse in his childhood > because of his shape. I have used the observation to lead into a > discussion of the ways that we can realize a role in the play. I do > feel obliged to point out to the student that millions have suffered > similar difference without justifying murder and melodrama, and that > probably, on average, malice is no more extensive in that group than in > the population as a whole. More interesting is the question of what > Shakespeare would see as cause and effect in disfigured villains. Of course. Point taken. Being crooked does not justify wickedness, but it explains it up to a point. I think there is a line between justification and explanation. What I mean is, you somehow RIII's actions are *explicable* in a way Iago's are not. If I were a crooked, cruel, wicked tyrant, I dare say I would act like RIII. Also he gets something out of it; it is not mindless, motiveless cruelty, pleasure in destruction for destruction's sake. Whereas Iago's is. Iago is the personification of pure evil, with no explanation needed or even possible. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:11:08 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1122 Re: H5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1122. Friday, 7 November 1997. From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 6 Nov 1997 15:28:44 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1119 Re: H5 Nely Keinanen asks about the cash gift given by Henry to Mountjoy in *H5*. Mountjoy is presumably a man of some intrinsic importance (we might judge as much from the elegance of his language), but he functions here as a king's servant carrying messages to another king, and servants at all levels were commonly rewarded for their work, such as carrying messages, after the fact (such tips and bonuses were called "vails", and it was often by saving these that servants were able to leave service, marry, and set up for themselves), just as an earl, nominally a king's servant, might be rewarded after the fact for service at Agincourt or someplace like it by a gift of land. As, indeed, later in the play, Henry rewards Williams for what is, in its awkward way, good service. There's a nice parallel in *Ant* 2.5, where Cleopatra gives gold, her hand to kiss, then more gold, to Antony's messenger as long as the good news comes, but threatens to pour the molten gold down his throat if the news is bad. He gets both rewards and curses, of course. At any rate, Henry's gift does display his generosity-but I think early modern spectators would not have seen it as exceptional, nor as in any way reflecting invidiously on anybody else. Availingly, Dave Evett========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:09:00 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1123 Re: Mercutio: Queer, Homosexual, Gay, Bisexual MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1123. Sunday, 9 November 1997. [1] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Friday, 7 Nov 1997 19:41:32 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1120 Re: Mercutio: Queer, Homosexual, Gay, Bisexual [2] From: David P. McKay Date: Sunday, 9 Nov 1997 10:02:19 -0500 (EST) Subj: Queer Mercutio [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Friday, 7 Nov 1997 19:41:32 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1120 Re: Mercutio: Queer, Homosexual, Gay, Bisexual > At the moment, I'm wondering how this idea of "queering" > helps me to understand anything much about the play, the movie, the > character. > > from the hinterlands, cg. Right on, Ms. Gilmore! The hinterlands have certainly not harmed your good judgment. Great plays are about *persons* who love or who should and don't love, persons who are making moral choices; they are only incidentally about men and women, gay or straight. L. Swilley [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David P. McKay Date: Sunday, 9 Nov 1997 10:02:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Queer Mercutio Christine Gilmore writes: >If we have this quite useful term of Eve Sedgewick (I think and someone can correct >me if I'm wrong), i.e., "homosocial" why do we need a neologism that seems simply >a bit of twisted lingo and perhaps over-determined thinking? Is this usage of "to >queer" common, or am I out of the loop? In the intro to Sedgwick says, ""Homosocial' is a word occasionally used in history and the social sciences, where it describes social bonds between persons of the same sex; it is a neologism, obviously formed by analogy with 'homosexual,' and just as obviously meant to be distinguished from 'homosexual' . . . it is applied to such activities as 'male bonding,' which may, as in our society, be characterized by intense homophobia, fear and hatred of homosexuality." She distinguishes this from "queer" in her essay "Queer and Now" where she says that "one of the things that 'queer' can refer to [is] the open mesh of possibilities, gaps, overlaps, dissonances and resonances, lapses and excesses of meaning when the constituent elements of anyone's gender, of anyone's sexuality aren't made (or can't be made) to signify monolithically" and that it "hinge[s} . . . on a person's undertaking particular, performative acts of experimental self-perception and filiation." "Homosocial" and "queer," then, do not describe the same thing, and I think we need to be careful not to start erasing terms. One thing that has bothered me from the inception of this thread of discussion is the idea that Mercutio in Luhrmann's film in "not obviously gay." To steal from Valerie Traub, not obvious to whom? I do not think it accidental that Lurhmann's Mercutio is African-American. When I look at Lurhmann's Mercutio I see an example of Marlon Riggs' "snap queen," most especially when he is in drag. And what exactly does "not obviously gay" mean? In much of the discussion, it seems to indicate that since he is "not obviously gay," he must be "straight." I do not agree with Gilmore that in Lurhmann's film the queering results in "ignoring sexual preference," nor does it result in a "non-display." Lurhmann's Mercutio seems to be depicted as a character who cannot seem to make his erotic attraction fit within the confines of acceptable behaviour in his society. I think Liz Dietz is correct to make a distinction between the Zeffirelli and Luhrmann Mercutios. Zeffirelli uses Mercutio to underscore the misogynistic, homosocial bonds of the society, although here too there does seem to be an excess of eroticism, but that is only my reading. It seems to me that Lurhmann is doing something much different. And I think these issues are being presented not only by the movies, but by the plays themselves, albeit without our contemporary terminology. One last point: a polite reminder about a related concept to "homosociality" and "queering", and that is heterocentricism. While I think we all agree that there is no comfortable fit between our terminology and analogous Eliz./Jacobean "realitites," why is it that we require homosexuality in modern productions to say something? The characters in Eliz/Jacobean drama are no more heterosexual (a term coined almost twenty years after the term homosexual) than they are homosexual. And yet I don't believe I've ever seen the question asked, except in queer theory, what it means to make any of these characters "straight." ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:14:43 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1124 Qs: Pop Culture; "Love" in A&C MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1124. Sunday, 9 November 1997. [1] From: Donald Rude Date: Saturday, 08 Nov 1997 14:03:00 -0600 Subj: Pop Culture [2] From: Parviz Nourpanah Date: Saturday, 8 Nov 1997 19:37:54 -0800 (PST) Subj: "Love" in A&C [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Rude Date: Saturday, 08 Nov 1997 14:03:00 -0600 Subject: Pop Culture I am trying to locate participants for a panel on Shakespeare on Film for a pop culture conference in Lubbock next spring. Would you please post this on your Shakespeare Conference. Interested person's may contact me for specific details by e-mail here at ttu. Thanks Donald W. Rude Director of Graduate Studies Department of English Texas Tech University Lubbock, TX 79409-3091 Office: 806-742-2508 Fax: 806-742-0989 [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Parviz Nourpanah Date: Saturday, 8 Nov 1997 19:37:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Love" in A&C Hello Everybody, I think this question is somewhat jaded and "flogging a dead horse", but we had a blazing discussion in class today, and I couldn't wait to rush home and send this off. To what extent do you think that Cleopatra is a wicked, seductive woman, who used her feminine wiles and charms, first on Caesar, then on Anthony, for her ignoble political, selfish ends, while Anthony is the image of reason, ensnared in Cleopatra's sensual meshes, destroyed by love? Do you think Cl. killed herself because she couldn't stand the idea of being made the laughing stock of Rome, as Octavius intended, or out of love for Ant.? So was her suicide noble or ignoble? More generally speaking, do you think the men in Sh.'s plays are portrayed as being able to love more deeply, truly, passionately, (like Orsino declares in _12th Night_), than women, while woman are portrayed as capable only, at best, of a superficial, whimsical love, or at worst, pure lust (like Gertrude or Goneril and Regan's love for Edmund). And is Cl. not Ant.'s equal in love? I suspect that I can guess what the "politically correct" answers to these questions are, please give your *real* opinions. Thank you for your attention, S. Nourpanah ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:19:25 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1125 Re: Iago MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1125. Sunday, 9 November 1997. [1] From: Ed Peschko Date: Friday, 7 Nov 1997 13:14:53 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1121 Re: R3/Iago [2] From: Shaula Evans Date: Saturday, 8 Nov 1997 23:56:21 -0800 (PST) Subj: Iago/R3 [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Peschko Date: Friday, 7 Nov 1997 13:14:53 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1121 Re: R3/Iago > One thing Richard has going for his villainy is power of the very real > kind which surely gives him an edge. As for Iago being surrounded by > gullible people, I think our view of them is colored by the way Iago is > typically portrayed on stage. In every production I have seen over many > years, he was clearly a character the average person would not trust > farther than the cliché suggests he/she could throw him. That's a real pity, by the way - if I were playing the part of Iago, I'd play him with a bit of coolness; much like a political advisor or Civil Servant. I would feign sympathy for Othello, and make sure that he knew that I felt 'deeply sorry' about his loss and the betrayal of his wife. Has Iago been played this way in any production people have seen? Ed [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shaula Evans Date: Saturday, 8 Nov 1997 23:56:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Iago/R3 Tanya Gough writes: << Thus I pose the following question to all you 3 am philosophers: which is worse, to corrupt people who trust you, or to force people who hate you to find you irresistible? >> Doesn't this hypothetical dilemma require a context? I mean, if not, then every political, retail worker, and graduate of a Dale Carnegie course is evil according to the second half of your question... Seriously, though, my acontextual answer would have to be that betraying a trust is absolutely evil, while exercising charisma may or may not be evil, depending on the intention and outcome. Shaula ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:29:57 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1126 Re: Tipping; Doubling; Running; Accenting; Presenting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1126. Sunday, 9 November 1997. [1] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 07 Nov 1997 15:25:45 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1122 Re: H5 and tipping [2] From: John Velz Date: Sunday, 9 Nov 1997 01:08:52 -0600 (CST) Subj: DREAM in Baltimore [3] From: Jon Velz Date: Sunday, 9 Nov 1997 01:26:10 -0600 (CST) Subj: Enter running [4] From: John Velz Date: Sunday, 9 Nov 1997 01:47:04 -0600 (CST) Subj: Northcountry locutions [5] From: Shaula Evans Date: Sunday, 9 Nov 1997 00:29:36 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: Hamlet/Ophelia [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 07 Nov 1997 15:25:45 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1122 Re: H5 and tipping David Evett writes: >At any rate, >Henry's gift does display his generosity-but I think early modern >spectators would not have seen it as exceptional, nor as in any way >reflecting invidiously on anybody else. I believe we should think in terms of "service." If the U.S. has a service economy, Renaissance England had one in spades. And those served tipped those who did the serving. Duncan, e.g., tips Macbeth's staff. Many of us still follow this custom and tip those who render us good service. Yours, Bill Godshalk [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Sunday, 9 Nov 1997 01:08:52 -0600 (CST) Subject: DREAM in Baltimore A footnote to Jim Lusardi's ref to the doubling of Theseus/Oberon, Hippolyta/Titania in Peter Brook production of MND. In order to bring off this coup, Brook had to rearrange scenes in the fourth act to cover the costume change for Oberon and Titania who enter, as the text stands, as Theseus and Hippolyta a few seconds after they exit as O. & Titania. So we can guess that Sh. did not intend the doubling. But that is no objection. Sh. had never heard of Freud either, and yet Brook brilliantly made Oberon & Titania work out in dreams the hostility between Theseus and Hippolyta (which, notice, is absent in Act V). Doubling should score points, not just conserve on casting costs. Sh. makes it tell in JC where the murder of Cinna the Poet covers the costume change for bloodied Caesar who comes out in a clean toga as Octavius in Act 4 scene 1. My own fantasy is to direct a Measure for Measure that doubles the roles of Angelo and his alter ego Claudio. I dreamed once I cast identical twins in those roles. Note that Angelo and Claudio are on each other's minds a lot but never meet until Act V where Claudio enters as "yon muffled fellow". Same thing happens in WT, where in nineteenth c. actress(es?) doubled the roles of Hermione and Perdita, who has no lines in Act V where she appears for first time with her mother, Hermione. Just put a reasonable look alike into her costume and send her out on stage to participate in the statue scene. Cheers, John Velz [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jon Velz Date: Sunday, 9 Nov 1997 01:26:10 -0600 (CST) Subject: Enter running Syd Kasten's suggested staging for Isabella's entrance in MM 4.1 is interesting, but we must remember that she is a would-be nun to whom eternity is more real than time. Would she run to Mariana's house when she knows her only by report? Would she use the latinate "circummured" for walled 'round if she were breathless? And speaking of Mariana's house, Kasten has taken the passage on Mariana in 3.1 to mean that she is at St. Luke's church door. Not so. She is at the moated grange (ditched farmhouse) that is in St. Luke's parish; she and Isabella and the Friar confer in her garden, where Mariana has heard the boy sing the melancholy love song. Cheers John W. Velz [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Sunday, 9 Nov 1997 01:47:04 -0600 (CST) Subject: Northcountry locutions To Andrew Walker White's interest in a Northern dialect for Sh. Joseph Crosby suggested that the "rooky wood" in *Macbeth* should be the *roaky wood*. Roke or roak is smoke in northern dialect; the allusion would be to the swirling fog (cf "fog and filthy air" at beginning of the play) in a thicket of trees at sunset. Crosby was born and raised in what we now call Cumbria in the Eden River Valley south of Penrith and north of Appleby. This is near the Scottish border and he occasionally suggests Sh. readings based on Scots dialect. See J. W. Velz and Frances N. Teague, eds. *One Touch of Shakespeare: Letters of Joseph Crosby to Joseph Parker Norris 1875-1878* Folger Sh. Lib. and Associated Univ. Presses, 1986. esp index. Cheers John Velz [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shaula Evans Date: Sunday, 9 Nov 1997 00:29:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Hamlet/Ophelia >What has struck me as quite unusual and surprising in these discussions >on Shakespeare's plays is the tendency to read abnormal/unnatural (I am >quite hesitant over the choice of words, I hope I am giving offense to >nobody) forms of love, e.g. incestuous or homosexual, into what seem to >me to be the most perfectly obvious and natural relationships between >fathers and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends of the same gender, >etc. (long snip) > I think that maybe in the west (pardon the huge >generalization), where family bonds are somewhat more relax, Laertes's >attitude is rather difficult to accept, but maybe in Shakespeare's time, >family ties were rather more similar to eastern countries today. I suspect that from an academic point of view, you might be right. However, speaking as an actor/director, one of the challenges of presenting Shakespeare on stage is to take plays written in a particular society/culture/time period, and make them relevant and interesting to a modern audience. So, if I am part of a Shakespeare play in Canada, relying primarily on strong family bonds to explain the motivations of characters probably would not create a strong production for a Canadian audience-whereas it sounds from your post like this might be a natural and obvious approach for a production in Iran. Shaula ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:52:38 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1127 Re: Iago; Cleopatra MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1127. Monday, 10 November 1997. [1] From: Melissa D. Aaron Date: Sunday, 9 Nov 1997 14:37:17 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1125 Re: Iago [2] From: Tanya Gough Date: Sunday, 9 Nov 1997 15:37:57 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1125 Re: Iago [3] From: Chris Gordon Date: Sunday, 9 Nov 97 19:56:51 -0600 Subj: SHK 8.1124 & 8.1125 Iago/Cleopatra [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa D. Aaron Date: Sunday, 9 Nov 1997 14:37:17 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1125 Re: Iago >> One thing Richard has going for his villainy is power of the very real >> kind which surely gives him an edge. As for Iago being surrounded by >> gullible people, I think our view of them is colored by the way Iago is >> typically portrayed on stage. In every production I have seen over many >> years, he was clearly a character the average person would not trust >> farther than the cliché suggests he/she could throw him. > >That's a real pity, by the way - if I were playing the part of Iago, I'd >play him with a bit of coolness; much like a political advisor or Civil >Servant. I would feign sympathy for Othello, and make sure that he knew >that I felt 'deeply sorry' about his loss and the betrayal of his wife. > >Has Iago been played this way in any production people have seen? Stanislavsky in his notebooks on Othello, wanted to cast a big, somewhat burly and hard-figured man, a classic "bluff soldier," as Iago-thereby truly making him seem incapable of deceit, an "honest Iago." I've never seen this either, but it seems worthy of a trial. Melissa Aaron [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tanya Gough Date: Sunday, 9 Nov 1997 15:37:57 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1125 Re: Iago Re: my question about corruption vs. persuasion, Shaula Evans writes: > Doesn't this hypothetical dilemma require a context? I mean, if not, > then every political, retail worker, and graduate of a Dale Carnegie > course is evil according to the second half of your question... Actually, I had hoped the answer (if there is one) would be informed by the question at hand, that of Iago's particular brand of evil versus that of Richard 3. Also, Richard does more that "exercise charisma" - he threatens, he cajoles, he lies, and he kills. Surely that puts him into a different class of evil-doers than us poor, struggling retailers (I hope to goodness she didn't mean to include me with the evil "retail workers" on her list! ). Wait a minute, perhaps you'd better not answer that.....! Tanya Gough [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Gordon Date: Sunday, 9 Nov 97 19:56:51 -0600 Subject: SHK 8.1124 & 8.1125 Iago/Cleopatra I thought that Kenneth Branagh's Iago in the recent film version worked splendidly; he clearly held Othello's confidence throughout his manipulations, and he appeared to anyone with whom he interacted as "honest." This is in contrast to almost all other productions I've seen, in which-as the earlier post noted-the Iago character tended to be remarkably sleazy and I inevitably wondered why anyone would refer to him as honest. As to what drives Cleopatra throughout the play, and finally to suicide: I think she is interested in maintaining control of her kingdom in the face of the almost overwhelming power that Rome represents. She elects to kill herself rather than go as a captive to Rome, but she is also in love with Antony and genuinely anticipates reunion with him. Nor do I consider Gertrude a character driven by lust; if her relationship with Claudius were that simple, would she feel the grief so intensely when Hamlet confronts her with his knowledge of what Claudius has done? The question of Gertrude's involvement with Claudius-including whether or not anything was going on between them before King Hamlet's death-is one that continues to intrigue audiences, students, and scholars. Chris Gordon ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:58:49 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1128 Re: Mercutio MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1128. Monday, 10 November 1997. [1] From: Steven Marx Date: Sunday, 09 Nov 1997 12:06:15 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1123 Re: Mercutio: Queer, Homosexual, Gay, Bisexual [2] From: Christine Gilmore Date: Sunday, 09 Nov 1997 15:23:49 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1123 Re: Mercutio: Queer, Homosexual, Gay, Bisexual [3] From: Tim Richards Date: Monday, 10 Nov 1997 21:05:53 +0800 Subj: Gay Mercutio [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven Marx Date: Sunday, 09 Nov 1997 12:06:15 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1123 Re: Mercutio: Queer, Homosexual, Gay, Bisexual In _Shakespearean Film/Shakespearean Directors_, Peter Donaldson has an excellent chapter on issues of gender and sex in Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Gilmore Date: Sunday, 09 Nov 1997 15:23:49 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1123 Re: Mercutio: Queer, Homosexual, Gay, Bisexual David P. McKay, thank you for your quotation of material from Sedgewick but you credit me with observations of the Luhrman's film that I did not make. You say you "disagree with Gilmore that in Luhrman's..." This is not good argumentation. I am simply trying to understand what Dietz is saying; I would not characterize Luhrman's film as doing any of the things Dietz suggests. Please direct your response to what I said. I do not agree with Dietz's comments; yet my QUESTION is whether her definition and use of this expression, "to queer," is useful and valid. Thank, cg. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Richards Date: Monday, 10 Nov 1997 21:05:53 +0800 Subject: Gay Mercutio David P. McKay wrote: >One thing that >has bothered me from the inception of this thread of discussion is the >idea that Mercutio in Luhrmann's film in "not obviously gay." To steal >from Valerie Traub, not obvious to whom? When I commented on this, it was just through a feeling that gay clichés were being invoked by labeling Luhrmann's Mercutio as gay... as if all gays are flamboyant cross-dressers. He might be gay but I don't think there's any compelling evidence, and reviewers were quick to pigeon-hole him according to their own stereotypes. Certainly there's nothing against portraying the character as gay - it's a valid interpretation. Tim Richards ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:02:20 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1129 Re: Doubling MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1129. Monday, 10 November 1997. From: Stephen Orgel Date: Sunday, 9 Nov 1997 11:40:41 -0700 Subject: Hermione and Perdita and Doubling John Velz: Mary Anderson was the first actress to double Hermione and Perdita, in 1887; reviewers on the whole found it unconvincing. It has occasionally been done since, notably by Judi Dench in Trevor Nunn's 1969 Stratford production, but it didn't work for me at all: all my attention was concentrated on how Nunn was going to bring it off. Not the least of the problems, John, is that Perdita certainly DOES have lines in the statue scene: these were cut in Mary Anderson's script-restoring the mother meant silencing the daughter. I can't recall what Nunn did with the lines, which is probably relevant-as is the fact that John doesn't remember that they exist. I've got a little discussion of the issues involved in this particular bit of doubling in my introduction to the Oxford Winter's Tale, pages 74ff, with photos of Anderson in the two roles. As for the doubling of Theseus/Hippolyta/Oberon/Titania, the most striking version of this I've ever seen was in Danny Scheie's marvelous production at Shakespeare Santa Cruz in 1991, in which the doubling was chiastic: Titania became a ravishing, Garboesque Oberon, Theseus-a very handsome black actor with a military bearing-became Titania as a ballerina in a white tutu and blond wig. And the Indian boy, who was about 20 and mostly naked, was very much in evidence. It was a heap more transgressive than Peter Brook, I can tell you! Stephen Orgel ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:06:58 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1130 Seduction of Lady Anne MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1130. Monday, 10 November 1997. From: Richard Nathan Date: Sunday, 9 Nov 1997 19:38:21 +0000 Subject: Seduction of Lady Anne in RICHARD III I recently attended a performance of RICHARD III, and it struck me that I've seen this play quite a number of times, and Lady Anne has always been played by actresses who were attractive. Has anyone ever seen this role played by an actress who was plain, or even homely? It might make her seduction by Richard more believably - and even more cruel. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:15:52 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1131 Thomas More Conference MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1131. Monday, 10 November 1997. From: J&M Kehoe Date: Saturday, 08 Nov 1997 18:23:52 -0500 Subject: Thomas More Conference I wonder if you are aware of the forthcoming International Thomas More Conference at Maynooth College, Ireland. If you know anyone who might be interested in the conference I would be grateful if you would pass this information on. Please note that papers are still being considered for acceptance. One page abstracts should be faxed to the conference organiser below. Yours sincerely, John Flood, MA Trinity College Department of English Dublin 2 Maynooth College Ireland Co Kildare *********************** INTERNATIONAL THOMAS MORE CONFERENCE, ST PATRICK'S COLLEGE, MAYNOOTH, CO KILDARE, IRELAND. 9-16 August, 1998 "THOMAS MORE IN HIS TIME: RENAISSANCE HUMANISM & RENAISSANCE LAW" For information/booking contact the Conference Organiser - Rev. Prof. Thomas Finan, St Patrick's College, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland. Tel. +353 1 6285222. Fax +353 1 6289063. E-mail: floodj@tcd.ie PARTIAL PROGRAMME: --The Values of Renaissance Humanism Brigid M. Boardman, Bath, England; 'Christopher Urswick and the More Humanist Circle' Stephen M. Foley, Brown University; 'Thomas More and the Agency of the Letter' Wm. Gentrup, Arizona Centre for Medieval & Renaissance Studies; 'Pacifism & Counselorship: Erasmus on the Political Uses of Classical Friendship Ideas' Gerhard Helmstaeder, Goethe University; 'Classical Medicine & the New Learning' Lee Cullen Khanna, Montclair State University; 'Early Tudor Women Translators' Peter Milward, S.J., Renaissance Institute of Japan; 'Plato's Academy in Tudor England' --Completing the Picture: Ireland in the Renaissance Vincent P. Carey, State University of New York; 'Richard Stanihurst, Humanist Education and the Fitzgeralds of Kildare' Colm Lennon, National University of Ireland at Maynooth; 'Humanist Historians of Ireland in the Tudor Age' Nollaig O'Muraile, Queens University Belfast; 'Earls of Kiladre: Learning & Literature' Katherine Walsh, Universitat Innsbruck; 'Modern Scholarship on the Renaissance in Ireland' --Humanism & Theology Bryan Byron, Gladesville, Australia; 'Thomas More and the Principle of Solidarity: Spirit & Form in the Ideal Community' Wm Rockett, Uni. of Oregon; 'Humanism and Sola Scriptura in 'Responsia ad Lutherum' and 'A Dialogue Concerning Heresies' --Humanism & Law Scott D. Evans, Arizona State Uni.; 'Samuel Johnson, 'Utopia' and the Humanist Understanding of Law Albert J. Geritz, Fort Hays State Uni.; 'John Rastell as Lawyer and Printer/Publisher' Archibald M. Young, University of Western Ontario; 'Thomas More's Critical Year: Law and Religion in 1533 --'Utopia' and 'The History of King Richard III' Robert Coogan, University of Maryland; 'The 1965 "Utopia" in 1998: The Relevance of Edward Surtz' Miguel Angel Delgado, Mexico City; '"Utopia" in Mexico: Vasco de Quiroga's Pueblo-Hospitals' Arthur Kincaid, Collegium Humaniorum Estoniense; 'Ordering Society in "Utopia", "King Lear" & "The Tempest" Francesca Loverci, Universita degli Studi 'La Sapienza'; 'Resistance to Tyranny: "Richard III" and the Right to Silence. Richard Maurius, Harvard Uni.; '"Utopia" and Shakespeare's "Henriad" Howard Norland, University of Nebraska; 'More's Re-creation of History in his "Richard III"' --'The Year of the French' Charles Bene, Uni. of Grenoble; 'Elizabethan Recusant Exiles and French Editors' Brenda M. Hosington, Uni. de Montreal; 'Gabriel Chappuys' "Republique d'Utopie": Translation as an instrument of ideology' Clare M. Murphy, Editor, 'Moreana'; 'Thomas More & France: History, Texts, Significance' --Thomas More & Ireland Tadhg O'Dushlaine, National University of Ireland at Maynooth; 'Gaelic Recusants and the English "Ars Moriendi": More's "The Last Things" as a possible source for Geoffrey Keating's "Three Shafts of Death" Elizabeth McCutcheon, University of Hawai; 'Mary Barber & More: Resituating Humanism in Early 18th Century Ireland' Thomas M. Finan, St Patrick's College, Maynooth; '"Memento Mori": Which Tree and which Berries?' --Nachleben: The Legacy of Renaissance Humanism Paul Akio Sawada, Tokyo Junshin Women's College; 'More & the Writings of Thomas Nipperdey (1927-1992)' Lynn Summer, Georgia State Uni.; 'More in the Tower and Viktor Frankl in Auschwitz' ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:24:29 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1132 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1132. Tuesday, 11 November 1997. [1] From: Peter T. Hadorn Date: Monday, 10 Nov 1997 10:31:40 -0600 Subj: RE: SHK 8.1130 Seduction of Lady Anne [2] From: Cindy Carter Date: Monday, 10 Nov 1997 15:22:07 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1130 Seduction of Lady Anne [3] From: Matthew Gretzinger Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 11:11:48 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1130 Seduction of Lady Anne [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter T. Hadorn Date: Monday, 10 Nov 1997 10:31:40 -0600 Subject: RE: SHK 8.1130 Seduction of Lady Anne I can only imagine the sort of responses your note will get, but I was impressed with the way the new *R3* with Ian McKellen handled it. The film depicted Anne as being weak-willed, in one scene actually shooting up. I found this solution to the "seduction scene" convincing. Anne was played by Kristin Scott Thomas of *English Patient* fame. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cindy Carter Date: Monday, 10 Nov 1997 15:22:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1130 Seduction of Lady Anne "I recently attended a performance of RICHARD III, and it struck me that I've seen this play quite a number of times, and Lady Anne has always been played by actresses who were attractive. Has anyone ever seen this role played by an actress who was plain, or even homely? It might make her seduction by Richard more believably - and even more cruel." The problem, of course, is to find an actress who is willing to play a homely Anne. I think it would also strongly change the entire scene - there are actually moments, in the text at least, where Richard's wooing of Anne actually seems believable - he seems, at least for the moment, to genuinely want her, and properly played, can win the audience's sympathies as well as hers. Richard's crowing in his speech to the audience at the end of the scene then comes as a shock, as we all remember the evil and calculating side of his nature. Ian McKellan's portrayal of this scene in the recent film is an excellent example of this approach. If Anne were in fact plain, then Richard's extravagant compliments can only be a cloying attempt to deceive her. Much of the tension generated by the scene would disappear, and the audience could only hate Richard for it, rather than feel sympathy for him. The speech at the end only confirms this opinion, it does not add anything to it, and in fact becomes unnecessary. Regards, Cindy Carter CCarter756@aol.com [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Gretzinger Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 11:11:48 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1130 Seduction of Lady Anne "Has anyone ever seen this role played by an actress who was plain, or even homely? It might make her seduction by Richard more believable - and even more cruel." It's possible that this was the strategy of Zoe Wanamaker's casting as Anne in the BBC _Richard III_ w/Ron Cook, though Richard there was no Ralph Fiennes, himself. Richard certainly seems to be playing to her vanity. Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever seen this scene work? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:40:51 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1133 Qs: Casting Err; Sumptuary Laws; E-Bibles; Tmp./Works MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1133. Tuesday, 11 November 1997. [1] From: Ivan Fuller Date: Monday, 10 Nov 1997 08:28:45 -0600 (CST) Subj: Twin Casting in ERRORS [2] From: David Schalkwyk Date: Monday, 10 Nov 1997 15:53:38 SAST-2 Subj: Sumptuary Laws [3] From: Mark Perew Date: Monday, 10 Nov 1997 16:21:06 -0800 (PST) Subj: Looking for Bible E-Texts [4] From: John McWilliams Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 15:17:20 +0100 Subj: The Tempest/Complete Works [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Fuller Date: Monday, 10 Nov 1997 08:28:45 -0600 (CST) Subject: Twin Casting in ERRORS I am preparing to direct a small cast production of COMEDY OF ERRORS and am interested in solutions any of you have used or seen for the final scene in which the two sets of twins are on stage together for the first time. Ivan Fuller, Chair Communication & Theatre Dept. Augustana College [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Schalkwyk Date: Monday, 10 Nov 1997 15:53:38 SAST-2 Subject: Sumptuary Laws I've been pondering the extent and effects of Elizabethan sumptuary laws recently and was wondering whether anyone has traced the actual effect on the daily lives of those subject to them. It's one thing to know that such laws existed and that they are the signs of a particular ideological anxiety, but does anyone know whether they were obeyed and what it would have meant, in practical terms, to obey them. If a company of actors was supposed to have worn a particular livery, what would this have meant about the way they dressed every day? Has anyone done the research that answers this question? Greetings from a university with an ever-dwindling library budget. David Schalkwyk English Department University of Cape Town [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Perew Date: Monday, 10 Nov 1997 16:21:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Looking for Bible E-Texts In preparing a paper for a Shakespeare course, I would like to check the text of Bibles available to the Bard. I've found the Rheims New Testament online, but I can't locate either the "Geneva" or "Anglican" bibles online. I would appreciate any pointers to internet sources for those texts Since this query isn't exactly on topic for this list, I'll gladly take responses privately and then summarize them for the list. Thank you, Mark C. Perew [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John McWilliams Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 15:17:20 +0100 Subject: The Tempest/Complete Works I'd really appreciate it if someone could recommend some reading on the Tempest (or could outline any interesting approaches that have been taken). Also, does anyone have any views on which Complete Edition of Shakespeare is the best one to buy? The 'Old' Riverside was the definitive edition for years - can anyone second guess which if the new lot - Norto, New Riverside etc. - will be the next one (or has the idea of a definitive text gone out of the window, even when talking about a Complete Works?) Thanks, John McWilliams Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Cambridge ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:45:22 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1134 Re: Iago MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1134. Tuesday, 11 November 1997. [1] From: John Velz Date: Monday, 10 Nov 1997 11:44:21 -0600 (CST) Subj: Iago and Richard Gloucester [2] From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Monday, 10 Nov 1997 22:09:13 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1127 Re: Iago [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Monday, 10 Nov 1997 11:44:21 -0600 (CST) Subject: Iago and Richard Gloucester >Iago is the >personification of pure evil, with no explanation needed or even >possible. Motiveless malignity is the chief attribute of the Devil. Of course he has a revenge motive, but he seems to mortals indiscriminately evil for evil's sake. I resist all allegorical readings of Sh. but do note that Devil's cloven hoofs and "this demi-devil hath ensnared by soul" etc. are in the text. Meanwhile Desdemona is sainted. Cf. "Hail Lady full of grace" and other views of her as sainted. The Devil's chief attribute is the desire to make others as deprived as he himself is. So Iago, who is envious of Othello's happiness and jealous of Othello's alleged affair with Emilia and of Cassio's possible [impossible] affair with her also, and of Cassio's daily beauty, wants to make O. as envious (jealous) as he himself is. As he calls it "even with him wife for wife". No allegory please. Othello is a lot more than Everyman at the crossroads, choosing between heaven and hell personified esp. in Desdemona and Iago. But this moral undercurrent lends cosmic stature to a story that otherwise would be material for yellow journalism. P.S. Richard III was portrayed as a merry devil in a London production a couple of years ago. This did not save the surreal production, but it sure helped it to stagger toward artistic success. John Velz Dept. of English Univ. of Texas [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: H. R. Greenberg Date: Monday, 10 Nov 1997 22:09:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1127 Re: Iago Re Iago as "bluff soldier" -- I believe the Branagh interpretation of the role comes closer to this mark, in an otherwise undistinguished film. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:58:16 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1135 Re: Love; Mercutio; Accents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1135. Tuesday, 11 November 1997. [1] From: A. G. BENNETT" Date: Monday, 10 Nov 1997 11:39:21 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1124 Q: "Love" in A&C [2] From: David P. McKay Date: Monday, 10 Nov 1997 12:13:04 -0500 (EST) Subj: Mercutio: Gay, etc. [3] From: John Velz Date: Monday, 10 Nov 1997 12:01:05 -0600 (CST) Subj: Eliz. accents [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: A. G. BENNETT" Date: Monday, 10 Nov 1997 11:39:21 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1124 Q: "Love" in A&C I'm far from convinced that Shakespeare's men are portrayed as loving far more deeply, lastingly, etc. than his women-what about the male characters in _Love's Labours Lost_, for instance, who swear extravagant oaths (either of scholarship, or of love) one moment, then break them the next? Seems to me that in that play, Shakespeare deliberately leaves all the usual comic knots untied deliberately-we have no guarantee that the men will in fact last their respective year's penance away from their beloveds. Similarly, Claudio's devotion to Hero in _Much Ado_ is questionable at best: one wonders just what kind of marriage theirs will be. Cheers, Alexandra Bennett abennett@vax2.concordia.ca [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David P. McKay Date: Monday, 10 Nov 1997 12:13:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Mercutio: Gay, etc. I feel I must offer Christine Gilmore an apology; apparently, I misread the last point made in her original posting as a statement and not a question. Also, I feel that I must clarify what I meant in responding. Gilmore asks whether Liz Dietz's "definition and use of the expression, 'to queer,' is useful and valid." In my re-reading of Dietz's original comments, I believe that it is. However, I do not believe that Dietz was suggesting that the queering in Luhrmann's film was a result of "ignoring sexual preference" and creating a "non-display." I must let Liz Dietz speak for herself, but I read her comments as suggesting a representation of the clash in the construction and presentation of gender/sexuality roles, not as an erasure of the them. If this IS what she is suggesting, then I would contend that this is an inappropriate use of the term "to queer," and a move that many queer theorists have feared for a long time. In other words, at least as I understand it, queering seeks to expose the contradictions under the constructions and formations of gender/sexuality roles. A move in the opposite direction seems only to land us back where we started from; i.e., the assumption that there really is no difference, or the inability to recognize the constructedness of these categories. I hope these comments help to clarify my original point. To Tim Richards: Your comments regarding clichés and stereotypes are well taken, and ones I would like to consider at greater length. I might want to make the argument in the future that Luhrmann is specifically using a stereotype in his re-envisioning of Mercutio, and therefore, I would have to end up arguing that the critics who recognized this were correct. More on this later after some thought. I would love to hear what others think about this issue. Best regards, David P. McKay [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Monday, 10 Nov 1997 12:01:05 -0600 (CST) Subject: Eliz. accents *The Herb Garden* was done last summer in London in a supposed Jacobean accent that I found hard to penetrate. Those who penetrated it better than I can best say just how it compares with other accents that have been mentioned on this Listserv. John V. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:22:38 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1136 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1136. Wednesday, 12 November 1997. [1] From: Russ McDonald Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 12:19:16 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1132 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne [2] From: Ronald Macdonald Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 14:09:34 -0500 (EST) Subj: RE:SHK 8.1130 Wooing of Lady Anne [3] From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 15:32:56 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1132 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne [4] From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 15:32:56 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1132 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne [5] From: Hayley Grill Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 18:21:56 -0500 (EST) Subj: Subject: SHK 8.1130 Seduction of Lady Anne [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Russ McDonald Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 12:19:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1132 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne To suggest that the casting of a homely Lady Anne might make the second scene of R3 more credible is, I believe, to demand logic at a moment when logic is irrelevant. Putting it another way, to try to explain the seduction rationally is to strain unnecessarily against the energies of the scene as written. Surely the point of the encounter is to demonstrate Richard's audacity and uncanny power, and Shakespeare placed the unlikely amorous victory so early in the play precisely to emphasize Richard's unaccountable charisma. Many factors could contribute to Anne's surrender-Richard's flattery, his outrageous persistence, his eloquence, her political powerlessness, her curiosity, possible ambition on her part, the uncertainties of the heart. Among these, physical desperation seems the least interesting. If I were directing R3, I'd look for an actress who was drop-dead gorgeous, thus making the triumph even more astonishing. Russ McDonald UNC Greensboro [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronald Macdonald Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 14:09:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE:SHK 8.1130 Wooing of Lady Anne Matthew Gretzinger remarks (8.1132) that "Richard certainly seems to be playing on [Lady Anne's] vanity," and I would have to agree. What Samuel Johnson said of the Isabel of _Measure For Measure_ as she seeks to extenuate Angelo's fault, even as she yet believes her brother dead by Angelo's command, seems to apply to Lady Anne as well and perhaps better: "I am afraid our varlet poet intended to inculcate, that women think ill of nothing that raises the credit of their beauty, and are ready, however virtuous, to pardon any act which they think incited by their own charms." So, what though he killed her husband and her father? I should add that I myself am very far from believing what Shakespeare may have intended to inculcate, and I believe Dr. Johnson was too. But his remark suggests that the putative attractiveness or homeliness of the actress playing Lady Anne is beside the point. What counts is what the character believes of her own charms-or what Richard can lead her to believe. Ron Macdonald [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Annalisa Castaldo Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 15:32:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1132 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne I'm not sure what you mean by "work" but I have always found the Olivier version very powerful. Part of this, of course, is that even with a fake nose, Olivier was by no stretch of the imagination deformed or even ugly. But breaking the scene into two so the wooing did not take place over a dead body, made it easier to take. And I found Anne's (I shamefully forget the actress's name) gradual move from hate to a kind of erotic daze very affecting. Annalisa Castaldo [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Gretzinger Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 15:53:01 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1132 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne I know I'm going to get rapped in the mouth for what I posted previously re/Zoe Wanamaker & Lady Anne. If I don't, I deserve to. I should have said that to portray Anne as 'plain' or 'homely' may have been Zoe Wanamaker's (or Jane Howell's) choice for the BBC _Richard_. I did not mean to imply that Z. W. was either plain or homely. If anybody was offended, I apologize. On the issue of whether or not Anne CAN be plain, I vote yes. It's definitely more interesting. Wanamaker's Anne is far more believable than Claire Bloom, for example, who wanders like an emaciated waif barely able to support her pendulous billowing hat through the chopped-up wooing scenes of Olivier's film. If Anne is so soul-less, so lacking in will, what obstacle will be overcome in wooing her? What triumph will Richard win sufficient to allow him such gloating? The same problem occurs in the McKellen _Richard_. Kristin Scott Thomas takes the Bloom approach a step further. Bloom, "very grievous sick and like to die," looked drugged and detached in her final scenes. Thomas is literally an addict. Choices like these are interesting but they take a lot of the fight out of Anne. It's as if the director is saying, "Well, we've got to make sense of her easy capitulation, so we'll have to stack the deck in Richard's favor." The strength of the plain Anne is that she is vulnerable to flattery - vanity will be her weakness. If she is played with determination and resolve - which is certainly in the lines - she can be an admirable adversary for Richard. She must be. The scene fails if his victory is a foregone conclusion. How interesting it is if Richard can convince a woman who perceives herself (or who is perceived by others) to be 'plain' or 'homely' that he is in love with her, and sees her 'beauty' as no one else does! Richard IS deceiving her - and us. If the audience hates him for it they must also love him a little for getting away with it. Part of his appeal is that we love him and hate him at once. The speech at the end is then far from 'unnecessary.' It's the height of cheek. He just lied his way into a widowed bed over the bleeding corpse itself, and the cow fell for it! An Anne who can say that her "woman's heart grossly grew captive to his honey words" before an audience that remembers her strong participation in a round of Senecan stychomythia against a diabolic adversary stands a better chance of sympathy from the audience. They may have been won over, too. Of course, you can also have a beautiful, spirited Anne. Perceived plainness is just a choice, but I think it might yield some positive results. -Matthew [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hayley Grill Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 18:21:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Subject: SHK 8.1130 Seduction of Lady Anne That would not make it more believable. Part of Richard's cruelty is in that he makes it Anne's fault. The line escapes me, but Richard says something to the effect of - your beauty is the cause of your effect on me. If you weren't so beautiful, I wouldn't have been forced to be so cruel. Hayley pkp492@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:37:19 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1137 Re: Cleopatra; Works; Tmp. Crit; Casting Err.; Angelo MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1137. Wednesday, 12 November 1997. [1] From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 06:47:31 -0800 Subj: Cleo defended [2] From: Jason Rosenbaum Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 12:35:10 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: New Complete Works [3] From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 10:22:30 -0800 (PST) Subj: Criticism of *The Tempest* [4] From: Fran Teague Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 97 14:42:52 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.1133 Q: Casting Err [5] From: John Velz Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 23:39:23 -0600 (CST) Subj: Angelo's Sexuality [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 06:47:31 -0800 Subject: Cleo defended After completing my Master's thesis on Antony and Cleopatra (Immortal Longings: Voluntary Death in A& C-a real page turner!) I have to beg to differ with the definition of Cleopatra as wicked woman who used her wiles for political selfish ends. I have come to be a great admirer of Cleo; she was very intelligent, ambitious and willing to use all of her skills (she spoke 7 languages and was the first of the Ptolomeys to speak Egyptian) and although she certainly profited by her political dealings with the world, specifically the Roman world, so did Egypt. She was attractive and alluring in many ways, and she never hesitated to use her considerable talents to accomplish her ambitions. I doubt if even the Romans could have been beguiled by sex appeal all the time. Surely her intelligence and complexity was more stimulating than her sexual allure for such long periods of time with such worldly men! She generally kept a cool head and wide perspective which cannot be said of all of the Romans-certainly not Antony. I interviewed Charlton Heston for my thesis and he feels that Cleopatra may be Shakes most complex character and certainly the best woman character. He says he has never seen an actress capable of fully representing her and declares she is "virtually unplayable." After seeing several productions, I am inclined to agree. contrast with Octavius who is nearly always portrayed well. Not a lot of depth there. Poor Antony seems to lose out often, also. I believe that her suicide was not necessarily for love of Antony, and I think evidence to support that is in the play, although Shakes did change her in the final act as her resolve hardened. Surely she realized that she had few options left-to be paraded through the streets of Rome as was her sister and probably become the whore of some Roman were not viable options for a queen. Why should we think that she would not choose death with dignity in the Roman tradition as her final statement to the Roman world? Lest we forget-much of what we readily know of Cleopatra was written by the victors, and they are known for telling history to suit themselves. For a terrific read, I suggest The Memoirs of Cleopatra by Margaret George. It's wonderfully thick, readable and excellently researched. The author and I are corresponding; I am so impressed with her representation of this remarkable, complex woman. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jason Rosenbaum Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 12:35:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: New Complete Works Arden Shakespeare is coming out with their first Complete Works; expected release - -I believe -- is summer 1998. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 10:22:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Criticism of *The Tempest* To John McWilliams: Criticism of *The Tempest*: Barker, Francis, and Peter Hulme. "Nymphs and reapers heavily vanish: the discursive con-texts of *The Tempest*." In *Alternative Shakespeares*. Ed. Drakakis. Methuen, 1985. 191-205. Kahn, Coppelia. "The Providential Tempest and the Shakespearean Family." *Man's Estate: Masculine Identity in Shakespeare*. U California P, 1981. 220-25. Novy, Marianne. "Transformed Images of Manhood in the Romances." *Love's Argument: Gender Relations in Shakespeare*. U North Carolina P, 1984. 184-87. Orgel, Stephen. "Prospero's Wife." In *Rewriting the Renaissance*. Ed. Ferguson, Quilligan, and Vickers. U Chicago P, 1986. 50-64. Thompson, Ann. "'Miranda, Where's Your Sister?': Reading Shakespeare's *The Tempest*." Rpt. in *Shakespeare and Gender: A History*. Ed. Barker and Kamps. Verso, 1995. 168-77. Willis, Deborah. "Shakespeare's *Tempest* and the Discourse of Colonialism." *SEL* 29 (1989): 277-89. Hope that these references are helpful. Regards, Evelyn Gajowski [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 97 14:42:52 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.1133 Q: Casting Err A couple of responses to recent threads. Concerning the casting of twins in ERR, I was reminded of Ben Jonson's comment in CONVERSATIONS WITH DRUMMOND that "He had an intention to have made a play like Plautus' AMPHITRIO, but left it off for that he could never find two so like others that he could persuade the spectators they were one." As for discussion about the scene between Richard Duke of Gloucester and Lady Anne, I was somewhat taken aback by the suggestion that a homely woman is more apt to be a fool, grateful for any attention from a man, no matter how inappropriate. A more interesting question, to my mind, is why the scene needs to be so very public: in addition to Richard, Anne, and the corpse of Henry VI, there are the supernumeraries carrying the bier as well as the halberdiers who guard the procession. When we consider the scene, perhaps the reactions we ought to worry about are those of the spectators, rather than those of Lady Anne. Fran Teague [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 23:39:23 -0600 (CST) Subject: Angelo's Sexuality Abigail Quart adds a s.d. to make Angelo look down at his tumescence after Isabella has left him alone onstage in 2.2. Alternatively the staccato iambics "What's this? What's this?" can refer to his moral situation, not to his body. On the other hand if she wants to push her interpretation, she might well skip ahead to the beginning of 2.4 where Angelo is describing an adrenaline rush, but seems to use the imagery of tumescence. Heaven in my mouth As if I did but only chew His name, And in my heart the strong and swelling evil Of my conception. "Conception" does not have its modern genital meaning. It means in context my idea of her or my fantasy of her. (Sh's word for our genital "conception" is "engendering".) What the carrion does in the sun is rot, surely. Swelling is from gasses trapped in a rotting corpse. The physical language of this play is quite strong and sometimes repellent. I take "where prayers cross" to mean "where her prayers for her brother cross with my prayers to compass her" where the image is of dueling (crossed swords). A sword was, moreover, cross shaped (hence Hamlet has Horatio et alii swear on his sword in 1.5). Or it might be even better to interpret Angelo's phrase as meaning "where my prayers to heaven for resistance to my lust are crosswise with my prayers that she will be pliable to my will." (Perhaps retaining in this case the sense of dueling.) The discussion of metrics in *MM* is very interesting, but we should not forget that where he is metrically rough Shakespeare may be deliberately breaking into verse with prose for shock effect or to suggest an interruption of the thought or the action onstage. A lot of forlorn ink has been spent since the early eighteenth century in attempts to make regular verse out of deliberately mixed prose and verse. The place to start with Sh.'s metrics is George T. Wright *Shakespeare's Metrical Art* U. of Calif. Pr. 1988; p.b. 1991. See esp. chs. 1, 7-15. Wright's book is a winner. All best to Abigail and others. John ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:45:55 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1138 Qs: Hamlet/Gertrude; Arden Sonnets; No Matter MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1138. Wednesday, 12 November 1997. [1] From: Jeri McIntosh Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 19:49:05 -0500 Subj: Hamlet as Gertrude's heir [2] From: Barrett Graves Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 18:27:32 -0700 Subj: Help Locating Distributor of an Arden Shakespeare Title [3] From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 01:35:04 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1128 No Matter [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeri McIntosh Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 19:49:05 -0500 Subject: Hamlet as Gertrude's heir Forgive me if the following topic is already well-worn in this list. As a newcomer to both the list and to literary criticism, I'm liable to push on doors opened long ago. Recently, on the Albion list, there was thread on why Hamlet did not succeed Claudius. Most of the discussion involved 10th century Danish inheritance practices but I found myself wondering if Shakespeare may have had a 16thC English context in my mind. The contemporary context for this could be the discussion of Elizabeth I's possible marriages to foreign princes and the actual marriage contract of Mary Tudor and Philip of Spain. In this contract, it was stipulated that should there be issue of the marriage, they would succeed to the English throne only upon the death of Mary, not of Philip. Is it possible that Gertrude was intended to be understood as a femme sole heiress of the Danish throne and that Hamlet Sr. and later Claudius derived their kingly title from their marriage to her. In this scenario, Claudius does not succeed to the throne upon the murder of his brother but upon his marriage to Gertrude to whom he refers as "th'imperial jointress of this our warlike state." Therefore, the question of Hamlet's succession rests upon the death of Gertrude, not of his father. Is this a valid reading? Has anyone suggested this before? Since it bears upon my dissertation on the female succession in Tudor England, I would be most grateful for any thoughts and references from listmembers. Thanks in advance, J.L. McIntosh Dept. of History The Johns Hopkins University [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barrett Graves Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 18:27:32 -0700 Subject: Help Locating Distributor of an Arden Shakespeare Title My bookstore has run into difficulties while trying to order *Shakespeare's Sonnets,* edited by Katherine Duncan-Jones (Arden Shakespeare, Third Series). The flyer I received stated that the book would be available by 10/97 and it listed the ISBN number as 0-17-443473-1. The flyer does not name a distributor (could it still be Methuen?). My bookstore liaison claims that the ISBN number fails to correspond with any publisher known to her, which complicates matters. Can anyone on the list help me locate the distributor for this volume? Has it been released yet? Responses should be directed to me personally at the following address: debarre@ibm.net Thanks to one and all for your assistance in locating this volume. Debbie Barrett-Graves The College of Santa Fe [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 01:35:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1128 No Matter Greetings SHAKPERians- I have a question concerning what I consider to be a certain textual "crux" (or at least one of those interesting ambiguities involving a silent and/or silenced character) in TROILUS AND CRESSIDA--- How do you read TROILUS's lines "words, words, no matter from the heart" when Pandarus gives him Cressida's letter and he is about to rip it to shreds? I am particularly interested in the word "matter" here. Is this best glossed as "Words are only words and thus they (words) are no MATTER from the heart" or as "It doesn't even MATTER whether these words are from the heart"?? I am attracted to the latter interpretation because it is harsher and goes along with the severe skepticism to be found elsewhere in the play concerning the value or even existence of any internal core that is not, as Thersities says, "botchy" (or as Hector says "putrified"). Yet, I cannot unequivocally side with this reading over the other reading. The fact that we never SEE or HEAR what Cressida's letter says makes it even harder to decide which reading of these lines to accept. If you favor Troilus, I suppose, you will agree with the former interpretation. Is it possible that the "double meaning" I detect in the word "matter" here didn't exist in Shakespeare's time? If so, I suppose it would invalidate one of these readings and solve the ambiguity. Any thoughts? ---------Chris Stroffolino [was posting of members biographies] ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:05:19 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1139 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1139. Thursday, 13 November 1997. [1] From: Billy Houck Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 10:10:58 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1136 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne [2] From: Lawrence Manley Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 10:25:23 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1136 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne [3] From: Peter T. Hadorn Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 10:00:11 -0600 Subj: RE: SHK 8.1136 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne [4] From: Terence Martin Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 10:18:30 -0600 (CST) Subj: Lady Anne [5] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 10:41:33 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1136 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne [6] From: Abigail Quart Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 21:05:12 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1136 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 10:10:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1136 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne Is the implication here that an unattractive woman is more likely to marry the man who killed her husband and father than an attractive woman? Surely moral integrity is more than skin-deep. This rates right up there with the productions that cast a drop-dead gorgeous Richard, despite his mention of the dogs that bark at him in the street. I have shown various versions of this scene (on video) to high school students who haven't seen, or at least understood Shakespeare before. As long as you let them know in advance that it's her husband in the coffin, even the simplest student "gets" it, despite the leaps of logic involved. Billy Houck Arroyo Grande High School [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lawrence Manley Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 10:25:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1136 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne To add to the discussion of the seduction of the Lady Anne: I was recently researching Edward Austin Abbey's grand and gorgeous painting of the scene (exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1896) and discovered just how big a problem this scene was for the Victorians, who couldn't quite imagine a woman who could succumb to Richard. Here are three exhibits: 1. William Watkins Lloyd could not seem to find *in the text* a sufficient warrant for Anne's change of mind. In fact, as his delicately periphrastic prose suggests, he could not even bring himself to say outright that Anne in any positive sense changes her mind: "[In the seduction scene] there are ... embodied some characteristics that no sagacity of the most imaginative *reader* can perfectly apprehend... I doubt whether the exact extent to which it is true that the lady's retorts had ceased to be expressions of living hate and indignation can be truly appreciated *in reading, or otherwise than *as heard* with the natural emphasis that they commend for themselves *when spoken and with the gestures visible that they inspire in an accomplished and sensitive performer*. -Critical essays on the Plays of Shakespeare_ (1875) 2. Henry James thought the play has "with all its energy, a sort of intellectual grossness... This same intellectual grossness is certainly very striking; the scene of Richard's wooing of Lady Anne is a capital specimen of it." (1877) In an 1897 review of Henry Irving's production, which was profoundly influenced by Abbey's painting of a distressed Pre-Raphaelite Anne struggling to resist a monster whose back is turned to the viewer, James could not reconcile a credible Anne with a credible Richard: "The more [Richard III] is painted and dressed, the more it is lighted and solidified, the less it corresponds or coincides, the less it squares with out imaginative habits. By what extension of the term can such a scene as Richard's wooing of the Lady Anne be said to be represented?...It leaves us defying any actress whatever to give a touch of truth, either for woe or for weal, to the other figure of the situation." _The Scenic Art_ 3. Like James, G.B. Shaw could not reconcile the high tone of Anne in this production with the villainy of Richard: "[Irving's] playing in the scene with Lady Anne was a flat contradiction... Why not have Lady Anne presented as a weak, childish-witted, mesmerized creature instead of as that most awful embodiment of virtue and decorum, the intellectual American lady? Poor Miss Julia Arthur honestly did her best to act her part as she found it in Shakespeare; and if Richard had done the same she would have come off with credit. But how could she play to a Richard who would not utter a single tone to which any woman's heart could respond?... Richard [played] the scene with her as if he were a Hounsditch salesman cheating a factory girl over a pair of second-hand stockings." _Shaw on Shakespeare_ Shaw's suggestion that Anne should be childish is perhaps not compatible with her very prodigious curses in the scene, but his suggestion about weakness is taken up by Al Pacino in _Looking for Richard_. As Pacino argues, Anne was once in line to be Queen of England. Now her husband and her father-in-law are dead, the Lancaster line has been wiped out, and their enemies, the House of York, have seized the throne. She is perhaps foolish to trust Richard (if she does), but what else can she do? One last thought: the scenario of an innocent woman resisting the unwanted attention of a powerful, hypocritical authority is one that Shakespeare takes up frequently, in Angelo and Isabella, Lysimachus and Marina, and (if he wrote this scene) the King and the Countess of Salisbury in _Edward III_. (This is the motif, if I recall correctly, that Leo Salingar calls "The Justice and the Nun") The Victorians were very fond of these scenes (Abbey also illustrated MM II.iv) and clearly they found it hard to accept the way in which the scenario plays out quite differently in _Richard III_. I found my way to these interesting Victorian views of the scene by way of Arthur Colby Sprague's, _Shakespeare's Histories: Plays for the Stage_ (1964), Scott Colley's Richard's Himself Again: A Stage History of Richard III_, and Anthony Hammond's good account of the play in performance in the Revels edition. Lawrence Manley Yale University [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter T. Hadorn Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 10:00:11 -0600 Subject: RE: SHK 8.1136 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne What Annalisa Castaldo liked about Olivier's *Richard* is exactly what I found disappointing. Indeed, breaking the wooing scene into two DID make it easier to take. And, as several folks have pointed out, wooing Anne shouldn't be easy. Richard's success with Anne must take our breaths away in its audacity. [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Martin Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 10:18:30 -0600 (CST) Subject: Lady Anne Another thought about Lady Anne's "surrender": if one is a small female fish swimming amongst so many male sharks, perhaps a deal with one of them might be worth considering! [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 10:41:33 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1136 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne Let is not forget that the corpse Lady Anne accompanies is not that of her "sweet lord" husband, but of her father-in-law. [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Abigail Quart Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 21:05:12 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1136 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne Me, I would make Richard beautiful. His deformity is in his mind. No achievement will vanquish it. No protestation of love will overcome it. What yields Anne to Richard is power. She has none and he gives it to her. No matter what her defiance, Anne spits like a kitten hisses, because her position is that fragile, that powerless; she is that easy to abuse or kill. Richard offers her safety in the eye of the storm. Every man who could or would protect her is dead. The man who stripped them from her is Richard. Instead of all the ugly options she sees before her, he offers her control, if not of her destiny, then of the man who controls her destiny. By the end of the scene, she is giddy with relief. And toying with her illusion of power. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:14:06 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1140 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1140. Thursday, 13 November 1997. [1] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 10:51:15 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1138 Qs: [2] From: Heidi Sue Webb Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 14:31:26 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1138 Qs: Hamlet/Gertrude [3] From: Larry Weiss Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 16:12:22 -0500 Subj: Re: Hamlet's election [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 10:51:15 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1138 Qs: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir Hamlet accuses Claudius of having "popped" between Hamlet and "the election - of having prevented Hamlet from securing the crown. Had Hamlet been elected, would he have been joint ruler with his mother? Also, if Gertrude *is* joint ruler, we never see her acting in any official regal capacity, as we do Claudius. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Heidi Sue Webb Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 14:31:26 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1138 Qs: Hamlet/Gertrude RE: Hamlet as Gertrude's heir Comparing Gertrude's apparent willingness to remarry with Elizabeth I's carefully orchestrated obfuscation of attempts to marry her off (even in the case of Monsieur-see her speeches to Parliament and her correspondence) would suggest that the two queens have very different positions in relation to the succession and its symbolism. Also, critical discussions of _Lear_ have addressed the difficulty presented by exclusively female heirs (Richard Strier, _Resistant Structures_, "Shakespeare and Disobedience," p. 177, n. 36.). Certainly Elizabeth I's position as heir to the throne was precarious at best (MacCaffrey and Somerville biographies). Even so, I find your suggestion that the big guy might have seen her position and her truly fascinating management of it as a context for his female queens intriguing. Best, Heidi Webb The University of Chicago [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 16:12:22 -0500 Subject: Re: Hamlet's election Jeri McIntosh raises an interesting speculation of whether Hamlet might not have been the heir to Gertrude, rather than Hamlet pere. Interesting, but, I'm afraid, insupportable by anything in the sources or the text. The only even arguable support is the "imperial jointress" line, but I think it clear that this is a patent attempt by Claudius to gain public support of his new regime by emphasizing the continuance of the previous (probably popular) government. Counterpoised against this weak reed is all the talk about the "election." In this WS got it absolutely correct. Danish kings were elected by assemblies of ur-nobles called, I believe, the Witan. While the elected king was frequently the natural heir of his predecessor, such was not always the case, as for example, when there was a more powerful contender or the natural heir was weak or young. The fact that Claudius won election over an intelligent 30 year old natural heir raises interesting possibilities about how Hamlet fils was perceived by the court. Also, did Polonius have a role in the political infighting? Doesn't that possibility (probability?) explain a great deal about Hamlet's attitude toward the "good old man"? Doesn't it also explain why Claudius kept Polonius on as chief advisor (prime minister?) after it must have become apparent to him that the old man was not what he used to be? Polonius seems to be the only character whom Hamlet dislikes from the beginning. While Polonius does appear a little foolish much of the time, a great deal of what he says and does evidences that there was a finely tuned political mind there once upon a time, a mind that could well be tapped to hunt the trail of policy. For example, consider Polonius' advice to Reynaldo about how indirectly to find directions out. In any case, don't we sense that Hamlet is a little more disrespectful to Polonius than we are comfortable with? This all leads me to the larger political "supra plot." We begin the play by learning that a kingdom that has just suffered a major change of government, in which the new king is not the "natural" heir, is about to be invaded. The new king acts quickly and decisively to: (a) prepare the country for war, and (b) initiate a diplomatic overture that promptly bears fruit by (i) avoiding war, and (ii) turning the invasion against a traditional enemy. What a king is this! What would we give to have such governors? Contrast this with Hamlet's behaviour and we see why the Witan made the right choice. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:23:33 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1141 Re: Complete Works; Arden Editions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1141. Thursday, 13 November 1997. [1] From: P. H. Lundbech Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 20:31:08 +0100 Subj: Complete Works [2] From: Debbie Barrett-Graves Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 15:53:14 -0700 Subj: Distributor of Arden Edition [3] From: Nick Kind Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 11:03:51 -0800 Subj: Arden Shakespeare titles [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: P. H. Lundbech Date: Tuesday, 11 Nov 1997 20:31:08 +0100 Subject: Complete Works John McWilliams wrote: > taken). Also, does anyone have any views on which Complete Edition of > Shakespeare is the best one to buy? The 'Old' Riverside was the > definitive edition for years - can anyone second guess which if the new > lot - Norto, New Riverside etc. - will be the next one Surely, this must be a joke: the NEXT definitive edition? Why from an author long since dead, we should demand a brand new definitive edition every year! What is the matter, can't you just ENJOY? [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Debbie Barrett-Graves Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 15:53:14 -0700 Subject: Distributor of Arden Edition November 12, 1997 Dear SHAKSPER members, MANY thanks to everyone who responded to my query about the Arden Shakespeare edition. My bookstore has placed the order, so AWTEW! Cheers! Debbie Barrett-Graves The College of Santa Fe debarre@ibm.net [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Kind Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 11:03:51 -0800 Subject: Arden Shakespeare titles Following Barrett Graves' recent posting on SHAKSPER, for the information of all subscribers: Any bookshop in the USA can order Arden Shakespeare titles from ITPS Customer Services, 7625 Empire Drive, Florence, KY 41042, tel 606 525 6620. For other ordering information please see our website at If anybody has any problems with this, please contact me personally and I will pass you to the correct contacts in the USA. Nick Kind Electronic Acquisitions Editor The Arden Shakespeare nick.kind@nelson.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:40:50 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1142 Re: Err; Conception; No Matter; Cleopatra; Isabella MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1142. Thursday, 13 November 1997. [1] From: David M Richman Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 09:54:12 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1133 Q: Casting Err [2] From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 10:26:49 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1137 Angelo's Sexuality [3] From: Abigail Quart Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 22:10:44 -0500 Subj: Genital Conception [4] From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 11:50:47 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1138 No Matter [5] From: Naomi Liebler Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 18:12:56 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1137 Re: Cleopatra [6] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 00:52:49 +0 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1126 Running [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David M Richman Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 09:54:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1133 Q: Casting Err On double casting Comedy of Errors: We used puppets for the final scene. Each puppet was made to resemble closely his human twin. Each human actor ran he appropriate puppet. The effect worked quite well-eliciting gasps and ovations. Another production made inventive use of mirrors: each twin speaking and being answered by his reflection in the glass. David Richman [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 10:26:49 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1137 Angelo's Sexuality >"Conception" does not have its modern genital meaning. It means in >context my idea of her or my fantasy of her. (Sh's word for our genital >"conception" is "engendering".) > >What the carrion does in the sun is rot, surely. Swelling is from >gasses trapped in a rotting corpse. The physical language of this play >is quite strong and sometimes repellent. >John Velz, I can't find "carrion" in MM, so I think you might be referring to Hamlet's "For if the sun breed maggots in a dead dog, being a good kissing carrion,--Have you a daughter? . . . Let her not walk i'th' sun: conception is a blessing, but not as your daughter may conceive. . . ." But surely conception means engendering here, since the sun's propensity for breeding is what Ophelia needs protection from. Scott Shepherd [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Abigail Quart Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 22:10:44 -0500 Subject: Genital Conception Hamlet: Let her not walk i' the sun. Conception is a blessing, but not as your daughter may conceive--friend, look to it. He was warning Polonius not to let Ophelia THINK? [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 11:50:47 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1138 No Matter Certainly "no matter" and "it is no matter" meant then what "it doesn't matter" means now, but combinations with the phrase are limited (in Shakespeare) to no matter FOR something (e.g. "it is no matter for that") no matter WHAT/WHERE/WHITHER/HOW/WHO no matter IF I find only 2 no matter ifs, in 2G and 2H4, but that might support a reading like mere words, no matter [if] from the heart but the if not actually being in the text makes this a bit of a stretch, even for an under meaning. Also it's impossible to read the Troilus line without thinking of Hamlet's "Words words words" to which Polonius responds "What is the matter my lord?" which pretty clearly suggests that words:matter::text:meaning (or something like that), and that these terms, while perhaps not quite technical, had particular connotations when talking about (written) language. [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Naomi Liebler Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 18:12:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1137 Re: Cleopatra Mike Sirofchuk writes in defense of Cleopatra, "Lest we forget-much of what we readily know of Cleopatra was written by the victors, and they are known for telling history to suit themselves." You might want to take another look at what SHAKESPEARE readily knew of Cleopatra-in North's Plutarch's _Life of Antony_. Cleo gets approximately half of that narrative, and it's a much more favorable account than anything Plutarch has to say about what's-his-name. Moreover, the narrative makes all of the points about Cleopatra's erudition, her diplomacy, her regal dignity, etc., that Mike offers. And Plutarch, of course, was a Greek (Theban, actually) who ultimately went to live among, but never was one of, "the victors." Cheers, Naomi Liebler [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 00:52:49 +0 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1126 Running John Velz wrote > Syd Kasten's suggested staging for Isabella's entrance in MM > 4.1 is interesting, but we must remember that she is a > would-be nun to whom eternity is more real than time. She's not a nun, surely, but a nun-to-be. And one who's unhappy about the restrictions: ISABELLA And have you nuns no father privileges? FRANCESCA Are these not large enough? ISABELLA Yes, truly. I speak not as desiring more, But rather wishing a more strict restraint Upon the sisterhood, the votarists of St Clare. (1.4.1-5) I don't know about you, but when I feel I've betrayed my thoughts by incautious probing, I say something like "Yes, truly. I speak not as desiring more..." I think Bernice Kliman argued that Isabella and Claudio are recently orphaned, and that the former's entry into the order is reluctant. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:47:28 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1143 Qs: Advice; Brew; Bastards MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1143. Thursday, 13 November 1997. [1] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 15:50:38 -0500 (EST) Subj: Advice to the Actors -- Research Question [2] From: Joanne Gates Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 17:14:41 -0600 (CST) Subj: Does Macbeth sell cars? [3] From: Mark Lawhorn Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 13:45:25 -1000 Subj: Query re: Henry Fitzroy and Thomas Winter [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 15:50:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Advice to the Actors -- Research Question I've recently come across a scenario for a Byzantine Mystery Play (well, there's some controversy about its being Byzantine, but ...)-- the thing that struck me, comparing its notes about the actors, along with a parallel scenario written for the Jeu D'Adam, was its similarity to the advice Hamlet gives the Players. The usual stuff-suiting the action to the word, etc.-are there, along with a few extras, like 'make sure they can read', which makes one wonder how on earth they thought they could do without literate actors ... But that's aside from the point. I'm wondering if any studies have been done on the evolution of the Advice to Actors, from the medieval period to the time of Shakespeare. It seems that there was some standard warning given to directors of Mysteries, and I was hoping someone had written or speculated on its evolution. Anybody help me on this one? Andy White Arlington, VA [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Gates Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 17:14:41 -0600 (CST) Subject: Does Macbeth sell cars? As I listened yet again to the ad for the new Lexus, I heard Linda Hunt's voice say, Crystal water turns to dark Boiling currents turn to drums When something wicked this way comes There seem to be two visual variants; one has the car coming out of the mud and being unstrapped from the amphibious landing vehicle. (subliminal flash of somewhat seductive woman's legs) I take it that the first two lines are "made up"? I did a quick search of my hard copy Bartlett's Q, no matches for these lines. Nothing close in on-line search of the complete Shakespeare texts for boiling or crystal, but presumably the ad people have invented their own version of the witches' brew. Joanne Gates [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Lawhorn Date: Wednesday, 12 Nov 1997 13:45:25 -1000 Subject: Query re: Henry Fitzroy and Thomas Winter I would be grateful if someone could point me to sources that include information regarding Henry VIII's illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, and/or Wolsey's illegitimate son, Thomas Winter. I know that these children received "various preferments" during their lifetimes, such as Fitzroy's being named Duke of Richmond and Lord High Admiral and Winter's eventual appointment as Archdeacon of Cornwall (despite the Church of England's bar against the ordination of bastards). Who tutored these children? What sort of contact did their respective fathers maintain with them? On what basis did rumors circulate that Fitzroy was poisoned by Anne Boleyn and her brother? Please reply directly to me at either of the e-mail addresses listed below. Many thanks. Mark Mark H. Lawhorn English Dept. UH Manoa ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:52:50 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1144 The Perdita Project and Trinity/Trent Colloquium MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1144. Thursday, 13 November 1997. From: Victoria Burke From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1145 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1145. Friday, 14 November 1997. [1] From: Narrelle Harris Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 22:01:10 +0800 Subj: Re: RIII and Anne [2] From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 12:53:15 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1139 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne [3] From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 13:31:59 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1139 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne [4] From: Bonnie Melchior Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 15:12:47 CST6CDT Subj: The Beautiful Anne [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Narrelle Harris Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 22:01:10 +0800 Subject: Re: RIII and Anne Matthew Gretzinger said: > If Anne is so soul-less, so >lacking in will, what obstacle will be overcome in wooing her? What >triumph will Richard win sufficient to allow him such gloating? The >same problem occurs in the McKellen _Richard_. Kristin Scott Thomas >takes the Bloom approach a step further. Bloom, "very grievous sick and >like to die," looked drugged and detached in her final scenes. Thomas >is literally an addict. I didn't read the Scott-Thomas portrayal this way. I thought she was a strong woman who, despite herself, was moved by Richard's eloquent wooing, and became fascinated by him. I thought this scene worked very well, as I've often not quite believed others I've seen. Her later drug addiction I felt came from having married a man she finally realises doesn't particularly care for her. She has broken her own soul and spirit by believing his protestations of love and discovering that she has betrayed her self and her husband and son. Narrelle Harris [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 12:53:15 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1139 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne Surely the moment on which the scene turns is the moment when Richard offers her the sword and his vulnerable breast: pure power hanging between them. When she cannot seize it, it passes ineluctably to him. Not that it doesn't belong to him from the outset. A long time ago somebody proposed that Richard was first played by Edward Alleyn, a giant of a man (helping to account for that group of larger-than-life protagonists-Tamburlane, Faustus, Hieronimo). Dave Evett [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 13:31:59 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1139 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne With so much emotional speech in this scene, and in a play that so mangles the real history it alludes to, I don't think any strictly political "explanation" can be satisfying. The scene reads as an impossible seduction, not a beaten woman's shrewd career move. I suggest this: that the deformed man arouses compassion as well as revulsion, and that Richard uses his pitiability to his advantage, playing meek and even a bit simpleminded when it suits his purpose. So He that bereft thee lady of thy husband Did it to help thee to a better husband and such don't come off like a deliberately macabre amorous policy but the sincere confused pleas of a love-struck halfwit. Clearly Richard's strategy is to depict the murders as evidence of the intensity of his devotion, and because this is a demented idea, it behooves him to show a pitiable dementia. This is just a suggestion for performance without much scholarly backup, but isn't it conspicuous that this wooing success comes almost on the heels of a soliloquy saying "because I'm deformed I can't woo" (evidence against the popular truth-in-soliloquies theory), and isn't it proper dramatic irony then for the deformity itself to clinch the seduction? [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bonnie Melchior Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 15:12:47 CST6CDT Subject: The Beautiful Anne On the question of whether Anne should be beautiful, in my humble opinion yes she should, because that beauty is emblematic in an oppositional way. The play as a whole seems to present ugliness as a manifest emblem of evil, but the kind of evil associated with the "virtues" of effective action in the political world (qualities represented by the Italian *virtu*). Richard's ugliness is constantly emphasized (he is for instance a "bunchbacked toad"-I don't have my text here to look up the exact quote). Beauty, on the other hand, is associated with goodness and is interpreted by Richard as a kind of contemptible weakness and passivity. Witness his opening statement that "grim-visaged War" has been co-opted into capering to the lascivious warblings of a lute. Richard says that he is too "deformed" and "unfinished" to court an "amorous looking glass," so he will exert himself toward casting a shadow in this "weak and piping time of peace." Wooing and winning the beautiful Anne signals his success (and he again brings up looking in a mirror). (Incidentally, I don't mean to say that the "goodness" in the play is not problematized by being associated with self-interest and sometimes stupidity.) Bonnie Melchior University of Central Arkansas ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 08:55:33 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1146 Re: Complete Works; A. L. Rowse MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1146. Friday, 14 November 1997. [1] From: John McWilliams Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 15:02:12 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1141 Re: Complete Works [2] From: Stephanie Cowell Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 16:22:12 -0500 Subj: Complete Works, and A.L. Rowse [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John McWilliams Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 15:02:12 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1141 Re: Complete Works > Surely, this must be a joke: the NEXT definitive edition? Why from an > author long since dead, we should demand a brand new definitive edition > every year! > > What is the matter, can't you just ENJOY? Dear P.H., It wasn't meant to be a joke... The Riverside has been the definitive edition for a long time (not just a year) - by definitive, I mean the one agreed to be the standard by scholars. Like the Margoliouth edition of Marvell - anyone 'seriously' (sorry to use the word) interested in Marvell knows that edition. I'm aware of textual difficulties with Shakespeare and perhaps the idea of a standard edition is indeed out of date, or was always an impossibility. I was hoping perhaps to raise some discussion on this topic if anyone was interested - I think it's an interesting topic, anyway. Also, I want to buy a complete edition and can't afford more than one - I was just asking advice as a few have been published very recently, it's a tough decision and I thought the list-folk might help. Of course I enjoy Shakespeare (I just finished re-reading Henry IV Part I and it's fantastic - very funny and really quite gripping). But JUST enjoy... you're kidding, I'm a would-be academic - you can't expect me to be that hedonistic, can you? Cheers, John [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Cowell Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 16:22:12 -0500 Subject: Complete Works, and A.L. Rowse This is my first response to the data base. My heart leapt up at John McWilliam*s letter re the plethora of Shakespeare editions and his words *Can't you just enjoy?* I am a historical novelist (*The Players: a novel of the young Shakespeare,* out last spring from W. W. Norton) and I just recently joined the Electronic Shakespeare. I am quite fascinated by what everyone has to say in all the e-mails I receive daily, but my main interest and passion is reading the work itself. I want to let the words and characters wash over me, I swim in them, and simply love them. Now and then I've begun to wonder what's the matter with me that I don't want to hunch over five editions comparing them. I simply want to be with WS's words and characters and through them, the sense I get of the man, an emotional rather than a pedantic response. Does that make me a lightweight Shakespearean? But I guess each fan to his own methods of loving the writer and his work, the production and purchase of new editions being one....my own, which is to try to make him come alive in fiction, is scandalous enough to some! By the way, for anyone interested, I have a little article in the next Shakespeare Newsletter about the late Dr. Rowse whom I knew and who was my historical mentor and, to me, a kind, humorous, and generous man. Does my affection and admiration for him make me persona non grata with many scholars? Hope not! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:20:35 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1147 Re: Cleopatra; Love MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1147. Friday, 14 November 1997. [1] From: Jeffrey Myers Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 10:03:58 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 8.1142 Re: Cleopatra [2] From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 08:01:43 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1142 Re: Cleopatra [3] From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 08:01:43 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1142 Re: Cleopatra [4] From: Kristine Batey Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 10:31:36 -0600 Subj: Extravagant love [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeffrey Myers Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 10:03:58 -0500 Subject: RE: SHK 8.1142 Re: Cleopatra > Mike Sirofchuk writes in defense of Cleopatra, "Lest we forget-much of > what we readily know of Cleopatra was written by the victors, and they > are known for telling history to suit themselves." You might want to > take another look at what SHAKESPEARE readily knew of Cleopatra-in > North's Plutarch's _Life of Antony_. Cleo gets approximately half of > that narrative, and it's a much more favorable account than anything > Plutarch has to say about what's-his-name. Moreover, the narrative > makes all of the points about Cleopatra's erudition, her diplomacy, her > regal dignity, etc., that Mike offers. And Plutarch, of course, was > a Greek (Theban, actually) who ultimately went to live among, but never > was one of, "the victors." You might also want to take a look at Horace's Ode I, 37. Jeff Myers [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 08:01:43 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1142 Re: Cleopatra The comments I posted on Cleopatra were those of my colleague, Leslie Soughers, to whom I had forwarded the recent A&C posts. I cannot take credit for remarks. (My master's thesis was on Yeats) I will forward all comments on Cleo to her. Mike Sirofchuck [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 08:01:43 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1142 Re: Cleopatra Actually, with regard to Cleopatra, having just seen the production at the Shakespeare Theatre here in Washington, D.C., I'd have to agree with our fellow poster. In that production, the actress tended to rely on a series of mannerisms designed to create an impression that bordered on something out of Noel Coward, and it didn't work for me, fought with the settings and costuming for attention in my opinion. In a conversation after the show, I talked with a mentor of mine (Ed, are you still out there?) and we agreed that the show was not as well written as Dryden's adaptation, All For Love. AFL has the benefit of being a cohesive story, more neoclassic in its orientation, albeit written as a warning against kings having to many mistresses, a very different slant on the story. Cheers, Andy White Arlington, VA [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kristine Batey Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 10:31:36 -0600 Subject: Extravagant love >I'm far from convinced that Shakespeare's men are portrayed as loving >far more deeply, lastingly, etc. than his women-what about the male >characters in _Love's Labours Lost_, for instance, who swear extravagant >oaths (either of scholarship, or of love) one moment, then break them >the next? I've had the same thought about Romeo: I know his passion for Juliet, so hard on the heels of his passion for Rosalind, could be construed as True Love overwhelming the affectation of romantic lover, but I've found myself thinking that here's little Juliet, just turned 14 and already bargained away to Paris, so romantic love doesn't seem like it'll ever be an option for her. Suddenly, here's this older guy, and he's looking at her like she's the sun, not like she's an excellent investment for the future. She's so sweet, and so smitten, that she doesn't realize the line Romeo gives her is just a line-a literary convention, actually. She also doesn't realize that she's supposed to following a script, as well: it's her role to be aloof, maybe even scornful. According to the convention, the way J reacts is the way the romantic lover really wants his lady to react, (although according to the script she never does). So when J is sweet and flattered and loving in return, R is ecstatic that he hit pay dirt, but he's in over his head. The rest of the play can be seen as things spinning out of control because R, who can't believe his luck, also doesn't know how to handle it. (Analogy: the old joke about the dog chasing cars: what would he do if he caught one?) J is in love; R is acting out a romance, until suddenly he finds himself doing improv. Kristine Batey ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:35:18 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1148 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1148. Friday, 14 November 1997. [1] From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 10:06:33 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1140 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir [2] From: Gregory C. Koch Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 10:36:15 -0500 Subj: Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir [3] From: Michael Friedman Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 14:51:33 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1138 Qs: Hamlet/Gertrude [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 10:06:33 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1140 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir If the Witan elects Danish kings, what authority is in Claudius' "You are the most immediate to our throne"? Any? Scott Shepherd [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gregory C. Koch Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 10:36:15 -0500 Subject: Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir >Also, if Gertrude *is* joint ruler, we never see her acting in any >official regal capacity, as we do Claudius. One view of a king's queen might be R II's, who received the news of her husband's disposition from her gardener... They're not in the know - they do not have the "need to know." >Hamlet's attitude toward the "good old man"? Doesn't it also explain >why Claudius kept Polonius on as chief advisor (prime minister?) after >it must have become apparent to him that the old man was not what he >used to be? Polonius' spying received just deserts. And he was kept in favor because his daughter was favored by the queen. Nothing more complicated other than the king's compulsion for P's gossip. No dislike - Ham loved his daughter very much. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Friedman Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 14:51:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1138 Qs: Hamlet/Gertrude For Jeri McIntosh, I did recently read an article that deals with the possibility that Claudius becomes King of Denmark because he marries Gertrude. Check out Manuel Aguirre's "Life, Crown, and Queen: Gertrude and the Theme of Sovereignty" *Review of English Studies* 47 (1996): 163-74. Michael Friedman University of Scranton ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:39:52 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1149 Re: No Matter MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1149. Friday, 14 November 1997. [1] From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 13:05:36 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1142 Re: No Matter [2] From: Julia MacKenzie Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 11:06:21 +1100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1138 No Matter [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 13:05:36 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1142 Re: No Matter Beatrice's remark about words as "foul wind" suggests a contrast between mere moving air and something more substantial, closer to the sense of matter as solid material. OED 3, "a vague designation for any physical substance not definitely particularized" (first ref. c. 1400) relates the term to the fluids of the body; that would include the blood particularly associated with the heart, which would, unlike words, be unable to lie. Materially, Dave Evett [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julia MacKenzie Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 11:06:21 +1100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1138 No Matter On the question of 'matter', I am reminded of the use of the word in "As You Like It": The Duke Senior says of Jaques - "I love to cope him in these sullen fits,/ For then he's full of matter", in which case 'matter' can be interpreted as thoughts, ideas, arguments, emotions. This interpretation can also be placed on both Troilus' and Hamlet's lines. "Mere words, no matter from the heart" - empty words, not real thoughts or ideas from the heart, and Hamlet's "words, words, words" being only that, with no meaning or emotion. What do you think? Julia MacKenzie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:42:13 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1150 Q: Location of Old Globe? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1150. Friday, 14 November 1997. From: Laura Fargas Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 10:40:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Query: Location of Old Globe? Could someone tell me whether the old Globe was north or south of Maid Lane? The books I have available seem to be very firm on the point -- both ways. I would appreciate learning the current state of the scholarship. Laura Fargas ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:49:32 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1151 Re: Err; Perdita Project; Bastards; Am Reporter MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1151. Friday, 14 November 1997. [1] From: Billy Houck Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 11:10:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1142 Re: Err [2] From: Louis Marder Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 11:28:08 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1144 The Perdita Project and Trinity/Trent Colloquium [3] From: Alison Findlay Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 12:23:00 -0000 Subj: FW: SHK 8.1143 Q: Bastards [4] From: Joe Shea Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 09:19:41 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: The American Reporter [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 11:10:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1142 Re: Err I assume you're talking about a production of C of E where you haven't case 2 sets of Dromios and Antipholi. I always prefer to invent twins by giving two actors of similar height and coloring identical costumes. It works, especially if the costumes are unusual looking. Billy Houck [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Marder Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 11:28:08 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1144 The Perdita Project and Trinity/Trent Colloquium Re the Perdita Project: 11/14/97- I just returned from Washington, D.C. The Folger Shakespeare Library has a great collection of "female" material on exhibition at present. Whoever is doing Perdita should try to get a catalog. It would be very useful. Louis Marder, Shakespeare Data Bank : avon4@juno.com [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alison Findlay Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 12:23:00 -0000 Subject: FW: SHK 8.1143 Q: Bastards Dear Mark, I used Chris Given-Wilson and Alice Curteis, *The Royal Bastards of Medieval England* (Routledge, 1984) when I was researching Henry Fitzroy for *Illegitimate Power: Bastards in Renaissance Drama* (Manchester, 1994). [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Shea Date: Thursday, 13 Nov 1997 09:19:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: The American Reporter I'm Joe Shea, editor-in-chief of The American Reporter, the first daily newspaper with original content to originate on the Internet. I was once visited by Shakespeare in a dream when I was deeply involved in writing sonnets and worried to death about starving in the process. He told me: Tell Joe that if he must he can Wear a belt three times wrapped around; Even Great Joe in Old New York Wore a longer one in London Town. Naturally, I continue to love him. In fact, the letters of my name are an anagram for the Kittredge spelling of his. BTW, I sometimes publish sonnets in lieu of editorials, when the material and the occasion coincide. Best, Joseph Patrick Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter joeshea@netcom.com http://www.american-reporter.com========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:25:38 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1152 Re: Complete Works; Arden Editions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1152. Saturday, 15 November 1997. [1] From: William Williams Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 09:18:20 -0600 Subj: Complete Works [2] From: Stephen Boyd Fowler Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 11:20:02 -0400 (AST) Subj: Re John McWilliam's search for definitive editions [3] From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 09:09:37 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: Complete Works [4] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 14:59:56 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1141 Re: Ordering Arden Editions [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Williams Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 09:18:20 -0600 Subject: Complete Works Joke, or no, there is certainly no definitive edition of Shakespeare, and there never will be. There are "kinds" of editions, and there will ever be more "kinds." A starting place would be _Which Shakespeare?_ edited by Anne Thompson, et al. (Open University, 1992). I'm not sure if it ever was published in the USA. Of course, things have moved on since then with The Norton, Arden3, Folger2(?), but it's a good start. By the way, I don't think Riverside was ever _the_ scholarly standard edition. Most US academics cited it because they used it as a textbook, but the same would not be true from non-US scholars, and even in the US many scholars cite Arden, New Oxford, New Cambridge, Bevington, Pelican, etc. That's why we keep on writing footnotes, endnotes, or works cited, to tell our readers what textual choices we have made. If I cite Norton I have made a whole bunch of critical choices which are different from the choices I have made if I cite Riverside. For buying for reading I think I would plump for the second printing of Norton, which I am told is being done on more "robust" paper. William Proctor Williams Department of English Northern Illinois University [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Boyd Fowler Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 11:20:02 -0400 (AST) Subject: Re John McWilliam's search for definitive editions This may be a little late, but in response to the query on a definitive edition of Shakespeare's complete works I would like to suggest the 1997 *Norton Shakespeare*. It is not "definitive"-there is and can never be a definitive edition for obvious reasons-but it is comprehensive. There are alternate readings for all of the texts including a number of different versions of *King Lear* and others. The work also includes many great bibliographic references chosen to assist the 'would-be' Shakespeare scholar in beginning his or her research. The Honors Seminar that I am currently enjoying uses this text and I have found it extremely useful. So, for those of you who want ONE collected edition, my vote is for the Norton. (But do try to enjoy it none-the-less!) Stephen [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Evelyn Gajowski Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 09:09:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Complete Works To John McWilliams: I recommend the following edition of Shakespeare's complete works: *The Norton Shakespeare: Based on the Oxford Edition*. Gen. ed., Stephen Greenblatt. Introductory essays by Stephen Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean Howard, and Katharine Eisaman Maus. Norton, 1997. The original Oxford Text on which this edition is based is prepared by Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor, gen. eds. The General Intro. by Greenblatt and the introductory essays to the plays by Greenblatt, Cohen, Howard, and Maus incorporate the most recent theoretical/critical developments in the discipline. Strengths and weaknesses of this edition were discussed on this list earlier this year, if I am not mistaken. Regards, Evelyn Gajowski University of Nevada, Las Vegas [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 14:59:56 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1141 Re: Ordering Arden Editions >Any bookshop in the USA can order Arden Shakespeare titles from ITPS >Customer Services, 7625 Empire Drive, Florence, KY 41042, tel 606 525 >6620. For other ordering information please see our website at >< I called ITPS today, and they carry only nine titles (I think it was nine) in the Arden series. I moved to the web and ordered 2 Henry IV in hard cover, which is listed as in print at the Arden homepage, but which is not carried by ITPS. We'll have to see what happens. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:32:25 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1153 Re: Location of Old Globe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1153. Saturday, 15 November 1997. [1] From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 12:57:33 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1150 Q: Location of Old Globe? [2] From: Paul Nelsen Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 17:01:19 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1150 Q: Location of Old Globe? [3] From: Jason Rosenbaum Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 17:54:38 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1150 Q: Location of Old Globe? [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Joseph Kathman Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 12:57:33 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1150 Q: Location of Old Globe? Laura Fargas wrote: > Could someone tell me whether the old Globe was north or south of Maid > Lane? The books I have available seem to be very firm on the point -- > both ways. I would appreciate learning the current state of the > scholarship. The Globe was south of Maid Lane. This was a matter of considerable controversy early in this century: quite a bit of evidence seemed to indicate that the Globe was south of Maid (or Maiden) Lane, but then in 1910 or so Charles Wallace found a series of legal documents which quite clearly stated that it was *north* of Maid Lane. There was a lively debate in the scholarly literature for more than a decade, and then in 1921 W. W. Braines published *The Site of the Globe Playhouse Southewark* (with an expanded edition in 1924). Through a painstaking examination of all the known historical evidence, Braines showed that all of Wallace's documents which described the Globe as north of Maid Lane ultimately were copied from the description in a single original document (a common practice at the time, especially in legal documents involving property). He further demonstrated that every single compass point in this original description was mistakenly *reversed* from what it should have been-that is, what should have been "north" was rendered as "south", and vice versa. This probably resulted from a legal clerk (or somebody like that) having a map oriented the wrong way when he was writing the description. Braines' conclusions were generally accepted, and when the remains of the Globe were discovered in the late 1980s, it turned out that he was exactly right: the Globe was *south* of Maid Lane, not north. A nice example of an archeological find confirming an elaborately argued case of scholarly deduction. Dave Kathman djk1@midway.uchicago.edu [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Nelsen Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 17:01:19 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1150 Q: Location of Old Globe? Laura Fargas asks, "Could someone tell me whether the old Globe was north or south of Maid Lane?" The first and second Globes were situated to the south of Maid (also Maiden) Lane-now known as Park Street-on the South Bank of the Thames. The Rose (just a stone's throw down the lane) stood on the north side, closer to the river. Evidence presented by W.W. Braines in his 1924 essay "The Site of the Globe Playhouse" put a hush on most disputation about the precise location of Shakespeare's playhouse. In 1989, archeological excavation of a tiny portion of the site authoritatively squelched any remaining doubts. The remains of the Globe's foundations are still there-to the south of the former Maid Lane-awaiting further archeological investigation. Paul Nelsen Marlboro College [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jason Rosenbaum Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 17:54:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1150 Q: Location of Old Globe? Location maps of the original (and new) Globe Theatre can be seen on the website of the International Shakespeare Globe Centre-go directly there with: www.reading.ac.uk/globe/data-base/images/globe/archaeology/southwark1.html ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:37:19 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1154 Re: No Matter MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1154. Saturday, 15 November 1997. [1] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 09:20:35 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1149 Re: No Matter [2] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 15:55:42 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1149 Re: No Matter, Never Mind [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 09:20:35 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1149 Re: No Matter Julia MacKenzie writes: > On the question of 'matter', I am reminded of the use of the word in "As > You Like It": > > The Duke Senior says of Jaques - "I love to cope him in these sullen > fits,/ For then he's full of matter", in which case 'matter' can be > interpreted as thoughts, ideas, arguments, emotions. This > interpretation can also be placed on both Troilus' and Hamlet's lines. > "Mere words, no matter from the heart" - empty words, not real thoughts > or ideas from the heart, and Hamlet's "words, words, words" being only > that, with no meaning or emotion. > > What do you think? I think it depends on the immediate and play-wide contexts in the play. What do those contexts favor - or, if you are a director, what do they allow? L. Swilley [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 15:55:42 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1149 Re: No Matter, Never Mind Dave Evett writes: >Beatrice's remark about words as "foul wind" suggests a contrast between >mere moving air and something more substantial, closer to the sense of >matter as solid material. "Foul wind is but foul breath" (Bevington 5.2.52-53), says Beatrice. Isn't she playing with the idea (how can I put this delicately?) of "breaking wind"? I'm not sure that she's playing with philosophical distinctions. Remember that Early Modern thought was almost completely materialistic: God and heaven were material entities. The soul could be seen leaving the body. Angels could dance on the head of a pin (apparently). If everything is material, are some things more material than others? Julia MacKenzie writes: >The Duke Senior says of Jaques - "I love to cope him in these sullen >fits,/ For then he's full of matter", in which case 'matter' can be >interpreted as thoughts, ideas, arguments, emotions. Yes, true, but Jaques (as jakes) might be full of another kind of matter, and the Duke may be punning-and inviting a laugh. Shakespeare apparently likes to play with "matter." When Polonius asks Hamlet, "What is the matter, my lord?" (2.2.193), Hamlet replies, "Between who?" (194). As Bevington points out Polonius means "subject" matter, and Hamlet playfully understands "cause for a quarrel." Playing with matter, I remain, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:43:13 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1155 Re: Cleopatra and Antony MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1155. Saturday, 15 November 1997. [1] From: Rick Jones Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 09:36:31 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1147 Re: Cleopatra [2] From: Kristine Batey Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 09:39:44 -0600 Subj: Cleo Defended [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 09:36:31 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1147 Re: Cleopatra; Love I must respectfully disagree-vehemently-with Andy White's comment that A&C is "not as well written" as _All for Love_. AfL is, to be sure, about as good a Restoration tragedy as there is (I could never work up much interest in _Venice Preserv'd_, although the scholarly powers-that-be say I should), more coherent (or monolithic, depending on one's point of view) in its way, certainly more neoclassical in structure and characterization than A&C. But I find it difficult to regard these characteristics as inherent strengths. The very scope of A&C is what fascinates me: the way it trods unheedingly on all those neo-Aristotelian conventions, yet manages to present a unified aesthetic sensibility. Twenty years ago I saw the two plays performed on successive nights at the Old Vic. AfL got much the better production (the company was also doing _Hamlet_, and that was where the Shakespearean energy was channeled), and I had only standing-room for A&C, but A&C was still the better experience: Shakespeare's characters and plot alike were diminished rather than focused by Dryden's "regularization." I have since taught the two plays in juxtaposition several times, and I have yet to have a student-even those who (as I was at their age) are determined to de-mythologize Shakespeare-who professed to preferring Dryden. So Andy's comments interest me: I'd like to hear more about why he finds AfL the superior play. I doubt that I'll agree with the conclusion, but I may well grant much of the evidence. Finally, two questions, one semi-facetious, the other serious: Does anyone want to dispute my claim to being the only American to have seen two different John Dryden plays performed by two different companies within a 48 hour period? Has anyone suggested A&C in particular as a structural antecedent for Sturm und Drang? Rick Jones [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kristine Batey Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 09:39:44 -0600 Subject: Cleo Defended >After completing my Master's thesis on Antony and Cleopatra (Immortal >Longings: Voluntary Death in A& C-a real page turner!) I have to beg to >differ with the definition of Cleopatra as wicked woman who used her >wiles for political selfish ends. I have come to be a great admirer of >Cleo . . . My only published Shakespeare paper was on A&C, discussing the play's theme of overripeness. I, too, became a confirmed Cleopatra fan after writing about the play. C is so brimful of life, and intelligence, and sexuality, and intrigue-how could she accept being humiliated and limited? C's death is no more suicide than the biblical Samson's: she's far above and beyond her would-be captors. > Why should we think that she would not >choose death with dignity in the Roman tradition as her final statement >to the Roman world? Right! >Lest we forget-much of what we readily know of Cleopatra was written by >the victors, and they are known for telling history to suit themselves. Kristine Batey ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:52:21 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1156 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1156. Saturday, 15 November 1997. [1] From: Kristine Batey Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 13:07:02 -0600 Subj: Hamlet's Election and Cladius [2] From: Larry Weiss Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 15:01:20 -0500 Subj: Re: Hamlet's Inheritance [3] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 15:59:17 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1148 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kristine Batey Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 13:07:02 -0600 Subject: Hamlet's Election and Cladius Larry Weiss wrote: >The new king acts quickly and decisively to: (a) prepare >the country for war, and (b) initiate a diplomatic overture that >promptly bears fruit by (i) avoiding war, and (ii) turning the invasion >against a traditional enemy. What a king is this! In one of my undergrad courses, the prof suggested that "Hamlet" is really a tragedy about Claudius, given a quarter turn. Try switching the perspective, and think what the play would be like as Claudius the central character: an able, talented second son, doomed to stand in the background while his brother screws up the country. On top of this, he's in love with his brother's wife-and she with him. She's trapped in an arranged dynastic marriage to the brother of the man she really loves. She did her duty and produced an heir for him 30 years ago; no kids since, so probably no whoopie to speak of, contraception being what it was in those days. With the barbarians at the gate, and things falling apart, Claudius decides to solve his personal problems and the kingdom's problems at the same time: get rid of the bad brother, marry the girl of his dreams. He's basically a decent, well-meaning person: a good enough guy not to do a Richard III and off his nephew and stepson-at least at first-and lets him mope around the palace. The nephew's a waste as a potential king: a perpetual grad student, probably not as intellectually capable as his friend Horatio, whose philosophy he sneers at. (Has anybody ever played a 20-year-old Horatio to a 30-year-old H?) Hamlet's a brooding, superstitious, oversensitive, indecisive mess. He's 30 and heir presumptive, but they haven't been able to marry him off to another royal house. When he isn't hanging around the University, being a pain, he's at home being a pain and messing around with the daughter of the King's chief advisor. So here's Claudius, trying to straighten out his late, basically unlamented brother's kingdom before everything falls apart. Suddenly, this no-longer-a-kid kid of his wife's starts becoming dangerously erratic, and finally murderous, so the King talks a couple of the nephew's friends, good friends of the family, just to watch the guy. Once H murders a high-level courtier, however, major scandal looms on top of all the other stuff pulling apart the kingdom. There's no adult residential psychiatric care available for another 800 years, and things could get ugly if he just locks the guy up in the dungeon, particularly since Gertrude still loves him, even though he's a pill. So Claudius, beginning to sweat it now, talks to his courtiers and they agree that, for the sake of the Kingdom, this Hamlet must die, quietly, offstage. Things get worse and worse for Claudius, as he tries desperately to hold everything together. There's nothing he can do: this is a tragedy, he's a tragic hero, he has the fatal flaw and has committed the fatal sins, so there's no way he can hold everything together. Kristine Batey [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 15:01:20 -0500 Subject: Re: Hamlet's Inheritance Scott Shepherd asks what authority would back up Claudius's declaration that Hamlet is most immediate to his throne if, in fact, the Witan elected the king. The answer is "very little." And this lack of certainty may be one of the things that inspires Hamlet's reaction. In any case, there can be no doubt that the king was elected. Hamlet refers to Claudius having popped in between the election and his hopes; later he prophecies that the election lights on Fortinbras and give him his dying voice (vote); etc. As for Gregory Koch's observation that Hamlet actually liked Polonius until he caught him spying, I find no textual support, and much to the contrary. The idea that he must have liked the old man because he loved his daughter is intriguing. I suppose it is universally true that all men love their fathers-in-law. Larry Weiss [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 15:59:17 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1148 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir >I did recently read an article that deals with the possibility that >Claudius becomes King of Denmark because he marries Gertrude. Check out >Manuel Aguirre's "Life, Crown, and Queen: Gertrude and the Theme of >Sovereignty" *Review of English Studies* 47 (1996): 163-74. This was the position taken by the Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival in their recent production of Hamlet. It can work on stage, and certainly gives Gertrude a greater position of power. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 12:04:29 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1157 Qs: Rowse's Dark Lady; Hazle Twig; Searching; Shakespeare Mag MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1157. Saturday, 15 November 1997. [1] From: Gregory C. Koch Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 10:03:05 -0500 Subj: Re: A. L. Rowse [2] From: Shaula Evans Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 13:24:46 -0800 (PST) Subj: Hazle Shrew [3] From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 13:15:27 -0500 (EST) Subj: How and Why [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gregory C. Koch Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 10:03:05 -0500 Subject: Re: A. L. Rowse >By the way, for anyone interested, I have a little article in the next >Shakespeare Newsletter about the late Dr. Rowse whom I knew and who This came up in my project group - who did Rowse think the Dark Lady was and why? [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shaula Evans Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 13:24:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hazle Shrew In Taming of the Shrew 2.1, Petruchio says to Katherine: Why does the world report that Kate doth limpe ? Oh sland'rous world : Kate is like the hazle twig Is straight, and slender, and as browne in hue As hazlenuts, and sweeter then the kernels : Oh let me see thee walke : thou dost not halt. Why a "hazle" twig? (other than for scansion) And in the midst of all these ostensible compliments, why does Petruchio call Katherine "browne in hue." My actor playing Petruchio is stumped on this, and I haven't found anything helpful yet. All replies welcome. Shaula Evans Shakespeare Kelowna sevans@silk.net [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia M. Byrne Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 13:15:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: How and Why Two questions: #1 How do I ask for a Search (to find any discussion on R3 in the past bit)? #2 Has anyone else who subscribes to the SHAKESPEARE magazine NOT got their fall issue (on Macbeth). They told me that it had been mailed three weeks ago. Is Uncle Sam really that slooooooooow? [Editor's Note: I have appended the Search Directions below. --HMC] INSTRUCTIONS FOR SEARCHING THE SHAKSPER ARCHIVES The basic method for searching the archives is to send to listserv@ws.bowiestate.edu the following command (filling in the KEYWORD you wish without the square brackets): Search SHAKSPER [Keyword] For example, if you wished to see all occurrences of "Pericles" in the archives, you would send the following message: Search SHAKSPER Pericles You can also search using the BOOLEAN operators AND, OR, NOT: Search SHAKSPER Pericles AND Kinsmen Further, you can limit your search by DATES: Search SHAKSPER Pericles from 93/7/1 to 96/12/31 Search SHAKSPER Pericles since 96/1/1 In return, you will receive a list of "matches," identified by "item number." To order a copy of this/these postings, send the following command to listserv@ws.bowiestate.edu: GETPOST SHAKSPER [item number/s] To help you decided what items to order, the file you receive from your query also contains a Key Word in Context listing of the matches. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 12:10:20 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1158 Re: Kingship; Night Visitors; Lady Anne MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1158. Saturday, 15 November 1997. [1] From: Kristine Batey Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 10:29:34 -0600 Subj: Kingship [2] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 09:36:21 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1151 Re: Am Reporter [3] From: Richard Regan Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 23:32:05 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1145 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kristine Batey Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 10:29:34 -0600 Subject: Kingship Lex Ames wrote: >It is my position that comparisons of >Lear to other, more successful, Shakespearean kings, such as Henry V, >significantly illuminate the definition of Shakespearean kingship. Don't forget to look at Claudius (and maybe Hamlet's dad as well). Good luck, and welcome! Kristine Batey [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 09:36:21 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1151 Re: Am Reporter Joe Shea writes: > I was > once visited by Shakespeare in a dream when I was deeply involved in > writing sonnets and worried to death about starving in the process. He > told me: > > Tell Joe that if he must he can > Wear a belt three times wrapped around; > Even Great Joe in Old New York > Wore a longer one in London Town. > > Naturally, I continue to love him. If for your dream-visitor, your love may be dangerously misplaced, for no Shakespeare would write lines that evidence such an ignorance of prosody. As the vision may occur again, I recommend you take a garlic wreath, a crucifix and a handbook to poetry to bed. L. Swilley [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Regan Date: Friday, 14 Nov 1997 23:32:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1145 Re: Seduction of Lady Anne Vanessa Redgrave was reported by the New York Times a year or two ago as telling a group of acting students that the wooing scene between Richard and Anne could not possibly work. Perhaps the McKellan-Thomas version accepted this verdict in some way, because it seemed to me that they just ran the lines without a particular attempt to make them plausible. Instead, the film seemed to rely on the shock value of the scene being played in a morgue to carry the audience through to the rest of the play. Richard Regan Fairfield University ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:20:57 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1159 Re: Hazle; Matter; Lady Anne; Kingship MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1159. Monday, 17 November 1997. [1] From: Jan Powell Date: Saturday, 15 Nov 1997 11:29:10 -0800 Subj: Re: Hazle Shrew [2] From: Cliff Ronan Date: Saturday, 15 Nov 1997 11:08:07 -0500 (CDT) Subj: No Matter [3] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 15 Nov 1997 16:57:27 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1158 Re: Lady Anne [4] From: Stuart Manger Date: Sunday, 16 Nov 1997 18:34:00 +0000 Subj: SHK 8.1158 Re: Kingship [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jan Powell Date: Saturday, 15 Nov 1997 11:29:10 -0800 Subject: Re: Hazle Shrew Shaula Evans asks: >Why a "hazle" twig? (other than for scansion) And in the midst of all >these ostensible compliments, why does Petruchio call Katherine "browne >in hue." I believe Petruchio is using this line as an opportunity to compliment and insult Katherine at the same time, as he does in the string of "Kate" descriptions, thereby keeping her off balance and overwhelmed, and possibly disarmed for the moment. "Brown" is clearly an insult, and while I don't know any specific reference to "hazel", the sound of the "a" followed by the "z" gives Petruchio some lovely sounds with which to annoy her, as in "should beeeee! should-buzzzzzz!". Jan Powell, Founding Artistic Director, Tygres Heart Shakespeare Co. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cliff Ronan Date: Saturday, 15 Nov 1997 11:08:07 -0500 (CDT) Subject: No Matter I am surprised that no one seems yet to have commented on another quibbling sense in Shakespeare's references to "matter" in Hamlet and As You Like It. As my parents used the term, it referred (as in the OED) to pus oozing from a wound or drying in the corner of the eye. Cliff Ronan, SWTSU [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 15 Nov 1997 16:57:27 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1158 Re: Lady Anne >Vanessa Redgrave was reported by the New York Times a year or two ago as >telling a group of acting students that the wooing scene between Richard >and Anne could not possibly work. Perhaps she should ask her sister for some directorial help. Yours, Bill Godshalk [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Manger Date: Sunday, 16 Nov 1997 18:34:00 +0000 Subject: SHK 8.1158 Re: Kingship I agree with Kristine Batey on Claudius. I am currently teaching The Tempest. Three 'kings' - well, six plus, if you count Caliban, on this island: Prospero - second run at Lear through Faust? Alonso - devastated by loss of Ferd. Ferd who thinks he's king, and is a bit dazed by it all, BUT not so much that he is not prepared to give it all up if he can see the admired Miranda. And Stephano? Rank bad, drunken, tyrannical, irrational absolute monarch, and totally self-deluded. Oh, and Antonio who is de facto Duke of Milan, and Seb the kingmaker? so how's that for a study of kingship? And Caliban? 'This island's mine' and 'I am all the subjects that you have, that was mine own king'. And he's the one who inherits the island after P returns to Milan? You want Shakespeare and kingship? You gottit! Stuart Manger ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:29:40 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1160 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1160. Monday, 17 November 1997. [1] From: Sean Kevin Lawrence Date: Saturday, 15 Nov 1997 12:14:25 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1156 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir [2] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 15 Nov 1997 16:40:32 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1156 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir [3] From: An Sonjae Date: Mondayy, 17 Nov 1997 09:12:31 +0900 (KST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1156 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir [4] From: Abigail Quart Date: Sunday, 16 Nov 1997 23:21:05 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1156 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Kevin Lawrence Date: Saturday, 15 Nov 1997 12:14:25 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1156 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir >In any case, there can be no doubt that the king was elected. Hamlet >refers to Claudius having popped in between the election and his hopes; >later he prophecies that the election lights on Fortinbras and give him >his dying voice (vote); etc. I hate to strain a point, but I don't believe that "election" always implies a vote in early modern English. Cheers, Sean [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 15 Nov 1997 16:40:32 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1156 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir Kristine Batey writes: >The nephew's a waste as a >potential king: a perpetual grad student, probably not as intellectually >capable as his friend Horatio, whose philosophy he sneers at. In the Folio text (TLN 864), Hamlet speaks to Horatio of "our Philosophy." That "our" gives quite a different feel to the line. Yours, Bill Godshalk [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: An Sonjae Date: Mondayy, 17 Nov 1997 09:12:31 +0900 (KST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1156 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir It does not seem to me that the text(s) of 'Hamlet' offer clear indications as to whether King Hamlet was killed for his crown or his wife. Indeed, as I have been teaching it this semester, I have been struck by what I feel to be the very limited access we are given to reliable information about the inner motivations behind what any of the characters in the play say and do. The play's the thing... and it's not only the king's conscience we're trying to catch, which I assume to be the whole point of the exercise. If you want a play about ambition leading to regicide, try the Scottish one... An Sonjae, Sogang University, Seoul [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Abigail Quart Date: Sunday, 16 Nov 1997 23:21:05 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1156 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir But what if, instead of being the power, her husband's death makes Gertrude suddenly redundant-and she can't face the idea of a new queen moving in, giving orders, pushing her into a dower house, or an attic, or a convent. Because, if the throne doesn't pass through Gertie, the new king will have his own wife, or get one quick, so he can have children to present as heirs or to marry off in treaties. If only there had been a daughter for young Fortinbras! And here's Claudius, whose brother was so afraid to let him out of his sight, he kept him dangling around the palace for decades, wouldn't let him marry, because no matter how she tried, Gertie had only the one (which was a vulnerability for Hamlet Sr., who never takes the blame for anything); Claudius, who never had anything to do except watch from the shadows the ostentatiously happy family life of his brother. By the way, what evidence is there that Gertrude ever did more than merely notice her brother-in-law's unrequited passion until the day she was suddenly free? Suppose she was so desperate to assure that nothing would change, that she took the step which changed everything? She never went into mourning. That's total denial. Even the ghost doesn't have the guts to accuse her of anything more than that hasty marriage. "Leave her to heaven," my Aunt Fanny. Does this ghost show the smallest sign of leaving anything to heaven? He has no case against her and he knows it. Knowing she was able to produce only one living son, might she not also feel a burden of gratitude toward Claudius, for giving up his chance to have children of his own by marrying her? Fortinbras maybe had a sister, a first cousin, he could have negotiated for? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:38:52 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1161 Re: Arden Editions; Complete Works MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1161. Monday, 17 November 1997. [1] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 15 Nov 1997 16:09:28 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1152 Re: Complete Works; Arden Editions [2] From: Nick Kind Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 09:41:24 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1152 Re: Complete Works; Arden Editions [3] From: Nick Kind Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 12:03:18 -0800 Subj: Arden Shakespeare Ordering [4] From: John McWilliams Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 11:02:03 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1152 Re: Complete Works; Arden Editions [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 15 Nov 1997 16:09:28 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1152 Re: Complete Works; Arden Editions >I called ITPS today, and they carry only nine titles (I think it was >nine) in the Arden series. I moved to the web and ordered <2 >Henry IV< in hard cover, which is listed as in print at the >Arden homepage, but which is not carried by ITPS. We'll have to see >what happens. What happened was: my web order was answered by ITPS. The salesperson informed me that 2 Henry IV in hard cover was "canceled"-whatever that means. And so I conclude-too hastily?--that not all items listed at the Arden website are in print. I did order the paperback (which is available), and paid $5 over the cover price for the privilege of ordering via the internet. Obviously, I value the Arden 2s, and wish ITPS had a better handle on things. (And, moreover, I wish the scholarly tradition of the Arden 2s had been maintained.) Yours, Bill Godshalk [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Kind Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 09:41:24 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1152 Re: Complete Works; Arden Editions We are urgently looking into the Arden ordering problems. Please bear with us - I will post information as soon as I can. All Ardens as listed on our website at are in print. Regards, Nick [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Kind Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 12:03:18 -0800 Subject: Arden Shakespeare Ordering To Bill Godschalk and the others that have emailed me with their concerns about ordering Ardens: I do apologise for the various mix-ups which you seem to be encountering. As of today ITPS, our warehouse in Kentucky, have all the Arden Shakespeare paperbacks and 21 of the hardbacks in stock. We are investigating their negative response to your query, Bill. To order an Arden Shakespeare, please contact your local bookstore, who should order from ITPS customer services (1-800-842 3636). If your bookstore has problems, you can contact ITPS direct. If you have any further problems, please contact me direct and off-list at and I will endeavour to sort them out. As much information as possible (e.g. name of contacts you spoke to) would be useful so that we can easily trace the queries. Nick Kind Electronic Acquisitions Editor The Arden Shakespeare http://www.ardenshakespeare.com/ [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John McWilliams Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 11:02:03 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1152 Re: Complete Works; Arden Editions Many thanks for all the responses to my queries about Tempest reading and Shakespeare editions. I'm now fully equipped with an excellent looking Tempest reading list and the desire to buy both the New Norton and Riverside Shakespeare editions... Thanks again, John McWilliams Cambridge ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:47:59 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1162 Re: Cleopatra and Antony; No Matter MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1162. Monday, 17 November 1997. [1] From: Joe Shea Date: Saturday, 15 Nov 1997 08:53:38 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1155 Re: Cleopatra and Antony [2] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 15 Nov 1997 16:31:18 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1155 Re: Cleopatra and Antony [3] From: David Evett Date: Saturday, 15 Nov 1997 12:49:12 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1154 Re: No Matter [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Shea Date: Saturday, 15 Nov 1997 08:53:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1155 Re: Cleopatra and Antony I thought some on this list might be interested in a review of a new Antony & Cleopatra in the current AR Theater Review. It's at http://www.american-reporter.com/current/35.html Best, Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter http://www.newshare.com:9999 [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Saturday, 15 Nov 1997 16:31:18 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1155 Re: Cleopatra and Antony Kristine Batey writes: > C's death is no more suicide than the biblical Samson's: she's >far above and beyond her would-be captors. If anyone has forgotten, I would like to point out that Richard A. Levin and I have argued that Caesar nudges Cleopatra to commit suicide. Antony is basically a pawn in an imperial chess match between Caesar and Cleopatra. When Antony commits suicide in Act IV, the two chief players face off in Act V, and Cleopatra blinks. I think she loves Antony-in her fashion, but, at Charmian's suggestion (4.13.4), Cleopatra sends Antony word of her (supposed) death. Is there any doubt how Antony will react? Is there any doubt how Cleopatra will react when Dolabella tells her that she will be sent, captive, to Rome? Caesar is the unmoved mover of Sonnet 94. Yours, Bill Godshalk [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Saturday, 15 Nov 1997 12:49:12 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1154 Re: No Matter >"Foul wind is but foul breath" (Bevington 5.2.52-53), says Beatrice. >Isn't she playing with the idea (how can I put this delicately?) of >"breaking wind"? I'm not sure that she's playing with philosophical >distinctions. Remember that Early Modern thought was almost completely >materialistic: God and heaven were material entities. The soul could be >seen leaving the body. Angels could dance on the head of a pin >(apparently). If everything is material, are some things more material >than others? Like Beatrice, Bill Godshalk seems bent on frighting my words out of their right sense. There is a clear range or hierarchy of materiality: granite is more substantial than fresh bread, bread than water, water-or blood-than breath or wind. Beatrice (less "squaymous / Of fartyng" than Bill, perhaps) may indeed imply that Benedick's "mere words" to Claudio have no more meaning or value than the similarly labile matter issued from his lower orifice; she wants, like Mercutio, to "make it a word and a blow," because the word all by itself vanishes into the air and is gone, while the blow changes things substantially-in Mercutio's case leaves a hole big enough to let the soul escape. Touchstone develops the notion at length (Norton *Ado* 5.4.66-75, beginning "He sent me word. . . . I sent him word again . . . . he would send me word> . . ."). But I must confess myself puzzled by Bill's insistence on the materialism of early modern thought; if medieval culture (angels tripping the light fantastic on the heads of pins) had tended that way, and passed that tendency along, the Renaissance had brought a strong infusion of Platonic idealistic dualism. Marlowe and Shakespeare may, indeed, have hung on to the old tradition, but the other was active in Spenser and Donne. But, again, that was not my point. Materially, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:58:24 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1163 Re: A. L. Rowse MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1163. Monday, 17 November 1997. [1] From: Tiffany Rasovic Date: Sunday, 16 Nov 1997 14:59:40 +0000 Subj: A. L. Rowse [2] From: Karen Krebser Date: Sunday, 16 Nov 1997 09:15:05 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1157 Qs: Rowse's Dark Lady [3] From: Jeffrey Myers Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 08:20:33 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 8.1157 Qs: Rowse's Dark Lady [4] From: Stephanie Cowell Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 10:00:13 -0500 Subj: Rowse's Dark Lady [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tiffany Rasovic Date: Sunday, 16 Nov 1997 14:59:40 +0000 Subject: A. L. Rowse This entry is partly to list member in general, and partly to Ms. Cowell: I. To ALL, I am currently engaged with a project on A. L. Rowse involving letters written by him to Peter Levi. Anyone who has anything at all to say in favor of/or specific criticisms of Rowse's work, specifically regarding the post 1975 Shakespeare-related works, please do make your views known, or direct us to any reviews or scholarship in which you or someone else has made mention of him. (I realize that this question was posed just a few weeks ago, but with no real response...) II. Ms. Cowell, I have only just begun to investigate Dr. Rowse's academic work-I came upon the above mentioned letters rather blindly-so, I am quite unable to evaluate his Shakespearean/Elizabethan work at this time. Yet, I would like very much to correspond with you off the list if you are interested in my project, as I am interested in your personal and professional acquaintance with Dr. Rowse. Based on the material I have read, he is indeed a remarkably humorous, kind, and even passionate, man, who was not immune to the derision heaped upon him by many Shakespeareans. Do contact me at my own e-mail account. Yours, TR [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Krebser Date: Sunday, 16 Nov 1997 09:15:05 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1157 Qs: Rowse's Dark Lady Rowse was convinced that Aemilia (Bassano) Lanyer was Shakespeare's Dark Lady. Lanyer was the daughter of a court musician, was fairly musical herself, of Italian descent (and therefore, perhaps, brunette), brought up in the household of the Earl and Countess of Cumberland (and therefore known in court circles), the mistress of the Lord Chamberlain, Sir Henry Cary, Baron Hunsdon. Yes, *that* Lord Chamberlain, of "The Lord Chamberlain's Men." She became pregnant with Hunsdon's son, and had to marry (so she picked Antonio Lanyer, another court musician). She named her son Henry. No doubt she would have known Shakespeare; whether or not he was in love with her, or that any other biographical significance can be attached to the sonnets is still an open question. Lanyer was a fine poet herself; Susanna Woods has published an edition of her work (the _Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum_) and writes quite an interesting introduction to the edition in which she debunks Rowse's theories. This edition is published by the Brown University Women Writers Project. Karen Krebser [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeffrey Myers Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 08:20:33 -0500 Subject: RE: SHK 8.1157 Qs: Rowse's Dark Lady I think his candidate was Aemilia Lanyer. Since I remember this from years ago in an interview with Dick Cavett, I don't remember many of the details other than that she was of Italian ancestry and thus dark. I also remember from this interview that the fact that she was the dark lady also made Shakespeare somehow related to Tennessee Williams. It's a great idea, but I'm not sure there's any factual support for it. Rowse did, if I'm not mistaken, publish an edition of Lanyer's poems, which should have the evidence for his claim. Jeff Myers [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Cowell Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 10:00:13 -0500 Subject: Rowse's Dark Lady To answer Gregory Koch's query of November 14th: "This came up in my project group - who did Rowse think the Dark Lady was and why?" Dr. Rowse was researching the Elizabethan astrologer Simon Forman for a book when he came across references to a rather loose moraled musician, Emilia Lanier who had been born a member of the musical Basanno family from Venice. She had been mistress of the Lord Chamberlain in the early 1590's, when he was patron of Shakespeare's theater troupe. Because of the proximity of the actor-playwright and the young lady of that time, Forman's descriptions of her personality, age, looks, musical gifts and free morals matched the description of the "Dark Lady" in the sonnets, written during that period. Rowse also felt that it was the Venetian Emilia who brought out much of Shakespeare's fascination for Italy and hence his many plays set there (though according to one of his letters to me, Elizabethans were in general fascinated with that country), that he was deeply wounded by her infidelity (as in sonnets) and that, remembering her years later, he created the capricious, wild Cleopatra. Emilia was discontent with her uninteresting husband Lanier; she lived to an old age, far past Shakespeare and his patron Southampton and left a book of her own poetry which has been published. Rowse has a few books about her, and what he has to say about her in the introduction to his new edition of Shakespeare the Man from Barnes and Noble is very interesting. Of course there are several contenders for the Dark Lady; I believe it is more likely to have been Emilia than the others and thus chose her for my novel "The Players: a novel of the young Shakespeare." Alas, Dr. Rowse made many enemies of his colleagues who are likely to discount what he has said on the basis of his cantankerous personality! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:07:12 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1164 Qs: French Texts; Shakespeare's Neologism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1164. Monday, 17 November 1997. [1] From: Roger Batt Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 09:36:13 +0100 Subj: Help French Texts [2] From: Pervez Rizvi Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 09:36:13 +0100 Subject: Help French Texts [Editor's Note: Because Roger Batt currently a member of SHAKSPER, please send any replies directly to him at . Thanks, HMC] Dear Hardy, Some time ago (Feb 97) I expressed an interest in joining the SHAKSPER Global Electronic Conference; I sent off a biographical note but didn't hear any more. As it happens I have been very busy and would not have had time to participate, but I would like a bit of help from you if possible. I am going to be directing a performance of Henry V for the Drama Group of Monaco in the summer in the open air at Roqubrune Castle on the Cote d'Azur. We are always short of English speaking actors (and I need a lot of course for a history play), so I have had the idea of performing all the sections at the French court in French - this means that I can use some French actors for the French court. What I am looking for is a translation of Henry V in French on the internet so I can download it and then "cut and paste" it into the English script to make a performing edition. Can you ask your contributors if any of them know of such a translation available? Any other thoughts or help that anyone could give me would be gratefully accepted. Thanking you, Roger Batt [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pervez Rizvi From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1165 Re: Hazle MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1165. Tuesday, 18 November 1997. [1] From: Julie Blumenthal Date: Sunday, 16 Nov 1997 10:44:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: Hazle Shrew [2] From: William Williams Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 10:24:35 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1159 Re: Hazle [3] From: Scott Shepherd Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 12:04:49 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1159 Re: Hazle [4] From: Abigail Quart Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 00:51:14 -0500 Subj: Hazel-Brown [5] From: Abigail Quart Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 00:55:48 -0500 Subj: Hazel-Brown [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julie Blumenthal Date: Sunday, 16 Nov 1997 10:44:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Hazle Shrew Having examined this scene a number of times in scene-study class, the interpretation we always found worked best here was if Petruchio's compliments are only superficially meant. Both Kate and P. are smart enough to see through his "honeyed words" - in this particular bit, I think he's laying it on with a trowel, and intentionally choosing things for his analogies that can be seen through to what they really are - insults. The scene works quite well if it's a drag-down knock-out power play, and also doesn't force Kate to seem foolish or weak in yielding so soon. Hence I guess the answer to "how can you compliment someone by calling them brown of hue?" is : you can't. It also predisposes a casting wherein Kate is dark and Bianca, as the lovely, obedient one, is fair. Try it on for size. Julie [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Williams Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 10:24:35 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1159 Re: Hazle Hazel is an interesting point, at least in Shakespearean terms. A quick check shows that S. used the word only 4 times. Twice in +Shrew+ in the passage under discussion and twice in +RJ+ in quite similar context. Whatever the answer is it certainly is extra-textual. William Proctor Williams [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 12:04:49 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1159 Re: Hazle Surely Katherine *is* brown in hue, and Petrucchio's approach includes applying the rhetoric of praise to her conventionally unpraiseworthy actual attributes. [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Abigail Quart Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 00:51:14 -0500 Subject: Hazel-Brown From Robert Graves' The White Goddess: "Brown are the nuts of the Hazel, tree of wisdom." Graves' tree alphabet-calendar also associates a color with each tree. Coll, the hazel tree, is the letter C with a K sound. The color associated with Coll is brown. [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Abigail Quart Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 00:55:48 -0500 Subject: Hazel-Brown The Hazel tree is not only the tree of wisdom, but of witchcraft. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 08:41:51 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1166 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1166. Tuesday, 18 November 1997. [1] From: Scott Shepherd Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 11:04:48 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1160 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir [2] From: Scott Shepherd Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 11:33:21 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1160 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir [3] From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 11:34:07 CST6CDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.1160 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir [4] From: Lysbeth Benkert-Rasmussen Date: Monday, 17 Nov 97 12:23:00 CST Subj: RE: SHK 8.1156 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 11:04:48 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1160 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir >I hate to strain a point, but I don't believe that "election" always >implies a vote in early modern English. Certainly not, e.g., "but he sir had the election" (Iago speaking of Cassio), where it specifically refers to an appointed position. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 11:33:21 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1160 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir >In the Folio text (TLN 864), Hamlet speaks to Horatio of "our >Philosophy." That "our" gives quite a different feel to the line. Yes, but even if it's your it doesn't mean Horatio's philosophy, any more than Your fat king and your lean beggar are but variable service refers to a king and beggar belonging to Claudius. Your grammarian knows the technical name for this construct. It's a colloquial, generalizing sort of your that survives today in phrases like "it's your basic boy-meets-girl story." [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 11:34:07 CST6CDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.1160 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir We have recently discussed the question of Gertrude and Claudius's relationship in the "Introduction to Shakespeare" course that I am teaching this quarter and one question that arose is related to the Ghost's reference to Claudius as "that incestuous, that adulterate beast" (1.5.42); are incestuous and adulterate synonyms, or does the former refer to the current relationship between Claudius and Gertrude and the latter imply a relationship before King Hamlet's death? Or, as one student pointed out, does the "adulterate" merely mean that Claudius might have been having his way with other married women? Later in the same speech, the ghost states that Claudius "won to his shameful lust / The will of my most seeming-virtuous queen"; he doesn't say _when_ this happened. And despite the ghost's request to leave Gertrude to heaven, he certainly succeeds in poisoning young Hamlet's mind even more in terms of his relationship with his mother. How have others interpreted this line? Chris Gordon [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lysbeth Benkert-Rasmussen Date: Monday, 17 Nov 97 12:23:00 CST Subject: RE: SHK 8.1156 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir >The new king acts quickly and decisively to: (a) prepare >the country for war, and (b) initiate a diplomatic overture that >promptly bears fruit by (i) avoiding war, and (ii) turning the invasion >against a traditional enemy. What a king is this! I'm not quite sure I agree totally with Larry Weiss and Kristine Batey. Claudius may have given the reassuring appearance of being in charge, yet after he gets Norway to chasten his nephew, the first thing Claudius does is to give Fortinbras permission to move his troops through the middle of Denmark. Surely not the wisest move given the young man's proven disposition. Lysbeth Em Benkert Northern State University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 08:54:27 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1167 Re: Ardens; No Matter; Cleopatra; Shakespeare Magazine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1167. Tuesday, 18 November 1997. [1] From: Tom Clayton Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 10:25:56 Subj: RE: SHK 8.1161 Re: Arden Editions [2] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 18:02:20 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1162 Re: No Matter [3] From: Marilyn A. Bonomi Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 19:41:20 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1162 Re: Cleopatra and Antony [4] From: Mike Jensen Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 18:09:02 +0000 Subj: SHK 8.1157 Q: Shakespeare Mag [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Clayton Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 10:25:56 Subject: RE: SHK 8.1161 Re: Arden Editions ARDEN2s and 3s Like Bill, I value the Arden2s, many of them above all editions of the past 40 years, for my part, and am happy to be able to use as advanced course and seminar texts those that are still in print (I like to use one Arden2 along with either or both of more recent New Cambridge/Oxford-World's Classics editions). When I tried to chase down a couple of titles a few months ago, I was thoroughly confused by finding more than one ISBN (*not* just pbk and hbk, entirely different) and also the name of an editor not Arden2 so presumably of Arden3, which was, however, unavailable. I mean specifically MV, for one, the available Arden of which turned out to be John Russell Brown's Arden2--in my view excellent-edition not much behind in what matters, despite its age (for which it may in fact be the better), 1955, corrected 1959. I should add that many of the New Cambridge and Oxford-World's Classics are fine in their way, and some of them even have introductions and notes approaching Arden2 in thoroughness and erudition, and also add valuable material on production; but most are pretty short on appendices, especially of sources. It would be a real public service, and possibly even a source of profit, if some press undertook to keep some if not all Aarden2s in print even as Arden3 churns on. All Arden2s are available on a CD-ROM, but that is very costly (by my standards) and not the form in which I would want a sole copy in, anyway, with a downloaded printout hardly a satisfactory substitute for an actual *book*. Cheers, Tom [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 18:02:20 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1162 Re: No Matter >But I must confess myself puzzled by Bill's insistence on the >materialism of early modern thought; if medieval culture (angels >tripping the light fantastic on the heads of pins) had tended that way, >and passed that tendency along, the Renaissance had brought a strong >infusion of Platonic idealistic dualism. Marlowe and Shakespeare may, >indeed, have hung on to the old tradition, but the other was active in >Spenser and Donne. I'm not so sure about Platonic dualism. How dualistic was Renaissance Platonism? Henry More seems pretty materialistic to moi. Donne's conception of the soul seems fairly materialistic: Some say now it goes, and some say nay. Apparently there's a perceivable "it" to go. Spenser's dualism is debatable. And think of Milton's concept of the universe which is all of a piece from hell to the throne of god. In fact, some historians of ideas argue that the idea of transcendence of matter does not occur in the Renaissance (i.e., before the late 17th century). Yours, Bill Godshalk [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marilyn A. Bonomi Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 19:41:20 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1162 Re: Cleopatra and Antony W. L. Godshalk writes: >Caesar nudges Cleopatra to commit suicide. >Is there any doubt how Cleopatra will react when Dolabella tells her >that she will be sent, captive, to Rome? Cleopatra is above all an actor-she stages every scene in which she appears, and her suicide is as much an element of her performance as every other action she takes, from the barge Enobarbus describes to her donning of Antony's armor to her donning, for her final performance as Queen of Egypt, all of the panoply of her office. She even comments, in a classic bit of Shakespearean metatheatre, about not being played on the stage by boys-what an image! A boy speaking as a woman and rejecting being played by a boy! Cleo doesn't need nudging; she has recognized her options from the moment of military defeat. And none of them is palatable. Her death is simply the least distasteful. Yours, Marilyn Bonomi [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Jensen Date: Monday, 17 Nov 1997 18:09:02 +0000 Subject: SHK 8.1157 Q: Shakespeare Mag Virginia Bryne wrote "Has anyone else who subscribes to the SHAKESPEARE magazine NOT got their fall issue (on Macbeth)." Has anyone EVER received an issue? I subscribed through The Learning Company a few months back and still await my first issue! Mike Jensen ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:22:29 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1168 Assorted Responses to Ham. (Was Heir) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1168. Wednesday, 19 November 1997. [1] From: Tim Richards Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 22:42:55 +0800 Subj: Claudius and Gertrude [2] From: Jonathan Hope Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 10:05:29 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1166 Your grammarian [3] From: Larry Weiss Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 11:47:10 -0500 Subj: Re: Hamlet as Heir [4] From: Gregory Koch Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 12:31:51 -0500 Subj: Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir [5] From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 13:55:31 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1166 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir [6] From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 14:11:48 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1166 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir [7] From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 14:47:18 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1166 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Richards Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 22:42:55 +0800 Subject: Claudius and Gertrude Christine Mack Gordon wrote: >...are incestuous and adulterate synonyms, or does the >former refer to the current relationship between Claudius and Gertrude >and the latter imply a relationship before King Hamlet's death? I thought it was meant to refer to the current situation; that in the Ghost's eyes Gertrude is still bound to him, or at least his memory, and thus her relationship with Claudius is adulterous. Incestuous because, I suppose, as her brother-in-law Claudius stood as a brother to her. Tim Richards. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Hope Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 10:05:29 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1166 Your grammarian >>In the Folio text (TLN 864), Hamlet speaks to Horatio of "our >>Philosophy." That "our" gives quite a different feel to the line. > >Yes, but even if it's your it doesn't mean Horatio's philosophy, any >more than > > Your fat king and your lean beggar are but variable service > >refers to a king and beggar belonging to Claudius. Your grammarian >knows the technical name for this construct. It's a colloquial, >generalizing sort of your that survives today in phrases like "it's your >basic boy-meets-girl story." Scott's right - it is sometimes called 'generic you'. Katie Wales has an article on it. I don't have the reference on me, but can get it if anyone is interested. The contemporary locus classicus for this is Alf Garnet (Archie Bunker for US readers, though I don't know if they carried generic you across too). Jonathan Hope Middlesex University [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 11:47:10 -0500 Subject: Re: Hamlet as Heir Sean Kevin Lawrence and Scott Shepherd quibble that "election" does not necessarily imply a vote of an assemble. I agree; it might even just mean "choice," as in "election of remedies." It all depends on context; and in the context of Hamlet there is no reasonable alternative to election by the Witan. Why else would Hamlet give Fortinbras his dying voice? And if appointment was the process, who was the appointing authority? In any event, the point is not how many people participated in making the choice, but that there was a choice-the new king was not pre-ordained to be the natural heir of the prior king. Therefore, someone or some group of someone's made a deliberate decision to prefer Claudius over Hamlet, the natural heir. Lysbeth Benkert-Rasmussen makes the valid point that Claudius' allowing a march over his territories might not have been so wise. Certainly not in the Branagh version. Also, the march would probably have entailed more than mere passage-the Norwegian forces would likely have been permitted to forage off the land, so Denmark was making a material contribution to the war effort against Poland. BUT all diplomacy involves risks and compromises. The alternative to taking this chance was that Fortinbras would invade Denmark, kill a lot of people and waste the land anyway. On the other hand, Claudius' deal gave him more time to be prepared, foreknowledge of the route of march (and possibly a voice in selecting it), and the good chance that both the Polish and Norwegian forces would be severely debilitated by the engagement. Isn't this better? [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gregory Koch Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 12:31:51 -0500 Subject: Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir >>I hate to strain a point, but I don't believe that "election" always >>implies a vote in early modern English. Made weaker - more falliable than one smoothed in by popularity. ("Whose blood and judgment are so well commingled, that they are not a pipe for fortune's finger...") >Ghost's reference to Claudius as "that incestuous, that adulterate >beast" (1.5.42); are incestuous and adulterate synonyms, or does the The ghost was on the bias that poison makes: and did not stomach his brother's quick mating, which could be synonymous with abnormal relations... >yet after he gets Norway to chasten his nephew, the first thing >Claudius does is to give Fortinbras permission to move his troops >through the middle of Denmark. Surely not the wisest move given the Hey - he got away with everything 'til Hamlet runs him through... [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 13:55:31 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1166 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir There's calculated ambiguity about the particulars of Gertrude's guilt. The Mousetrap story is clear: the king's dead before the queen takes a new lover. But as for Gertrude, the ghost at least suggests adultery, and Hamlet says flat out "kill a king and marry with his brother" (although presumably we know his informational source, which never said this). We're left to wonder. Making a bad second match, a back-then-incestuous one, is definitely part of the accusation, but we knew that much before the ghost revealed anything, and does it qualify for "such an act that blurs the grace and blush of modesty" etc., or "such black and grained spots as will not leave their tinct"? Hamlet's closet-scene attack is basically a bad-second-marriage lecture, but his presentation implies that Gertrude 1) made a *choice* between Claudius and Old Hamlet, and 2) chose Claudius knowing him to be "a murderer and a villain." Scott Shepherd [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 14:11:48 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1166 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir >And despite the ghost's request to leave Gertrude to heaven, >he certainly succeeds in poisoning young Hamlet's mind even more in >terms of his relationship with his mother. I've always thought the ghost gives Hamlet two separate warnings: taint not thy mind let [not] thy soul contrive against thy mother aught both of which he has trouble with. It's the same "now make sure you don't do [exactly what you end up doing]" irony as I find thee apt, And duller shouldst thou be than the fat reed That roots itself in ease on Lethe wharf Shouldst thou not stir in this. [7]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 14:47:18 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1166 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir >to give Fortinbras permission to move his troops >through the middle of Denmark. Surely not the wisest move given the >young man's proven disposition. The wisdom of it is settled by "such regards of safety and allowance As therein are set down" and proven when Fortinbras in fact passes through peacefully. If anything it emphasizes Claudius' diplomatic prowess if he has so neutralized the threat that he can invite the very same army into his kingdom without fear. The reason Fortinbras enters Denmark at all is not to cast doubt on the king's foreign policy but so Hamlet can see him go by. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:31:17 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1169 Re: Arden Editions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1169. Wednesday, 19 November 1997. [1] From: Stevie Simkin Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 15:00:01 -0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1167 Re: Ardens and anti-Semitism [2] From: Tom Clayton Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 20:48:26 Subj: Ardens 2 and 3 [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stevie Simkin Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 15:00:01 -0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1167 Re: Ardens and anti-Semitism > John Russell Brown's > Arden2--in my view excellent-edition not much behind in what matters, > despite its age (for which it may in fact be the better), 1955, > corrected 1959. I would agree wholeheartedly with the consensus that the Arden2s are hard to fault in terms of their texts and scholarly notes. However, it seems to me that John Russell Brown's edition of MofV *is* desperately "behind" in that it fails to acknowledge the ideological dimensions of the play. The fact that it was used repeatedly as a vehicle for Nazi propaganda in the 1930s (for instance) requires attention. And as D. M. Cohen writes about the Arden edition: 'It is all very well for John Russell Brown to say The Merchant of Venice is not anti-Jewish, and that "there are only two slurs on Jews in general"; but this kind of assertion, a common enough one in criticism of the play, cannot account for the fear and shame that Jewish viewers and readers have always felt from the moment of Shylock's entrance to his final exit.' See DM Cohen, 'The Jew and Shylock', Shakespeare Quarterly, 31 (1980), 53-63. There is also a useful discussion of MofV and Marlowe's Jew of Malta in Peter Smith's Social Shakespeare (1995). This is a problem currently preoccupying me as I am directing a production of the Marlowe play which attempts to turn the play's anti-Semitism inside out by using it as a play within a play: our "outer" play is set in Warsaw at the time the ghetto was being set up in 1939/40. The "inner" play, Marlowe's text, is performed at the behest of the Nazi authorities. The Jewish actors, forced to perform Marlowe's anti-Semitic stereotypes, work to subvert the dominant reading of the play by various ingenious means which leads us to manipulate the text shamelessly, while keeping the words of the text pretty much intact. As the play switches between the 1939 and the Elizabethan contexts, all kinds of interesting things emerge about how ethnic identities are constructed, imposed and resisted. (Ferneze and his knights are played by German soldiers; Turks by non-Jewish Polish citizens). If anyone would be interested in following me up on this, please feel free to e-mail me off list. With 3 weeks to go to performance, and various written research going on around the performance research, all feedback is very welcome. Stevie Simkin King Alfred's University College, Winchester, UK [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Clayton Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 20:48:26 Subject: Ardens 2 and 3 Having just received two distinguished Arden 3's, R. A. Foakes's *Lear* and Katherine Duncan-Jones's *Sonnets*, I am happy to see and say that here are two editions I personally couldn't spare and wouldn't spare professionally. What a year for the Sonnets, with Helen Vendler's edition (and CD), too. Cheers, Tom ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:39:21 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1170 Re: Hazle MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1170. Wednesday, 19 November 1997. [1] From: Roy Flannagan Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 09:23:49 -0500 Subj: Hazelnuts [2] From: E. H. Pearlman Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 15:13:45 -0700 (MST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1165 Re: Hazle [3] From: John E. Perry Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 22:46:06 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1165 Re: Hazle [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roy Flannagan Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 09:23:49 -0500 Subject: Hazelnuts Hazelnuts are a deep brown, which might well be an unflattering color for an Elizabethan woman. Hazelnut shells in abundance were found, if I remember rightly, on the groundling level, in recent archeological excavations of the Globe, if not the Swan. There are, in one Elizabethan play or another, allusions to the noise of nuts cracking in the audience. Apparently, servants cracked nuts for their masters. The hazelnut, un-cracked, might make an excellent weapon to use on bad actors. A hazel twig, on the other hand, might be used as a switch (Petruchio disciplining unruly wife?). Witch hazel, the variety of shrub that (in the U.S.) produces the concoction now sometimes used with an alcohol base as an astringent, may have nothing to do with twig or fruit. As far as I can tell from looking through the OED, the English witch hazel is the hornbeam, a species of broad-leaved elm. The "witch" part may have come from flexible forked twigs used for divining rods. Roy Flannagan [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. H. Pearlman Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 15:13:45 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1165 Re: Hazle Any gardeners on this list? There is the common American variety called the "beaked hazelnut." This shrub forms dense stands (the cutting down fo which can be quite a relief from the labor of scholarship). This sort of hazel grows straight and slim - so straight that it has traditionally been used to make canes for walking. I believe that the European hazel (or filbert) grows in a similar manner. There is also a variety (corylus avellana contorta) that grows in a weirdly contorted manner. I don't know if this commercial variety was known in Shakespeare's time or is a later sport. So take your pick. (There's also "witch hazel," a separate plant, but I've never dealt with it). E. Pearlman [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John E. Perry Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 22:46:06 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1165 Re: Hazle Julie Blumenthal says, > Hence I guess the answer to "how can you compliment someone by calling > them brown of hue?" is : you can't. Why? Having spent a good deal of time in Italy, I can confidently state that there are very dark-skinned women there who are extravagantly beautiful. Indeed, in many parts Italy of women appreciate comments upon their pelle scura. Ever since I first read the play, I've felt that it works _only_ if Kate is dark and beautiful, and Bianca is fair and _less_ beautiful. Then Lucentio's comment about Kate's being "young and beauteous, but dreadful curst" (or something like that-I don't have the text with me) makes sense in a way that no other interpretation can. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:45:59 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1171 Re: No Matter; Material MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1171. Wednesday, 19 November 1997. [1] From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 14:59:17 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.114 No Matter (Troilus and Hamlet) [2] From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 16:27:18 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1167 Re: No Matter [3] From: Don Wall Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 18:57:00 -0800 (PST) Subj: Donne and Soul [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Stroffolino Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 14:59:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.114 No Matter (Troilus and Hamlet) Thanks Scott Shepherd for your thoughtful reply to my question- So if we assume that Troilus' meaning is limited; that he means only that Cressida gives him mere words and that these words do NOT come from the heart (and that he is positing a "word" vs. "heart" dualism here), he is (ironically?) denying the materiality of the word and claiming that the "heart" is MORE material than the words that are used either to refer to it, or to CREATE it (the function of vows, etc.). This of course tells us more about Troilus than it does about Cressida because we never see the contents of C's letter. In comparison, Hamlet's remark to Polonious claims that MATTER is ONLY words. In Hamlet's little joke matter is words and not meaning. What is the significance of this contrast? That Hamlet is disgusted by mere words because they are material, while Troilus is disgusted by words because they are immaterial? Troilus' remark comes at a time when he has chosen DEEDS over WORDs, while Hamlet's comes at a time when he has chosen words over deeds---or more subtly tries to consider "deeds" as nothing but words (in poststructural terms, Troilus is more phallogocentric? Hmmmmmm. Any responses?). Chris [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 16:27:18 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1167 Re: No Matter >Some say now it goes, >and some say nay. Apparently there's a perceivable "it" to go. That the pronoun "it" was used for the noun "soul" doesn't make the soul material. And given the above mentioned confusion about whether it goes or not, its perceivability is questionable too. If Godshalk could give us a defining example of post-C17 "transcendence of matter" ideas, then we could set about looking for something similar among the early moderns. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Wall Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 18:57:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Donne and Soul Donne did not believe in a material soul. The spirits in the blood ("The Ecstasy") were matter as close to spirit as possible; they made a connection between the soul and the material world possible (they knit the subtle knot that makes us man). Yes, the soul had a presence, but it was not a material one-the laity could not tell when the soul departed. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:49:40 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1172 Re: Shakespeare Magazine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1172. Wednesday, 19 November 1997. [1] From: William Williams Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 08:35:06 -0600 Subj: Shakespeare Magazine [2] From: Lauren Bergquist Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 10:54:34 -0400 Subj: Shakespeare Magazine [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Williams Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 08:35:06 -0600 Subject: Shakespeare Magazine I subscribed to Shakespeare Mag this summer, asked to start with the Globe Opening issue, got that one, have received nothing further. They have a web site: http://www.shakespearemag.com/ but as of this morning it was not responding. William Proctor Williams Northern Illinois University [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lauren Bergquist Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 10:54:34 -0400 Subject: Shakespeare Magazine I, too, was worried about the late arrival (well, actually lack of arrival) of Shakespeare Magazine. I found their web page on the internet and got this address: rachelr@shakespearemag.com I emailed and received a prompt reply. A few days later my issue arrived. Try this, and perhaps you will gain some insight as to what happened to your subscription. Good luck! Lauren ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:54:03 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1173 Re: Cleopatra; Lady Anne MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1173. Wednesday, 19 November 1997. [1] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 13:29:33 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1167 Re: Cleopatra [2] From: Jean Peterson Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 11:51:47 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Seduction of Lady Anne [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 13:29:33 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1167 Re: Cleopatra >Cleo doesn't need nudging; she has recognized her options from the >moment of military defeat. And none of them is palatable. Her death is >simply the least distasteful. writes Marilyn Bonomi. Some of us see the Seleucus episode (Riverside 5.2.140-172) as indeed staged. Cleopatra is testing the waters, and she finds them frigid. Had Caesar responded with warmth, I think Cleopatra would have refrained from suicide. As it is, she realizes that Caesar merely words her. And she commits suicide as Caesar desires. Privately, I think that Shakespeare was thinking of Mary, Queen of Scots, when he was writing about Cleopatra. Neither was the kind of woman you can keep around after you've captured her. And I'm sure Elizabeth would have been overjoyed if Mary had taken the honorable way out. Yours, Bill Godshalk [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jean Peterson Date: Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997 11:51:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Seduction of Lady Anne Those interested in "why" Shakespeare's Lady Anne succumbs to Richard III might also consider her actions in reference to early-modern misogyny. The scene quite capably demonstrates many of the worst beliefs about women: that they were carnal, morally frail, deceptive, easily seduced, and eager to be misled by their inordinate sexual appetites, and by appeals to their worst vice, vanity. In fact, Anne's status as a WIDOW places her firmly in a category of women often mocked, ridiculed and vilified in Renaissance discourse-the widow, or as popular belief would have it, the "lusty widow," who, despite quite a convincing show of grief, is actually hot-to-trot for the first man who ventures along. Other dramatic lusty widows are, of course, Gertrude, and the Duchess of Malfi (although Webster's treatment seems to suggest a more complex examination of the received stereotype-a"problematizing", we'd say today). A comic version is Chapman's "The Widow's Tears," in which a woman actually DOES do the wild thing RIGHT ON THE COFFIN of her presumed-dead husband (of course, the "soldier" she does it with is actually her husband, who has faked his death and returned in disguise to test her chastity, with such surprising results...). My point is that Anne's easy capitulation would have required no extraordinary leap of faith for audiences in Shakespeare's time, but rather makes use of popular conceptions of widows, the depth of their "grief," and their loyalty to the deceased. Or as Bob Dylan would say, "just like a woman." Cheers, Jean Peterson ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:58:33 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1174 Qs: Mamillius; CD Works MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1174. Wednesday, 19 November 1997. [1] From: Yoshiaki Takeda Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 10:39:59 +0900 (JST) Subj: Q about Mamillius [2] From: David Schalkwyk Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 12:14:18 SAST-2 Subj: Re: CD-ROMS of Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Yoshiaki Takeda Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 10:39:59 +0900 (JST) Subject: Q about Mamillius Dear SHAKSPEReans, I have a question. At 2.1.56-58 in _The Winter's Tale_, Leontes says to Hermione as follows: Give me the boy: I am glad you did not nurse him: Though he does bear some signs of me, yet you Have too much blood in him. Is it true that she did NOT nurse Mamillius, her loving son? I cannot find any referring speech in the text. Why does he say that? Is this a matter of the sources? Please help me. Thanks, TAKEDA Yoshiaki [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Schalkwyk Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 12:14:18 SAST-2 Subject: Re: CD-ROMS of Shakespeare A student has just asked me about a Cd-ROM of Shakespeare's complete works that she encountered at a local bookshop. She can't recall the company name but says that it contains "Text copyright Oxford University Press 1994" in small print on the side. No editor is mentioned. Does anyone know what version of the text this might contain? (Sorry I can't give any more info.) David Schalkwyk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:10:13 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1175 Re: Mamillius MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1175. Thursday, 20 November 1997. [1] From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 10:17:22 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1174 Qs: Mamillius [2] From: Helen Ostovich Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 10:45:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1174 Q: Mamillius [3] From: Mark Lawhorn Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 08:50:41 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1174 Qs: Mamillius [4] From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 18:42:58 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1174 Qs: Mamillius [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phyllis Rackin Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 10:17:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1174 Qs: Mamillius >I have a question. At 2.1.56-58 in _The Winter's Tale_, Leontes >says to Hermione as follows: > Give me the boy: I am glad you did not nurse him: > Though he does bear some signs of me, yet you > Have too much blood in him. >Is it true that she did NOT nurse Mamillius, her loving son? I cannot >find any referring speech in the text. Why does he say that? Is this a >matter of the sources? Please help me. It would have been extremely unlikely for a woman of Hermione's station to nurse her own child at the time the play was written. See Valerie Fildes, *Breasts, Bottles and Babies: a history of infant feeding* (Edinburgh University Press, 1986). It was not until the second half of the eighteenth century that maternal breastfeeding became the normal custom in England, and the use of wetnurses persisted even longer on the continent. Lawrence Stone, in *The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800* (New York: Harper & Row 1977, p. 420) quotes a German visitor who visited England in 1784 and "remarked with surprise" that "even women of quality nurse their children." [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 10:45:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1174 Q: Mamillius It was the custom of many upper-class women to hire wet-nurses for their infants (as in _R&J_, where Juliet's nurse speaks reminiscently of how Juliet was weaned). The current thinking was that nursing a child made the breasts sag and had a generally aging effect. That's one reason why the Ladies Collegiate in Jonson's _Epicoene_ discuss prophylactics. No births at all will keep a woman youthful in appearance. Helen Ostovich Department of English / Editor, _REED Newsletter_ McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L9 [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Lawhorn Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 08:50:41 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1174 Qs: Mamillius The practice of wetnursing, especially for infants of the upper classes, would not have seemed unusual to Shakespeare's audience. For an interesting discussion of the implications of Leontes reactions, have a look at *The Body Embarrassed* by Gail Kern Paster (Cornell UP, 1993, especially Chapter Five, "Quarreling with the Dug, or I am Glad You Did Not Nurse Him." [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 18:42:58 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1174 Qs: Mamillius I think it was a common early belief that imbibing mother's milk also conveyed maternal influence. (We still speak of "weaning" youngsters on various skills or subject matters). Leontes' disgust over his wife's supposed unfaithfulness (along with his visible uncertainty over his fatherhood of not only the unborn Perdita but Mamillius himself, viz. "Art thou my calf" etc. in Act I) leads him to wish to minimize any of Hermione's influence over his child. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:18:43 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1176 Re: Assorted Responses to Ham. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1176. Thursday, 20 November 1997. [1] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 09:36:39 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1168 Assorted Responses to Ham. (Was Heir) [2] From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 14:09:55 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1168 Hamlet as Heir [3] From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 15:05:12 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1171 Re: No Matter (Troilus and Hamlet) [4] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 19:47:03 -0500 (EST) Subj: Claudius' Error [5] From: Sean Kevin Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 18:47:07 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1168 Assorted Responses to Ham. (Was Heir) [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 09:36:39 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1168 Assorted Responses to Ham. (Was Heir) I don't know exactly how this information might bear on the discussion of the Claudius/Gertrude marriage (incest? adultery?), but didn't Henry VIII argue that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was invalid because he should not have been given a dispensation to marry his dead brother's wife? [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 14:09:55 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1168 Hamlet as Heir Surely election means choice, and surely in Shakespeare's Elsinore kings were chosen, though it's unclear by whom. Certainly not the people: The rabble call him lord, And as the world were now but to begin, Antiquity forgot, custom not known (The ratifiers and props of every word), They cry "Choose we! Laertes shall be king!" Also it seems your elective chances were improved if you had "the voice" of the king, or at least the voice of the person who last had the voice of the king. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 15:05:12 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1171 Re: No Matter (Troilus and Hamlet) I'm not sure I agree that "in Hamlet's little joke matter is words and not meaning." When pressed for "the matter that you read, my lord" Hamlet gives Polonius (more or less) what he's looking for: what we would call the subject-matter. Which jibes with Troilus' use of "matter." The joke ("What are you reading?" "Words") is the same both times, but Troilus expresses a preference for matter and Hamlet doesn't. As for words vs. deeds, that Hamlet has issues with both is clear, but that he equates them is harder to maintain since he is generally obsessed with a distinction between them: thought turning action awry, actors not making their actions and words proportionate, speaking daggers instead of using them, unpacking his heart with words vs carrying out the revenge heaven and hell have prompted him to, etc. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 19:47:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Claudius' Error The strategic error, of letting Fortinbras move troops through Denmark on his way to Poland has always puzzled me. Wouldn't it have made more sense, and proven more strategically effective, to simply _sail_ past Elsinore? Or is the area so completely iced over at that time of year that you need to march anyway? I take Claudius' assent to mean that he is paralyzed by his suspicions of Hamlet. Had Hamlet not been in the way, the passage through Denmark may not have been permitted. This was a vassal state of Denmark's after all. Which leads to a director's question for those on the list: How have you all handled this embassy? Has Voltimand delivered the first part as good news, but the second part as bad news? With a tone of voice that says "I had to accept this, but Your Highness may wish to refuse?" Just curious, Andy White Arlington, VA [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Kevin Lawrence Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 18:47:07 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1168 Assorted Responses to Ham. (Was Heir) > Sean Kevin Lawrence and Scott Shepherd quibble that "election" does not > necessarily imply a vote of an assemble. I agree; it might even just > mean "choice," as in "election of remedies." It all depends on context; > and in the context of Hamlet there is no reasonable alternative to > election by the Witan. Why else would Hamlet give Fortinbras his dying > voice? And if appointment was the process, who was the appointing > authority? In any event, the point is not how many people participated > in making the choice, but that there was a choice-the new king was not > pre-ordained to be the natural heir of the prior king. Therefore, > someone or some group of someone's made a deliberate decision to prefer > Claudius over Hamlet, the natural heir. Just because some decision is made by a group of people does not require any constitutional structure more formal than a general gathering of the powers that be with enough collective authority to ensure the appointment of a new king. Hamlet could simply be lending Fortinbras's self-nomination a certain level of moral force. No knowledge on Shakespeare's part of the precise constitutional structure of early modern Denmark is required. In principle, this is how leaders continue to be "elected" in a lot of countries, none of which have a Witan! Cheers, Sean ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:26:30 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1177 Re: Anti-Semitism; Arden MV MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1177. Thursday, 20 November 1997. [1] From: Jesus Cora Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 97 19:15:18 PST Subj: Re: SHK 8.1169 Re: Arden Editions [2] From: Tom Clayton Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 16:28:09 Subj: Re 8.1169 Arden MV and Anti-Semitism [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jesus Cora Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 97 19:15:18 PST Subject: Re: SHK 8.1169 Re: Arden Editions Dear Shakespeareans, Just a quick reflection on MoV's anti-Semitism. 1) We must not consider Shylock only as a Jew. He is a composite character. He shows strains of the Senex archetype in _fabula palliata_ and his negative aspects, especially those of being a usurer and a miser spring from this archetype, not his being a Jew. Besides, Shylock's jewish-ness is, to my mind, a way of concealing the true object of Shakespeare's criticisms: the Puritans, who in many cases, were also usurers and certain-ly hated music and profane entertainments and were quite strict with the interpretation of the law (the Bible). The association between Puritans and Jews is explicated in Jonson's _Bartholomew Fair_, where Zeal-of-the-land Busy is called "Rabbi" by Littlewit. 2) Of course, our reactions to Early modern texts is modified by the historical events spanning between that period and our own. After the Holocaust, the audiences reactions to MoV cannot be the same as those of Early Modern audiences. Our views of things are affected by history and, indeed, it is impossible to avoid such influence (and quite healthy too in this case, I believe). It is a good idea to add a frame to Marlowe's play, but in that case, it is no longer Marlowe's play. It is something different, Marlowe's text and historical context are affected by the relationship with the later events and figures. Would it not be appropriate to call that a new play, and find a new title accordingly? Would it not be more aseptic to show the play as it is and let the audience decide if the play is a downright anti-Semitic text or a play criticizing the Machiavel figure present in just any culture? On the other hand, why not provoke the audience and make the Turks, Palestinians, and the European characters, US or UN soldiers? Why not subvert it all and make Barabas a white European figure, the Turks, Israeli forces, and the Europeans, Intifada fighters? I bet these options would be not only original, but also thought-provoking. Relativistically yours, J. Cora. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Clayton Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 16:28:09 Subject: Re 8.1169 Arden MV and Anti-Semitism Re J. R. Brown's said-to-be "desperately 'behind'" New Arden MV (1955, corr. rpt., 1959): Brown is no anti-Semite (nor am I), but I don't recall suggesting that I would use this-or any-edition in a cultural or otherwise critical vacuum. I said in fact that "I like to use one Arden2 along with either or both of more recent New Cambridge/Oxford-World's Classics editions" (I might have added Arden 3), which almost invariably express-sometimes exclusively-current social perspectives and academic attitudes. Every edition of any period has its cultural as well as textual biases. These can always be explained and allowed for, and condemned as one feels necessary; the only time such biases go unnoticed is when they are one's own, a sure sign of shared genius. Some prefer to proscribe the whole of whatever critical and scholarly matter is seen as vitiated by an offending bias or gap, but what is gained by that is a resulting narrowness that has its own limitations. For the record (and without further ado), I have recently used to advantage and general enlightenment Brown's New Arden together with Jay L. Halio's Oxford/World's Classics MV (1993)--which contains a substantial section on "Shakespeare and Anti-Semitism." Cheers, Tom ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:31:09 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1178 Re: Hazle MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1178. Thursday, 20 November 1997. [1] From: Julie A. Blumenthal Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 10:05:24 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Hazle [2] From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 10:49:28 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1170 Re: Hazle [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julie A. Blumenthal Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 10:05:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Hazle >Having spent a good deal of time in Italy, I can confidently state >that there are very dark-skinned women there who are extravagantly >beautiful. Yeowch. Led with my chin on that one. Yes, I can state that too. However, my point was, and question is, does it work as a compliment _in this scene_? I've never seen the first scene between Kate and P. work if he is straightforwardly complimentary and lovey-dovey throughout. Has anyone else? Even if he enters with only the best intent (which in itself may or may not be seen to be the case), I don't think it can last the entire scene. Any thoughts? Julie [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 10:49:28 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1170 Re: Hazle I suppose people are disposed to interpret the hazelnut reference as an insult because the preceding terms of his praise are so patently false-she has conspicuously not been "pleasant, gamesome, passing courteous, . . . slow in speech," etc. But it seems to me a compliment if the actor playing Katherine does in fact move well ("Why does the world report that Kate doth limp?"), is indeed "straight and slender, and . . . brown in hue"). These qualities are instantly verifiable, and by switching the register from the obvious persiflage the precedes set up Petruchio's play with the normative fair-brown hierarchy. Note how he expands the simile: "sweeter than the kernels"-this woman is hard outside but sweet within (as indeed she turns out to be if her later transformation is taken straight). It's another matter, to be sure, if the actor is dumpy and hobbling. Nuttily, Dave Evett ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:36:15 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1179 Re: CD Oxford Works MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1179. Thursday, 20 November 1997. [1] From: Mark Lawhorn Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 08:50:41 -1000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1174 Qs: CD-ROM [2] From: A. J. Hoenselaars Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 11:12:09 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1174 Qs: CD Works [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Lawhorn Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 08:50:41 -1000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1174 Qs: CD-ROM > A student has just asked me about a Cd-ROM of Shakespeare's complete > works that she encountered at a local bookshop. She can't recall the > company name but says that it contains "Text copyright Oxford University > Press 1994" in small print on the side. No editor is mentioned. Does > anyone know what version of the text this might contain? (Sorry I can't > give any more info.) The CD-ROM your student asked about is probably one distributed by Andromeda Interactive. For full details about the text and notes, it might be best to contact them. Their Oxford address is 9-15 The Vineyard, Oxfordshire OX14 3PX. Tel: 01235 529595. Fax: 01235 559122. U.S.A. address is 1050 Marina Parkway, Suite 107, Alameda, CA 94501. Tel: (510) 769 1616. Fax: (510) 769 1919. Cheers, Mark [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: A. J. Hoenselaars Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 11:12:09 +0100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1174 Qs: CD Works David Schalkwyk , the CD-ROM you refer to IS the 1988 Oxford Text. It has been discussed on the net before. I would like to add that, with the exception of some of the new introductory material, which is not WELLS or TAYLOR, I find this the best CD-ROM of the Complete Works, because it is so simple, and user friendly. I always have in my computer. Ton Hoenselaars ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:45:36 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1180 Re: Lady Anne; Cleopatra; Material; Sh. Mag. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1180. Thursday, 20 November 1997. [1] From: Richard Regan Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 01:29:40 -0500 (EST) Subj: Lady Anne [2] From: Julia MacKenzie Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 18:17:04 +1100 Subj: Re: Cleopatra [3] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 17:04:06 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1171 Re: No Matter; Material [4] From: Kristine Batey Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 09:22:13 -0600 Subj: Shakespeare Magazine [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Regan Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 01:29:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: Lady Anne I would like to knit together two threads from recent postings: Anne's seduction by Richard of Gloucester, and the comparison of Richard and Iago. The key is to see "Richard III" as caricature, which it certainly is by contrast with both later histories and tragedies. The Richard of the first three acts is written to be incredible for his ability to sweep away obstacles in his path. Only in the final two acts does Shakespeare make some gestures in the direction of rounding out the character, and then only to make palatable his fall. His triumph over Anne is no more convincing than the dumb show in Hamlet, where the Player Queen succumbs instantly to the murderer. (What happened to Gertrude is another matter, now the subject of another thread in this list.) To compare Richard with Iago is to put a caricature next to a character for whom Shakespeare had more ambitious plans. The Iago played by Branagh or by Bob Hoskins in the BBC production works dramatically as a sociopath whose plots seem possible, not incredible. If Olivier or McKellan plays Richard for caricature, it seems to fit the play. If, say, Christopher Plummer plays Iago for caricature (as he did on tour with James Earl Jones), the play degenerates into a "bloody farce." Richard Regan Fairfield University [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julia MacKenzie Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 18:17:04 +1100 Subject: Re: Cleopatra Bill Godshalk writes "Had Caesar responded with warmth, I think Cleopatra would have refrained from suicide." Shakespeare's Cleopatra is a character, on the stage and on the printed page. She behaves exactly as Shakespeare meant her to. As such, she doesn't actually have a will of her own, and to speculate, without textual evidence, on how she might have reacted to different situations is just that - speculation. Julia MacKenzie [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 17:04:06 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1171 Re: No Matter; Material >If Godshalk could give us a defining example of post-C17 "transcendence >of matter" ideas, then we could set about looking for something similar >among the early moderns. If you are interested in looking, you could consult: "Transcendental: Antedated, Redefined," Notes and Queries 13 (1966): 254-5, regarding the idea of transcending matter in the 17th century. About Donne's materialism, I say, "no contest," at least as far as I'm concerned! Regarding the materiality of "words," I don't think passages like "Words, words, mere words, no matter from the heart" are relevant. The words may be material enough; they just happen to be lies; their subject matter is not heartfelt. Caesar "words" Cleopatra. Yours, Bill Godshalk [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kristine Batey Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 09:22:13 -0600 Subject: Shakespeare Magazine >I subscribed to Shakespeare Mag this summer, asked to start with the >Globe Opening issue, got that one, have received nothing further. They >have a web site: http://www.shakespearemag.com/ but as of this morning >it was not responding. I was able to connect this morning, 11/19. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:51:40 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1181 Drama Scholar Helps Police MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1181. Thursday, 20 November 1997. From: Daniel Traister Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 12:59:19 -0500 Subject: Drama Scholar Helps Police in Literary Detection Drama Scholar Helps Police in Literary Detection By Terry Pristin The New York Times, Wednesday, 19 November 1997 You are what you write. At least, that's how Dr. Donald W. Foster sees it. Foster, who teaches dramatic literature at Vassar College, made a name for himself in the academic world by persuading many other scholars that a long and disappointingly bland funeral elegy came from the pen of William Shakespeare. Now he spends his spare moments helping to solve crimes. It all started last year after Foster wrote an article for New York magazine identifying Joe Klein, the journalist, as the anonymous author of Primary Colors, the political roman a clef. Since then, law-enforcement officials have sought his help, and he has applied his talents at text analysis to the Unabomber case, the murder of JonBenet Ramsey and a 1996 double murder in Windsor, Conn. Usually more at home with songs and sonnets, he is poring over extortion letters, pseudonymous tips and ransom notes. The FBI has asked him to teach agents some of the techniques he uses to unmask an author. Those techniques include using a computer to see if the authors of two different texts favor the same uncommon words and phrases. Then he compares stylistic mannerisms, looking for parallel patterns in grammar, syntax and sentence structure, errors of spelling and usage, and ideas and psychological underpinnings. This has been a heady period for the professor, who pedals a clunky Schwinn between his apartment on the Vassar campus in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., and his cluttered office and still looks boyish at 47. His expertise has also been requested in a variety of civil matters-among them a case in which he refuted a lawyer's hunch that opposing counsel had ghostwritten the judge's opinion. Despite his new sideline, Foster said, he is not about to abandon the scholarship that made him prominent even before "Primary Colors." He still devotes many of his working hours to shoring up his conclusion about Shakespeare's authorship of the elegy for a young Oxford scholar who was murdered in 1612, against a wave of what he describes as "increasingly hysterical" skepticism among British academics. He is also assembling an anthology of writing by medieval Englishwomen. But the chance to poke his head out of the academic cloister from time to time has proved stimulating, he said. "I'm feeling the tremendous appeal of actually doing something that might have value in the real world," he said. Little of that has been monetary. He has been paid as much as $250 an hour for civil cases, but has also volunteered his services in the Unabomber and Ramsey cases. Other professors applauded Foster's forays into applied scholarship but were cautious about making too many claims for such verbal fingerprints. "It's a good advertisement for what we do," said Dennis Baron, a professor of English and linguistics at the University of Illinois. "As one tool among many," said Stanley Fish, a professor of English and law at Duke University, "it seems to me to deserve a place in the legal world, just as it does in the literary world. There's a legitimacy, as long as you don't think it's the magic key." It was the defense that first approached Foster in the Unabomber case. Lawyers for Theodore Kaczynski, the suspect, hoped that the professor would discredit a textual analysis made by the FBI comparing the Unabomber manifesto to other writings ascribed to the defendant. After looking at the documents, Foster said in a declaration filed with U.S. District Court in California, he came to believe that the Unabomber manifesto matched other writing samples from Kaczynski, who is accused of killing three people and injuring 23 others. Then, in March, the FBI asked him to examine the documents more thoroughly and respond to a defense expert's contention that the agency's claims were "untenable and unreliable at best." He concluded instead that the FBI had understated its case. "The evidence of common authorship is far more extensive, detailed and compelling than the FBI has suggested," he said in the court document. Neither the Justice Department nor Foster would release a longer analysis he drafted because it is not part of the court record. In the Ramsey case, Foster has provided Alex Hunter, the Boulder County, Colo., district attorney, with extensive notes on the ransom letter found after the 6-year-old JonBenet was murdered, and has studied letters from "supposed tipsters," as he calls them. Last summer, investigators in Windsor, Conn., asked Foster to analyze an anonymous letter purporting to confess to the March 1996 murders of Champaben Patel, 54, and her daughter, Anita Patel, 32 in an arson fire at the mother's home. Detective Debra Swanson said she was referred to Foster by the FBI. "We're very impressed with his work," she said. That work is still going on, and the case remains unsolved. Many people have the misconception that attributional work is mere word-crunching, Foster said. The computer, he acknowledged, has provided researchers with enormous capacity to winnow out likely authors of a particular text. To help determine the origin of the funeral elegy, a project he began when he stumbled across the unattributed poem in 1984 while he was a graduate student at the University of California at Santa Barbara, Foster developed a computer database called Shaxicon containing an index of words that Shakespeare used most infrequently, cross-indexed with thousands of other texts from the period. But the database is only a starting point, he said. "The notion has been perpetuated that there's a computer program that can identify authorship, and there isn't," he said. It is up to Foster to look for idiosyncrasies making up a distinctive verbal pattern. "One can make deliberate errors to try to conceal one's identity," he said, "but it's very hard to abandon one's customary habits." In the case of "Primary Colors," for example, Foster found that Anonymous and Joe Klein were both fond of compound words, colons and short sentences. In his criminal work, he also hunts for psychological clues, the aspect of attributional work that he seems to find most engaging. "The person who is being criticized or is under suspicion for committing some sort of serious misdeed," he said, "will on the one hand adopt various strategies for self-justification and various strategies for concealing." To illustrate the point without divulging details of his current criminal work, Foster cited O.J. Simpson's suicide note, which originally contained the phrase, "First, everyone understand I have nothing to do with Nicole's murder," until Simpson scratched out the words "I have." To the professor, this suggested "a need to conceal the self and its agency." Foster said his penchant for ferreting out personality traits is what particularly irritated Klein. In his Feb. 26, 1996 article for New York magazine, Foster suggested that both Anonymous and Klein had "issues" about blacks. "Anonymous thinks like Joe Klein," he concluded. "He has read Klein's Newsweek commentaries on race, and he thinks it's pretty smart stuff. Good blacks are hard-working, middle-class, nonthreatening. Bad blacks need quotas, affirmative action, welfare, gerrymandering." After the article appeared, Klein said he took offense at having his writing characterized that way. "This made him very angry," Foster said in the interview, "because he wanted to say, 'This is not me.' " Klein declined to be interviewed for this article. Foster was not actually the first person to identify Klein, but he may have had the most to lose. "Three editors had just announced that the funeral elegy would be included in their forthcoming editions of Shakespeare's work," the professor said, "and suddenly, Foster's authority started looking pretty shaky." Unaccustomed to dealing with authors in a position to issue denials and unable to reconcile the vehemence of Klein's protests with his own methodology, Foster backed off a bit, suggesting that Klein might have had some help in writing "Primary Colors." The professor's ordeal ended when The Washington Post got hold of a copy of the manuscript containing Klein's handwritten notes and Klein acknowledged its authorship. The full potential of literary attribution has yet to be explored, Foster said. "Text analysis is now where DNA analysis was a few years ago, or where fingerprinting was 50 years ago," he said. "We're realizing that we can learn an awful lot from evidence of this sort." Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:11:58 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1182 1988 Oxford Summer Study; Gangsta Sh.; Eve's Rom. Bayou MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1182. Thursday, 20 November 1997. [1] From: William Williams Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 10:18:26 -0600 Subj: 1988 Oxford Summer Study [2] From: Richard A. Burt Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 17:34:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: Gangsta Shakespeare [3] From: Richard A. Burt Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 17:36:30 -0500 (EST) Subj: Eve's R and J Bayou [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Williams Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 10:18:26 -0600 Subject: 1988 Oxford Summer Study I thank the list in advance for its indulgence, Students interested in for-credit summer study in Oxford in 1998 might want to visit: http://www.niu.edu/acad/english/oxford.html Thank you. William Proctor Williams Department of English Northern Illinois University DeKalb, IL 60115 email: wwilliam@niu.edu [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A. Burt Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 17:34:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Gangsta Shakespeare Anyone interested in Mafia Shakespeare might be interested to know that Shakespeare turns up in both parts of the recently aired (horrendous) CBS min-series, Mafia Wives (aka Bella Mafia). In the first part, the grand dame (Vanessa Redgrave) gives her favorite son a copy of Hamlet and cites the line about providence) before sending him off to Harvard (the family lives in Palermo, Sicily). In the second part, the bastard son of a poor woman and the favorite son turns up later as an assassin (of her sons by her previous lover's brothers-the other guy got murdered) and mentions Romeo and Juliet (also citing it) before killing two people on two separate occasions. I suppose one could try to make something of the citations in relation to the gender reversal in the story (the wives take revenge on the murders of all the males, adult and children, in their family). But it's unclear to me whether the energy would be worth it. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard A. Burt Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997 17:36:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Eve's R and J Bayou There are some incidental quotations from _Romeo and Juliet_ in the film _Eve's Bayou_. They are not thematically integrated, as far as I could see. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:36:34 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1183 Re: Hazle MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1183. Friday, 21 November 1997. [1] From: Alex G. Bennett Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 09:17:05 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1178 Re: Hazle [2] From: John E. Perry Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 00:41:57 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1178 Re: Hazle [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alex G. Bennett Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 09:17:05 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1178 Re: Hazle On Petruchio's description of Kate in II, i-I'm teaching _Shrew_ at the moment to my undergrads, and after rereading the play I've found that it seems to centre around the importance of reputation, of what's said about you. Up until II, i, Kate's heard nothing but how bad she is-she's a shrew, a devil, cursed, and so on. Her father humiliates her in public and openly prefers her younger (and ever so demure) sister-after hearing how awful she is over and over again, is it any wonder that she's _become_ what is said of her? As the sonnet goes, "'Tis better to be vile than vile esteemed." When Petruchio shows up and tells her "'Twas told me you were rough and coy and sullen,/ And now I find report a very liar;/ For thou art pleasant, gamesome, passing courteous...," he's giving her the first alternative view of herself that she might ever have heard. He's rewriting her image for her, giving her another possibility of behaving. Granted, this does tend to fit in to a reading of _Shrew_ as a love story, but with all the other references to role-playing and other issues of identity it seems to work fairly well. Incidentally, I remember reading a few years ago of an RSC (?) production of _Shrew_ in which Kate _does_ limp and stomp her way around the stage until Petruchio says that those who report her limping are liars, whereupon she stops. Cheers, Alex Bennett abennett@vax2.concordia.ca [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John E. Perry Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 00:41:57 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1178 Re: Hazle > >that there are very dark-skinned women there who are extravagantly > >beautiful. > > Yeowch. Led with my chin on that one. Yes, I can state that too. > However, my point was, and question is, does it work as a compliment _in > this scene_? I've never seen the first scene between Kate and P. work > if he is straightforwardly complimentary and lovey-dovey throughout. > Has anyone else? Even if he enters with only the best intent (which in > itself may or may not be seen to be the case), I don't think it can last > the entire scene. I don't see him entering with anything but the intent to overpower a hideously twisted monster (which Kate is -- look at her actions, none of them justified by events in the play). But he finds one of the rare people in the world who can keep up with him in wordplay (the other one in the play is Grumio). He falls in love then and there. To me, this is a love story, more than a comedy. I've never seen a _ToS_ that worked. They all try to make an arrogant boor of Petruchio and a misunderstood victim of Kate -- and the text doesn't support either interpretation. Take it seriously, play it straight, and you get both a hilarious comedy and a quirky love story. A quirky, funny love story I love to read, and would love to see played on stage. john perry jperry@norfolk.infi.net ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:49:15 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1184 Re: Works; Windows; BBC; Rooky/Roaky MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1184. Friday, 21 November 1997. [1] From: Milla Riggio Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 09:16:10 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1169 Re: Arden Editions [2] From: Walter Golman Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 08:46:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: "Widows" in Literature, as noted in SHK 8.1173 [3] From: Tanya Gough Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 09:39:32 -0500 Subj: BBC Petition Results [4] From: John Velz Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 15:17:14 -0600 (CST) Subj: Roaky/Rooky [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 09:16:10 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1169 Re: Arden Editions On the question of Sh. editions: The TEACHING SHAKESPEARE THROUGH PERFORMANCE volume in the pipeline from the MLA will have a section evaluating whole and single volume Shakespeare editions for the classroom when it emerges next year, building on Thompson. A side note: for some of us the Riverside Edition was the CROSS we had to bear when it was being duplicated and put into electronic formats and relied on and all such else. I never thought it attained canonical status in itself! ] Milla Riggio [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Walter Golman Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 08:46:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: "Widows" in Literature, as noted in SHK 8.1173 Jean Peterson's comment about the traits attributed mockingly to widows in Elizabethan literature brings to mind the acerbic comment by Ambrose Bierce, whose definition of "Widow" in his "Devil's Dictionary," runs as follows: "A pathetic figure that the Christian world has agreed to take humorously, although Christ's tenderness towards widows was one of the most marked features of his character." Cruelty to widows, of course, predates Elizabethan times and continues to this day in a variety of societies. Walter Golman, Silver Spring, Maryland [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tanya Gough Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 09:39:32 -0500 Subject: BBC Petition Results Well, I'm back from my hectic and not-nearly-long-enough trip to NYC, so here's the scoop on BBC: The Beeb and CBS-Fox have had an arrangement for some time now to release BBC titles - some of the CBS-Fox people have been receptive to discussions about releasing Shakespeare titles, but others have been hesitant, so the general discussion has been floundering for some time. Laura Palmer, the Beeb's video distribution manager, graciously gave me an hour of her time. She will be compiling a "request count" by the end of this month and promises to keep me current on the proceedings. My feeling on the matter is that they will probably start releasing titles next year - one or two at a time. Derek Jacobi's Hamlet is a strong contender for the first batch, as is John Cleese's Taming (remember we are dealing with Hollywood mentality here - star power counts). We'll keep plugging away until the whole set is out. Thanks for all your support and voluminous responses. If you care to send additional requests to the BBC, please feel free to do so. I will forward everything I get. Yours, Tanya Gough [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 15:17:14 -0600 (CST) Subject: Roaky/Rooky The reason Crosby doubted "the rooky wood" is that a crow and a rook are in general speech the same thing. I think, as Perez Rizvi does, that *roaky* in its sense of smokey is the primary meaning and that *rooky* is a characteristically allusive pun of secondary but real significance. Perez Rizvi speaks of *beetles* as a verb (in *Hamlet*, not *Othello*). W.A. Armstrong discusses this word in *Shakespeare's Imagination* 1946, pp. 18-19. Rooky is also suggested to be roaky p. 19n. Crosby's identification 75 yrs. earlier could not have been known to Armstrong, as the Crosby letters were in uncatalogued ms. (in Folger Shakespeare Library) from 1921 until 1975, first pubd. in 1986. Crosby was a great student of Sh's language, the more remarkably in that he was working before the OED was available. He might be of interest to Perez Rizvi as he works on peculiar neologisms in Sh. Frances Teague and I edited the ms., or rather 27% of it, for the Folger Shakespeare Library, in collaboration with Associated University Presses, 1986 under title *One Touch of Shakespeare: Letters of Joseph Crosby to Joseph Parker Norris 1875-1878*. There is a detailed index to the book, and another in the Folger Reading Room to the whole ms. Anyone interested in Shakespeare's language could do well to chk the index in the reading room. The Folger owns a microfilm of the ms. as well as the ms. itself. The hand is easily legible. To P.R.: Good Luck, which is to say, Good Hunting. John W. Velz ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:57:52 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1185 Re: Anti-Semitism; Arden MV MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1185. Friday, 21 November 1997. [1] From: Stevie Simkin Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 14:55:07 -0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1177 Re: Anti-Semitism; Arden MV [2] From: Frank Whigham Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 09:34:47 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1177 Re: Anti-Semitism [3] From: Cary Mazer Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 12:27:22 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1177 Re: Anti-Semitism; Arden MV [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stevie Simkin Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 14:55:07 -0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1177 Re: Anti-Semitism; Arden MV Further reflctions on MofV, Marlowe's Jew of Malta and anti-Semitism... In response to Tom Clayton's point, I was merely drawing attention to the limitations of Brown's introduction to the Arden2 MofV. I don't think Cohen, in commenting on the cursory treatment of the anti-Semitism issue in that introduction, is implying Brown is anti-Semitic. I was certainly not meaning to imply any such thing. And I would endorse Tom's recommendation of Jay L. Halio's Oxford edition, which I used when teaching the play on a Shakespeare and Ideology module. (The A3 Othello came just too late for the same module - I haven't caught up on this new one yet myself, so any thoughts, anyone, on the discussion of race/ethnicity in this edition?). I agree that the full historical context (or as full as we can be, always recognizing that we can never fully recover history) is vital to an understanding of the way Shylock is represented in the play. And this includes the Puritanism angle that Jesus Cora helpfully pinpoints. On the case of "adapting" Marlowe's play, there is far too much to deal with to attempt anything like a full reply on-list. Briefly - a) By setting JofM as we have, I would contend that we are still doing Marlowe's play, but doing it inside a second context (the "1939 play" with its Nazi-occupied Poland setting), so that the original resonates to us through two contexts (from 1590ish, through 1939, to 1997). This is not the same as setting the Marlowe play in 1939. What is crucial is the performative aspect: the anti-Semitism can be challenged by having actors playing the parts of 1939 Jews, who are in turn playing (and by various means subverting) the anti-Semitic stereotypes. b) What do we mean by showing the play "as it is"? This is the old argument, isn't it, about "doing the play straight" (or not). If audiences are unable to watch a play immune to their context (and the gap between their context and the play's original context), how can performers perform it immune from same? c) Is the play anti-Semitic or anti-Machiavellian? The fact I was able to extract a good number of uncompromisingly anti-Semitic insults, asides, comments, etc. to help create prologue and epilogue suggests the former. d) All the options on different (and more immediately contemporary) settings Jesus Cora suggests are thought-provoking, too: they bring to mind Charles Marowitz's 1946 Palestine setting for his adaptation of the play, "Variations on The MofV". One of the greatest challenges for our version has been to keep the Marlowe text pretty much intact (very, very minor actual alterations of text, apart from cuts for running time) but to turn the play "inside-out". Or (if the analogy isn't too clever-clever!) to spring a trap for the play using the text's own anti-Semitism as bait. Interesting implications for signifier/signified debates, apart from anything else. Stevie Simkin stevies@interalpha.co.uk [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frank Whigham Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 09:34:47 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1177 Re: Anti-Semitism For useful material see Siegel, Paul N. "Shylock the Puritan." Columbia University Forum 5.4 (1962): 14-19. Whether this partial element falsifies the presence of anti-Semitism, enacted or interrogated, is another matter entirely. >1) We must not consider Shylock only as a Jew. He is a composite >character. He shows strains of the Senex archetype in _fabula palliata_ >and his negative aspects, especially those of being a usurer and a miser >spring from this archetype, not his being a Jew. Besides, Shylock's >jewish-ness is, to my mind, a way of concealing the true object of >Shakespeare's criticisms: the Puritans, who in many cases, were also >usurers and certain-ly hated music and profane entertainments and were >quite strict with the interpretation of the law (the Bible). The >association between Puritans and Jews is explicated in Jonson's >_Bartholomew Fair_, where Zeal-of-the-land Busy is called "Rabbi" by >Littlewit. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cary Mazer Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 12:27:22 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1177 Re: Anti-Semitism; Arden MV Jesus Cora wrote: >It is a good idea to add a frame to Marlowe's >play, but in that case, it is no longer Marlowe's play. It is something >different, Marlowe's text and historical context are affected by the >relationship with the later events and figures. Would it not be >appropriate to call that a new play, and find a new title accordingly? As I've written to the list before, the sooner we think of *every* theatrical performance as "a new play" and "something different" the better, for then we will no longer judge a performance on its fidelity to an original text, but can celebrate it on its own merits, as an independent work of art built upon the raw material of a pre-existing script (along with lots of other materials). Cary P.S. The production ideas for JofM sound *wonderful*! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:02:11 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1186 Re: Cleopatra MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1186. Friday, 21 November 1997. [1] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 10:51:55 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1180 Re: Cleopatra [2] From: Cora Lee Wolfe Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 10:46:25 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1180 Re: Cleopatra [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 10:51:55 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1180 Re: Cleopatra >Shakespeare's Cleopatra is a character, on the stage and on the printed >page. She behaves exactly as Shakespeare meant her to. As such, she >doesn't actually have a will of her own, and to speculate, without >textual evidence, on how she might have reacted to different situations >is just that - speculation. writes Julia MacKenzie The qualifier, "without textual evidence," helps my case. The play gives us a good deal of textual evidence that Cleopatra is ever a boggler. Her best friends say so (3.13.110). And 3.13 shows her boggling with Thidias, and the final scene of the play shows her testing Caesar to see if she can seduce yet one more Roman. And, of course, she's bound by the script to fail, but an auditor surely has a perfect right to speculate about probabilities, given certain facts from the script. And, yes, of course, Shakespeare controls his characters, and makes them do what he wants them to do. He did not seem to feel bound completely by his sources fictional or historical. I couldn't agree more thoroughly. Yours, Bill Godshalk [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cora Lee Wolfe Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 10:46:25 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1180 Re: Cleopatra Julia wrote: > Shakespeare's Cleopatra is a character, on the stage and on the printed > page. She behaves exactly as Shakespeare meant her to. As such, she > doesn't actually have a will of her own, and to speculate, without > textual evidence, on how she might have reacted to different situations > is just that - speculation. How is speculation about Cleopatra's motivation any different than speculating about Hamlet's or Lady Anne's. Why do we read any of this stuff? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:08:00 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1187 Poetic Will; The Herbal Bed MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1187. Friday, 21 November 1997. [1] From: Norm Holland Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 97 11:41:22 EST Subj: New Book [2] From: Mario Ghezzi Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 21:39:49 +1100 Subj: The Herbal Bed [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 97 11:41:22 EST Subject: New Book I'm writing to call your attention to a splendidly subtle book I've been belatedly reading. Here is the jacket copy: POETIC WILL by David Willbern. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997. The essence of Shakespeare, observes David Willbern, is in the details. What matters most in our appreciation of Hamlet is not the staged play but the play of language we find in the words of the Bard. This book explores the expressions of Shakespeare's poetic will- his sexual desire, conscious and unconscious volition, and posthumous legacy-within the linguistic matrix that enfolds his characters and readers. Using a combination of psychoanalytic approaches, Willbern rescues Shakespeare from the limitations and distortions of dramatic performance by showing that his language, scenes, and characters are propelled by the genius of this will and need to be understood primarily as written narrative. In these provocative essays, Willbern examines the deep analogy between poetic creativity and sexual procreation as he explores the parallels between Shakespearean and Freudian representations of fantasy, thus offering readers a heightened awareness of the sexual and bodily substrate of Shakespeare's language. Engaging current debates between psychological and social approaches, he develops new strategies of reading in search for the limits of Shakespeare's language and our responses to it. He then applies these strategies to all of Shakespeare's genres via detailed analyses of a comedy (Twelfth Night), a history (Henry IV, Part One), a tragedy (Macbeth), and a poem (Lucrece). Additional essays provide an overview of Shakespeare both as a creative agent and as a body of work. Questions of identity, authenticity, and representation- especially as posed in Hamlet--are a recurrent concern throughout the book. Poetic Will frees the play of language in Shakespeare from its illusory anchors in characters and resituates the experience of reading his work within individual response and reconstruction. Offering practical criticism with a bold, American slant, it emphasizes the rich potential of Shakespeare's poetic language while exploring the interpretive and rhetorical limits of psychoanalytic literary criticism. "David Willbern is one of our finest psychoanalytic critics of Shakespeare. His rewarding studies are rich in awareness of the play of sexual language and in ideas about the centrality of identity and representation." --David Bevington, University of Chicago "Poetic Will brings together Willbern's wonderful sensitivity to poetic language, his supple and extensive grasp of psychoanalytic thought, and his deep knowledge of Shakespearean texts. The result is a terrific book that tells one a lot about the plays, a lot about poetic language, and a lot about the possibilities of psychoanalytically informed literary criticism." Richard P. Wheeler, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign David Willbern is Professor of English and Director of the Center for the Study of Psychoanalysis and Culture at the State University of New York, Buffalo. Since 1984 he has been a primary American organizer of the annual International Conference in Literature and Psychoanalysis. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mario Ghezzi Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 21:39:49 +1100 Subject: The Herbal Bed I have just read The Herbal Bed by Peter Whelan a play first performed in England in 1996. It is apparently based on actual events which occured in Stratford-upon-Avon in the summer of 1613, when Shakespeare's eldest daughter Susanna was publicly accused of having a sexual liason with Rafe Smith, amarried neighbour and family friend. I would like to teach it to my class. Would anyone on this listserver be able to suggest further reading regarding the actual incident and/or the play itself? Being relatively new I have been unable to find any material on the play. As it is I had to order from the US for a copy of the play as it was unavailable in Australia. Thanks Mario Ghezzi ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:13:44 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1188 Re: Drama Scholar Helps Police MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1188. Friday, 21 November 1997. [1] From: Gregory C. Koch Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 12:12:31 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1181 Drama Scholar Helps Police [2] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 00:04:08 +0 Subj: Re: Drama Scholar Helps Police [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gregory C. Koch Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 12:12:31 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1181 Drama Scholar Helps Police >Since then, law-enforcement officials have sought his help, and he has >applied his talents at text analysis to the Unabomber case, the murder I am glad a talent has been found for a process of textual analysis that began with Sir Walter W. Greg in the 1920s. I think one can find similar cross-application in his bio. And undoubtedly he also rode a bicycle in the middle of winter. >about Shakespeare's authorship of the elegy for a young Oxford scholar >who was murdered in 1612, against a wave of what he describes as >"increasingly hysterical" skepticism among British academics. He is It is rather obvious it does not match up to Shakespeare's skill of flow - yet, there are many who still think Henry VI and VIII are by Shakespeare... >law at Duke University, "it seems to me to deserve a place in the legal >world, just as it does in the literary world. There's a legitimacy, as >long as you don't think it's the magic key." He forgot the Shakespeare. It goes, "Sleep that knits up the ravelled sleave of care." (Mac. II, ii.) [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 00:04:08 +0 Subject: Re: Drama Scholar Helps Police Am I alone in finding Terry Pristin's piece in the New York Times (cross-posted here by Hardy Cook) appalling? An article in the current issue of PMLA about Foster's work cogently argues that `red-light' (`can't be the author') tests are much safer than `green-light' (`must be the author') tests because they are so much more immune to false-positives. Likewise fingerprinting is useful for excluding suspects because it can be demonstrated that no part of the suspect's hands matches the found print. But fingerprinting is decidedly unreliable for including suspects since, if the found print is small enough, any of us might have a similar pattern somewhere on our hands. Recently I have noticed that the reliability claimed for DNA profiling is, in media reports, falling. I'm sure I recall `one-in-thousand-billion' figures in the mid-1980s and now `one-in-billion' is more often cited. Presumably the found samples are incomplete (decayed, perhaps?) and so the situation is analogous to fingerprinting. I don't mind too much-well I do, but I'll let it pass-if a poem is wrongly attributed by Foster's method, but I mind awfully if people go to jail on the strength of it. Gabriel Egan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:18:46 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1189 Re: Assorted Responses to Ham. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1189. Friday, 21 November 1997. [1] From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 12:00:02 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1176 Re: Claudius' "error" [2] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 16:03:22 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1168 Assorted Responses to Ham. (Was Heir): yours [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 12:00:02 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1176 Re: Claudius' "error" I still don't see why we're calling something an error which has no ill consequences. We have textual cues to regard it as non-careless: On such regards of safety and allowance As therein are set down. . . . at our more considered time we'll read, Answer, and think upon this business. The decision isn't even made onstage, nor mentioned again until two acts later, when we see the arrangement going off without a hitch. Andy White's good-news-and-bad-news suggestion for Voltimand's report doesn't jibe with Claudius' "It likes us well" or Polonius' "This business is well ended." Of course Fortinbras could, like Laertes and Hamlet, go by water, but we know Shakespeare's company liked to march armies across the stage, and besides, we have to bring Fortinbras into Denmark somehow, first for Hamlet's "delicate and tender prince" speech, and again in 5.2 for the transfer of power that tragedy endings require. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 16:03:22 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1168 Assorted Responses to Ham. (Was Heir): yours Jonathan Hope responds regarding the Quarto Hamlet's "your philosophy": >Scott's right - it is sometimes called 'generic you'. Yes, but, when you (generic you) use "your philosophy" followed by a name (in this case, Horatio), doesn't the listener feel (as I do) that "your" refers to the person named. For example, "This is your argument, isn't it, Jonathan?" I interpret the "your" as a definite reference to Jonathan, not as a generic usage. Is this a general feeling of English users? Or do I stand alone? Yours (don't believe it for a minute!), Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:22:30 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1190 Othello in DC MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1190. Friday, 21 November 1997. From: Jung Jimmy Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 14:37 -0500 Subject: Othello in DC (and 2 Othello questions) Othello You know, the play about race relations and gender relations and love and war. They're doing Othello in Washington DC, and they're doing it with a white Othello and a black cast, which, one would think would emphasize the race issues. But as it turns out, it is the gender issues, not the black-white thing that seems the most intriguing. Let me backtrack, Patrick Stewart plays a white Othello in a black Venice. Othello, Bianca and the governor and soldiers of Cyprus are white. So, in some ways, the immediate impact of Othello being entirely different from everyone on stage is quickly diluted. As a result, the moments when the production forces you to reconsider your ideas about race seem only to come when this white Othello is described as "black as pitch." It's hard to tell if your really reevaluating your ideas about race or just being jerked outside the play for a moment because the language and the action don't quite match. More troubling is the depiction of the black Venetian as more violent, more bestial, than any white Venetians I remember. The men that accompany Barbantio to roust Othello in the first act are dressed as a street gang. black clothes, woolen caps. The Venetian soldiers come closer to plundering Cyprus than in any other production I've seen; the riot includes a sexual assault. And when they march, the black soldiers have a minstrel gait that makes them comical rather than soldierly. I personally was troubled by the sight of black soldiers being either more violent or less noble than these same soldiers as portrayed by white actors. This seems to stem, in part from a director who wants to focus on the treatment of women, rather than the race issues in the play. I don't think that's an unworthy choice, but given the unique casting of the production, it seems a shame to refocus on the gender issues. Nevertheless, the one huge benefit of the choice is the opportunity to see Franchelle Stewart Dorn's incredible performance as Emilia. Ms Dorn has played queens and duchesses, Cleopatra and Gertrude; so it is almost shocking when she creates this woman whose personality is so small, crushed by an abusive husband. From the moment she walks on stage, without a line, she makes you understand how she has been diminished by this man and could betray her mistress out of fear. Likewise, Desdemona, Bianca, and one of the women of Cyprus are also portrayed as the victims of the masculine martial society. The set is amazing and apparently was built to emphasize the climatic differences between Venice and Cyprus (at least that's what the assistant director said), they do this by making it rain, which is amazing, but seems to be more of a special effect than a critical thematic element. Othello, Iago and Desdemona all have moments where they draw you into their tragedy, but the action and the acting are also somewhat awkward on occasion. Othello in particular shifts disconcertingly from love to rage to nonchalance. The play overall is full of interesting choices, some that seem to pay off and some that confuse. Brabantio, for no reason I understood, is dressed as a minister or priest and Othello and Iago debate Desdemona's virtue using a chalkboard. To see some of these choices in action make the experience interesting, but this production seems to lose sight of the play's race issues, in the very process trying to overturn them. TWO QUESTIONS: 1. I recall someone on this list describing a previous white-on-black Othello. Did I imagine that, or can someone refresh my memory? 2. When Othello describes his wooing of Desdemona, I always recall him trying to explain himself to the Duke. Last night it seemed to me just as valid and potentially more interesting for Othello to explain himself to her father, who "loved him and oft invited him to tell the story if his life." I thought by directing this speech to Barbantio, he is now trying to explain himself to a lost friend, and it might become a little more personal. Has it been performed this way and how has it turned out? jimmy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:25:12 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1191 The Shakespeare Magazine Mystery MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1191. Friday, 21 November 1997. From: Mike LoMonico Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1997 18:38:06 -0500 Subject: The Shakespeare Magazine Mystery The editors of Shakespeare magazine have been frantically trying to find out why some subscribers haven't received the Fall 1997 Macbeth issue yet. All of the magazines were sent out on October 23 from Oklahoma City, but apparently some copies haven't reached their destinations. We think we have found the problems: 1. The U.S. Post Office informs us that this is the busiest time of the year for catalogs, and this year they have been especially overwhelmed. While we know most of you would rather be getting Shakespeare than another L. L. Bean or J. Crew Catalog, the Post Office is non-discriminating. We have been surveying our subscribers, and people in various states were still getting them this week. Keep your eye on the mail. 2. Those, like Mike Jensen, who subscribed through The Writing Company catalog were actually contracted to begin with the Winter 1998 issue (vol 2, number 1). We are assuming that they want the current issue and are mailing those copies out immediately by first class mail. 3. There has also been a note about the problem with our website [http://www.shakespearemag.com]. As far as we can see, the site is up and running. By the way, it does have several new entries in the Events section, and the Teacher Resources should be up soon. 4. If you need more specific information about your subscription, please write to our Managing Editor, Rachel Rubin at RUBINR@gunet.georgetown.edu We are sorry if there has been some inconvenience. If you still need to contact the editors, please feel free to do so. Mike LoMonico mikelomo@erolscom Nancy Goodwin nancyg@shakespearemag.com========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 12:31:38 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1192 Re: Hazle MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1192. Monday, 24 November 1997. [1] From: Kristine Batey Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 09:43:45 -0600 Subj: Re: Hazle [2] From: Helen Ostovich Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 13:43:01 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1183 Re: Hazle [3] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 14:02:01 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1183 Re: Hazle [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kristine Batey Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 09:43:45 -0600 Subject: Re: Hazle Re WS and dark beauty: Sonnet CXXVII: In the old age black was not counted fair, Or if it were, it bore not beauty's name; But now is black beauty's successive heir, And beauty slander'd with a bastard shame: For since each hand hath put on nature's power, Fairing the foul with art's false borrow'd face, Sweet beauty hath no name, no holy bower, But is profaned, if not lives in disgrace. Therefore my mistress' brows are raven black, Her eyes so suited, and they mourners seem At such who, not born fair, no beauty lack, Slandering creation with a false esteem: Yet so they mourn, becoming of their woe, That every tongue says beauty should look so. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 13:43:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1183 Re: Hazle Re John Perry's quest for a perfect _Shrew_, or at least one that plays as a quirky love story: the Stratford Ontario production starring Colm Feore and Goldy Semple (1987?) played it that way, and, as I recall, so did a very much earlier production from the 60s starring Kate Reid and John Colicos. The more recent production is available on video. Perhaps Tanya Gough at Yorick knows how to get it? [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 14:02:01 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1183 Re: Hazle Alex Bennett, who notes the power of compliments to change the shrew, should see (again?) Zefferilli's Taming of the Shrew in which Kate (played by Elizabeth Taylor) is secretly, vulnerably and uncharacteristically delighted to find herself the object of so much unexpected kindness on the part of her neighbors whom she espies bringing gifts for her wedding. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 12:39:44 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1193 Re: The Herbal Bed MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1193. Monday, 24 November 1997. [1] From: John W. Mahon Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 18:05:02 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1187 The Herbal Bed [2] From: Billy Houck Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 22:51:07 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: The Herbal Bed [3] From: John Velz Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 00:38:03 -0600 (CST) Subj: Herbal B-E-D [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John W. Mahon Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 18:05:02 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1187 The Herbal Bed Friday evening Dear SHAKSPER, With regard to Mario Ghezzi's request for information on Peter Whelan's play THE HERBAL BED, an interesting study of the play entitled "Shakespeare's `Appearance' in THE HERBAL BED" appears in the SUMMER/FALL issue of THE SHAKESPEARE NEWSLETTER, published this week and soon to be in the mail to subscribers. If Mr. Ghezzi sends us his address, we will be happy to send him a copy of this article. This special forty-page double issue of THE SHAKESPEARE NEWSLETTER offers a number of attractive articles, including two comprehensive (and quite different) retrospective assessments of the New York Shakespeare Festival's Shakespeare Marathon and complete details (with photographs) about the opening of the Globe on Bankside this summer. THE SHAKESPEARE NEWSLETTER is available to U.S. subscribers for $12 per year (please consider sending us $24 for two years at a time) for four issues (in the past two years, subscribers have also received, without additional charge, Extra Issues focused on particular aspects of Shakespearean study) and to subscribers outside the U.S. for $14 per year. Please contact us at: Department of English Iona College 715 North Avenue New Rochelle, NY 10801 Our e-mail address is SHNL@IONA.EDU or JMAHON@IONA.EDU, and we can be reached by phone at (914) 633-2061 and by Fax at (914) 637-2722. Thanks! [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 22:51:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: The Herbal Bed THE HERBAL BED is indeed a lovely play. I was lucky enough to see it in Stratford 2 summers ago. I recommend JOHN HALL AND HIS PATIENTS -The Medical Practice of Shakespeare's Son-In-Law by Joan Lane with medical commentary by Melvin Earles. Published by the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. My copy cost about 12 pounds. It's a facsimile copy of Hall's notebooks with a running commentary. Won't tell you much about Hall's married life, but he sure did take copious notes. Billy Houck [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 00:38:03 -0600 (CST) Subject: Herbal B-E-D Mario Ghezzi inquires about *The Herbal Bed*. This is the play that I saw in London last July and wrongly called "The Herb Garden" when I wrote recently to SHAKSPER about the Jacobean dialect the actors all spoke. (Too bad of me to eliminate the pun on BED) The play is not so much about Shakespeare as about the rise of arrogant puritanism, which is critiqued quite movingly in the ecclesiastical court scene. I got the same sort of moral impulse from this production as from Arthur Miller's *The Crucible*, though I do not think *the Herbal Bed* is in a dramatic sense the play that Miller's is. If I can find my playbill for the production I will see what information it contains. I suppose, Mr. Ghezzi, that we should keep this matter in SHAKSPER. But do not hesitate to write me personally and directly (see address above) if you prefer. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 12:47:22 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1194 Re: Drama Scholar Helps Police MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1194. Monday, 24 November 1997. [1] From: David Evett Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 10:49:44 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1188 Re: Drama Scholar Helps Police [2] From: Sean Kevin Lawrence Date: Saturday, 22 Nov 1997 11:57:31 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1188 Re: Drama Scholar Helps Police [3] From: Jonathan Hope Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 10:02:43 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1188 Re: Drama Scholar Helps Police [4] From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 06:48:34 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1188 Re: Drama Scholar Helps Police [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 10:49:44 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1188 Re: Drama Scholar Helps Police Leave us not suppose (as he himself would not) that Donald Foster has invented a wheel. My colleague (now emeritus) Louis Milic has been heavily engaged in what he calls stylometrics from the early 60's on, and was, like Foster, more than once engaged as an expert witness, working on texts as heavily conventional as legal briefs and proposing to find grammatical and rhetorical signatures in them. David Evett Cleveland State University [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sean Kevin Lawrence Date: Saturday, 22 Nov 1997 11:57:31 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1188 Re: Drama Scholar Helps Police > Recently I have noticed that the reliability claimed for DNA profiling > is, in media reports, falling. I'm sure I recall > `one-in-thousand-billion' figures in the mid-1980s and now > `one-in-billion' is more often cited. Presumably the found samples are > incomplete (decayed, perhaps?) and so the situation is analogous to > fingerprinting. It hardly matters. Both are little more than euphemisms for "we're certain." > I don't mind too much-well I do, but I'll let it pass-if a poem is > wrongly attributed by Foster's method, but I mind awfully if people go > to jail on the strength of it. As I understand it, this method doesn't have *that* much credit in the court system, so Foster's work just tells the police who to focus investigations upon. People are actually arrested on the strength of other evidence, just as Joe Klein's authorship was ultimately proven by his handwriting, not his writing style. Cheers, Sean [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Hope Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 10:02:43 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1188 Re: Drama Scholar Helps Police Further to Gabriel Egan's posting, there is discussion, some of it quite heated, of red light/green light authorship tests in articles by Eliott and Valenza, and Donald Foster, in a recent *Computers in the Humanities*. There is a further article by Eliott and Valenza in *Shakespeare Quarterly*. Jonathan Hope Middlesex University [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard J Kennedy Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 06:48:34 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1188 Re: Drama Scholar Helps Police It seems fairly certain that the Funeral Elegy was written by John Ford, and this is backed by the foremost Ford scholar in the world, Prof. Leo Stock who says he would "unhesitatingly" say that Ford wrote the poem, for he was in the Devonshire Elegy trade, and he is stylistic a twin to the phrases in the Elegy touted by Foster and Shaxicon to be by Shakespeare. Yes, he'll put the wrong man in jail if Shaxicon is all he's got to go on. Next thing psychics will say the FE is by Shakespeare, and all we'll have to do to catch criminals is to call a hotline for our sleuthing and give the detectives the day off. This is outrageous. For example, some phrases out of John Ford's "Christ's Bloody Sweat" and the Funeral Elegy: Elegy: by seeming reason underpropped. Sweat: which life, death underpropped. Elegy: Now runs the method of this doleful song Sweat: Set then the tenor of thy doleful song Elegy A rock of friendship figured in his name Sweat: A rock of torment, which affliction bears Elegy: That lives encompassed in a mortal frame. Sweat: For whiles encompassed in a fleshy frame Elegy: Unhappy matter of a mourning style Sweat: The happy matter of a moving style Elegy: So in his mischiefs is the world accurs'd It picks out matter to inform the worst Sweat: For so is prone mortality accursed As still it strives to plot and work the worst Elegy: But tasted of the sour-bitter scourge Of torture and affliction Sweat: Drew comfort from the sour-bitter gall of his afflictions. There is much more than this, but no one pays it any mind. Shaxicon would let the man who wrote Sweat go free and send someone else to jail, Shakespeare for example, who is innocent of the poem (if it were a crime). Just outrageous. Foster's hubris in this is past all conscience, almost criminal in itself. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 12:53:18 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1195 Re: your philosophy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1195. Monday, 24 November 1997. [1] From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 10:05:36 CST6CDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.1189 Re: Assorted Responses to Ham. [2] From: Scott Shepherd Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 15:39:45 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1189 Re: your philosophy [3] From: Jonathan Hope Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 09:35:50 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1189 Re: your philosophy [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 10:05:36 CST6CDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.1189 Re: Assorted Responses to Ham. I'd like to support Bill Godshalk's reading of the "your philosopy" as non-generic; the your/our options provided by the quarto and folio provide an interesting opportunity for directors and actors. Because of my own reading (and once, long ago, playing) of Horatio, I've always argued on behalf of "our" philosophy, because it makes the bond between Hamlet and Horatio stronger, even at a moment of extreme stress. "Your" philosophy, depending on how the actor playing Hamlet speaks the line, could be generic or could be an attempt to alienate _even_ Horatio from the events in progess. I almost cheered aloud on my first viewing of Branagh's _Hamlet_, when the choice was "our." In good fellowship, Chris Gordon [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 15:39:45 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1189 Re: your philosophy Well, now, Bill, "This is your argument, isn't it, Jonathan?" is an insidious example. It's definitely a non-generic you, but not because of the name. "This is your argument, isn't it?" isn't generic either. For generic you in close proximity to direct address, compare Sir, your pennyworth is good, an your goose be fat. [LLL 3.1] Painting, sir, I have heard say, is a mystery; and your whores, sir, being members of my occupation, using painting, do prove my occupation a mystery. [MM 4.2] Tilly-fally, Sir John, ne'er tell me: your ancient swaggerer comes not in my doors. [2H4 2.4] It should also be noted that Hamlet can hardly speak to Horatio without addressing him by name. Or with epithets like "my self" and "fellow-student," which suggest a shared philosophy. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Hope Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 09:35:50 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1189 Re: your philosophy Bill Godshalk writes: >when you (generic you) use "your philosophy" followed by a >name (in this case, Horatio), doesn't the listener feel (as I do) that >"your" refers to the person named. For example, "This is your argument, >isn't it, Jonathan?" I interpret the "your" as a definite reference to >Jonathan, not as a generic usage. > >Is this a general feeling of English users? Or do I stand alone? I take Bill's point, but I think it can be either - in some contexts, the 'your', even if followed by a proper name, can still be generic. The usage in Hamlet seems to me to be ambiguous - is Hamlet implying that he has access to a level of philosophical thought that would include what Horatio's doesn't, or that the philosophy they both share can't deal with the supernatural? Pronouns are 'shifters' - that is, their reference can shift quite startlingly with time and or context - one of the things that makes them so much fun. By the way, fans of generic 'your' should check out the Burt Reynolds character in 'Boogie Nights'. Best Jonathan Hope Middlesex University ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:13:16 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1196 Re: Rooky/Roaky; Editions; Iago; Oth. in DC; Anti-Semitism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1196. Monday, 24 November 1997. [1] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 12:54:19 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1184 Rooky/Roaky [2] From: John Cox Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 13:03:23 -0500 Subj: Comparing Editions [3] From: Jim Helsinger Date: Saturday, 22 Nov 1997 21:53:55 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1121 Re: R3/Iago [4] From: Stevie Simkin Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 22:54:03 -0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1190 Othello in DC [5] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 05:53:19 -0500 Subj: Anti-Semitism in M of V [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 12:54:19 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1184 Rooky/Roaky >The reason Crosby doubted "the rooky wood" is that a crow and a rook are >in general speech the same thing. I think, as Perez Rizvi does, that >*roaky* in its sense of smokey is the primary meaning and that *rooky* >is a characteristically allusive pun of secondary but real significance. Yes, the "crow/Makes wing to th' rooky wood" (3.2.50-51), and, yes, a crow is a rook. But perhaps Shakespeare decided against having the rook make wing to the rooky wood, and decided on variety in his word usage. In the evening, crows do fly to their special woods, and it's a notable sight to watch hundreds of crows flock to a certain section of forest. I've watched the crows fly in from the western hills in the early evening to roost in a special Cincinnati woods. Possibly Shakespeare thought of these special woods as "rooky wood," as Pervez Rizvi originally thought. The rooks certainly make their presence known. Roaky (from OED1) appears to be a later usage. And I've never seen a rook fly to a smokey forest. Perhaps others have? Or perhaps "roaky" is a metaphor for misty? In Lucrece 356 Shakespeare writes "misty night." Yours, Bill Godshalk [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cox Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 13:03:23 -0500 Subject: Comparing Editions Peter Holland reviews several editions in TLS, Nov. 7, 1997, including Riverside II, Norton, and Ardens. Ardens get extremely high praise. John Cox [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Helsinger Date: Saturday, 22 Nov 1997 21:53:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1121 Re: R3/Iago Parviz Nourpanah wrote: >Iago is the personification of pure evil, with no explanation needed or even >possible. I respectfully disagree. Iago explains his reasons for revenge in several different places. In his speech to Roderigo at the top of the play he explains that he is mad because he has been passed over by Cassio and has not been made lieutenant. Secondly, he tells the audience that he fears that Othello has cuckolded him and "leaped into my seat." He will not be satisfied until he is "evened with him wife for wife." He also "fears Cassio with my nightcap too." Emilia later mentions that Iago has suspected her with the Moor. Cuckoldry has been a motive for many murders today and in the past. Iago may be wrong in his assumptions, but I feel that Shakespeare does explain his motives. As far as the evil question-nothing that I can think of indicates that Iago has been evil before the events of this play. He has been a proven member of Othello's previous campaigns. Cuckoldry and revenge for being passed over seem to me to be motives that would be accepted in a court of law today. [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stevie Simkin Date: Friday, 21 Nov 1997 22:54:03 -0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1190 Othello in DC > You know, the play about race relations and gender relations and love > and war. They're doing Othello in Washington DC, and they're doing it > with a white Othello and a black cast, which, one would think would > emphasize the race issues. But as it turns out, it is the gender > issues, not the black-white thing that seems the most intriguing. This was fascinating to read - thank you for your writing about the production, which I knew was happening. I believe it's directed by Jude Kelly, currently one of the high profile directors over here in the UK. the feminism angle fits with her profile. >More troubling is the > depiction of the black Venetian as more violent, more bestial, than any > white Venetians I remember. The men that accompany Barbantio to roust > Othello in the first act are dressed as a street gang. black clothes, > woolen caps. The Venetian soldiers come closer to plundering Cyprus > than in any other production I've seen; the riot includes a sexual > assault. This makes me think the director may have read some of Michael Bristol's work on Othello and charivari. (See relevant chapter in Big Time Shakespeare, Routledge (in the UK at least), 1996). But it sounds like it didn't work very well... It reminds me of a production I saw a couple of years ago at a small theatre over here patronised by largely middle aged, upper middle class English southerners. A black actor played Othello. Every time Othello's emotional temperature was raised - the scenes where he becomes suspicious, jealous, etc. - the actor fell into these patois-type rhythms, while in the background we heard the sound of African drums. This I took to be the distinctly dodgy kind of association that assumes that black people are fine until you rouse them, at which point their veneer of civilization washes off and they degenerate into something bestial and subhuman. I wish I had had the chance to ask the actor and director what they thought they were playing at. There might have been a some serious thinking behind it, but I couldn't (can't) for the life of me imagine what it might have been. It seems there were some similarities in this DC production of Othello, with the bestial behaviour transposed to the black Venetians. The difference (may be) that your Washington audience would be more sensitive to and aware of these issues than our fairly specific theatre-goers at Newbury would have been (who, at the risk of badly over-generalising, were instead more likely to have existing prejudices fed). Stevie [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 05:53:19 -0500 Subject: Anti-Semitism in M of V One of the most interesting recent discussions of Anti-Semitism and M of V is Richard Halpern's chapter 'The Jewish Question: Shakespeare and Anti-Semitism' in his book 'Shakespeare Among the Moderns' (Cornell 1997). T. Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:20:18 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1197 Qs: Sh. in Japan; TNK Film; Mamillius MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1197. Monday, 24 November 1997. [1] From: Brent Zionic Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 00:06:22 -0500 (EST) Subj: Shx in Jpn Bibliographies? [2] From: Nicole Caccavo Date: Sunday, 23 Nov 1997 19:56:29 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: The Two Noble Kinsmen [3] From: Yoshiaki Takeda Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 21:09:27 +0900 (JST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1175 Re: Mamillius [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brent Zionic Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 00:06:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shx in Jpn Bibliographies? About a year ago, I posted a message to the list requesting any information on Shakespeare in Japan, and was fortunate enough to receive a large number of responses, and lots of useful advice. Thank you! Now, I have begun working on my first bibliography in my first year in an MA Program in the USA, in an East Asian Languages and Literature Dept.. I'm putting together a bibliography of "Shakespeare's Legacy in Japan," or something like that - the title is not determined, yet. I've put together a fairly large list already, but I thought I would consult the LIST and see if anyone could offer up some more great advice to help me along. Much appreciated! Brent Zionic CU-Boulder [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nicole Caccavo Date: Sunday, 23 Nov 1997 19:56:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: The Two Noble Kinsmen In researching and writing on perhaps the least well-read of Shakespeare's works, The Two Noble Kinsmen, I am trying to view film versions of the play. Are there any on video, and if so, are there ones which are especially acclaimed? Thanks, Nicole Caccavo billysha@minerva.cis.yale.edu [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Yoshiaki Takeda Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 21:09:27 +0900 (JST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1175 Re: Mamillius Dear SHAKSPEReans, Thank you so much for your kind replies to my question. But, I'm sorry to say that I still have not been satisfied yet. Indeed, it would have been unlikely for a woman of Hermione's station to nurse her own child in general at the time the play was written, and that may be the case with Mamillius. But, how about Perdita? For example, the queen grieves in 3.2.98-101 as follows, and its meaning seems very clear: My third comfort (i.e. Perdita) Starr'd most unluckily, is from my breast, The innocent milk in its most innocent mouth, Haled out to murder. This speech must have moved the Elizabethan audience very much. I believe that the author is always trying to move the audience by showing in his plays that the noble have much the same emotions that the common have. Therefore, I suppose that speech of Leontes is just a gloss slander or a rash from jealousy, while this speech of hers is a proof of her own nursing. How do you think about this idea of mine? TAKEDA Yoshiaki ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:29:41 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1198 Announcements MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1198. Monday, 24 November 1997. [1] From: Matthew Woodcock Date: Sunday, 23 Nov 1997 01:25:17 +0000 (GMT) Subj: CALL FOR PAPERS: Fulke Greville [2] From: Gill Day Date: Monday, 24 Nov 97 10:23:00 GMT Subj: Research Studentship [3] From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Sunday, 23 Nov 1997 09:51:22 -0500 (EST) Subj: Spring 1998 ACTER tour [4] From: Ivan Fuller Date: Sunday, 23 Nov 1997 20:58:55 -0600 (CST) Subj: John Lyly and "Gallathea" [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Woodcock Date: Sunday, 23 Nov 1997 01:25:17 +0000 (GMT) Subject: CALL FOR PAPERS: Fulke Greville CALL FOR PAPERS `Fulke Greville is a good boy': A Symposium on the Life, Times and Writings of Fulke Greville. To be held at Shrewsbury School; Shrewsbury, Shropshire; April 3-5 1998. Fulke Greville (1554-1628) poet, courtier, and friend of Philip Sidney. Fulke Greville and Philip Sidney were life-long friends who began school together at Shrewsbury on the same day in 1564. The title of this symposium comes from a comment scrawled by Sidney in one of his school-books. Greville has generally been studied principally in the shadow of his famous friend. He was however an accomplished writer, statesman, and thinker in his own right. The symposium sets out to explore and discuss the life, times and writings of Fulke Greville, and to appraise the current state of Fulke Greville scholarship. Proposed topics for discussion include: the political, religious and intellectual context of Fulke Greville's writing; editing Fulke Greville; `Caelica' and Elizabethan sonnet sequences; closet drama; The `Remains'; Fulke Greville's `Life of Sir Philip Sidney'; Fulke Greville's life, death, and his relationship with Sidney; education and schooling in the sixteenth century; Fulke Greville on war and monarchy; and the critical reception of Fulke Greville. If you are interested in attending or would like to offer a paper, please contact Matthew Woodcock or Helen Vincent at University College, Oxford, OX1 4BH. Email: matthew.woodcock@university-college.ox.ac.uk or helen.vincent@university-college.ox.ac.uk The deadline for submission of abstracts is 31 Jan 1998. Further details regarding registration and accommodation are available from the addresses above. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gill Day Date: Monday, 24 Nov 97 10:23:00 GMT Subject: Research Studentship Research Studentship in Renaissance Studies School of English University of Central England Applications are invited for a research studentship in Renaissance Studies. Successful applicants will pursue their research project at M. Phil/Ph.D level, directed by Dr Gillian Day and Dr Kate Aughterson. The successful applicant will be expected eventually to undertake up to 6 hours undergraduate teaching a week in the School. The student will receive ?5,500 per annum for up to three years, plus fees for registration as an M.Phil/Ph.D student. As the Studentship begins in January 1998, applications should reach the School by 10th December, 1997, and include a letter outlining a research proposal and a CV with the names and addresses of two referees. Address for applications: Dr Gillian Day, School of English, University of Central England, Perry Barr, Birmingham, B42 2SU U.K. Inquiries: Tel. 0121-331-5540 e-mail: GillDay@uce.ac.uk [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cynthia Dessen Date: Sunday, 23 Nov 1997 09:51:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Spring 1998 ACTER tour The Spring 1998 ACTER tour of *A Midsummer Night's Dream* by Actors from the London Stage, will visit the following campuses: Jan 30, one pre-tour performance at UNC-Chapel Hill; Feb. 2-8, University of Notre Dame, IN; Feb. 9-15, University of Wyoming, Laramie WY; Feb. 16-22, Outreach in the the state of Wyoming; Feb. 23-Mar. 1, Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau, MO; Mar. 2-8 University of Delaware, Newark, DE; March 9-15, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN; Mar. 16-22, Furman University, Greenville, SC; Mar. 23-29, SUNY-Albany. Future tours include Fall 1998, *The Tempest* and Spring 1999, *The Merchant of Venice* (bookings for both these now, schedule on the website) and Fall 1999, *Twelfth Night*, Spring 2000, *All's Well That Ends Well*. Cynthia Dessen, General Manager, ACTER csdessen@email.unc.edu 919-967-4265 (phone/fax) ACTER website: http://www.unc.edu/depts/acter/ Mail to: 1100 Willow Drive, Chapel Hill NC 27514 [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Fuller Date: Sunday, 23 Nov 1997 20:58:55 -0600 (CST) Subject: John Lyly and "Gallathea" I am just starting rehearsals for John Lyly's "Gallathea." What a delightful script! I can't understand why I have never heard of other productions, which has prompted this query. Do any of you know of past productions in the 20th Century? I am interested in compiling a production history and perhaps trying to convince more people that Lyly deserves another chance on our stages. I'd also be interested in hearing about productions of other Lyly scripts. I may feel differently after I get deeper into rehearsals or after the show closes, but right now I'm convinced that there is a lot of fun to be had from this script. I know that some of you have taught the script in various lit classes. I'd enjoying hearing your students reactions to the script as well. If you're near Sioux Falls, South Dakota Feb. 20-22, 24-26, come see some rare Lyly! Ivan Fuller, Chair Communication & Theatre Dept. Augustana College fuller@inst.augie.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 14:04:30 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1199 Re: Othello in DC MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1199. Tuesday, 25 November 1997. [1] From: David Evett Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 15:27:13 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1196 Oth. in DC [2] From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Tuesday, November 25, 1997 Subj: Othello in DC [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 15:27:13 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1196 Oth. in DC Peter Marks' review of the Washington Shakespeare Theater production of *Othello* (NYT 22 Nov.) finds the representation of the Venetians much less problematic than Jimmy Jung; the review focuses almost entirely on the main characters and the actors playing them (deep admiration for Patrick Stewart as Othello and Franchelle Stewart Dorn as Emilia, dismissal of Ron Canada as a "wooden" Iago). Marks does call the occupying forces in Cyprus "a mercenary force" or (a line later) "a U.N. peacekeeping unit," which made me wonder if recent events in central and west Africa might not have played as largely on the British director's imagination as gang conflict in L.A. What said the Washington Post? Dave Evett [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Tuesday, November 25, 1997 Subject: Othello in DC I saw the Shakespeare Theatre's *Othello* on Saturday and had a different reaction from that of Jimmy Jung and the reviewer for the *Washington Post* Lloyd Rose. The production, directed by Jude Kelly, used what the program referred to as "negative" casting. The Venetians were all played by African Americans with Patrick Steward playing Othello; however, to me the actors playing the Cypriots appeared more Middle Eastern than white. Bianca was indeed played by a white actor as were three Venetian servants of Barbantio, all valid and consistent casting choices. The production did focus on "the treatment of women," the most notable example being Fran Dorn's Emilia. (Dorn also played Emilia at the Shakespeare Theatre in 1990 with Avery Brooks as Othello and Andre Bragher as Iago. In the 1990 production, having African Americans as Iago and Emilia implied that part of Iago motivation resulted from his perceiving Othello as betraying his race.) In the current production, Dorn played Emilia as an "abused wife," a very different interpretation from her earlier more earthly and assertive performance. However, I would not contend that the production focused exclusively on "the treatment of women." It also emphasized the vast age difference between Stewart's Othello and Patrice Johnson's extremely young, if not girlish, Desdemonia. Furthermore, the "negative" casting did for me accentuate the script's racial dimension in ways that I have not seen in any other production. Othello is still described as "an old black ram," as having "thick-lips," and as being "black," and Stewart delivers the "Haply, for I am black . . ." line unaltered. To me, the point was not that the Venetians were "more violent, more bestial" than Venetians in traditionally cast *Othello*s. What struck me instead was that these Venetians were more racially antagonistic than I have seen in other productions. The Senate scene exemplified this point well. Not only does Barbantio display overt racial hostility toward Othello but so do ALL of the Venetians present. More strikingly, Craig Wallace as the Duke delivers the line "I think this tale would win my daughter too" directly to Barbantio in a bitter and disgusted manner - this line was surely NOT a palliative. The behavior of the Venetian soldiers in Cyprus was not I am sure a comment on their being played by African Americans and was more likely a commentary on imperialism. Further, I would not characterize their high-energy jogging as "a minstrel gait." At the performance I attended, there was more laughter than I am accustomed to in other productions of *Othello*. Roderigo was played as a simpleton, provoking some of the laughter, yet I was troubled that some of the laughter I heard seemed inappropriate. I suspect that this production, which had been sold out since early September, has attracted many Trekies who are present at least as much to see Picard as Shakespeare. During intermission, my wife overheard the comment, "Gee, this is so sad. I don't think I like it" - surely not a remark one hears from someone familiar with the play. [Please, no flames, I like the various incarnations of *Star Trek* too.] There were also some directorial deletions I did not clearly understand, the most notable being that even with a candle on stage, Othello spoke of only putting out Desdemona's "light." There were a few other directorial choices I did not care for, especially the business that brought on Othello's seizure, but the racial tensions of the production worked well for me and Stewart's portrayal of the noble Moor was impressive. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 14:10:50 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1200 Nashville *Hamlet* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1200. Tuesday, 25 November 1997. From: Kay L. Campbell Date: Mondayy, 24 Nov 1997 11:59:44 -0600 (CST) Subject: Nashville _Ham_ The Mockingbird Public Theatre of Nashville, just closed a two-weekend run of _Hamlet_ that I wish ya'll could have seen. Mounted in the basement theatre-in-the-round auditorium of Nashville's Performing Arts Center, the production put Hamlet onto a stark black set of angles, steps, and corners, a dangerous place, with some vague white patterns dusted onto the tipped and angled levels (like the patterns of a sidewalk, sort of, but interrupted). Projecting in the center of the stage was the tipped-back corner that eventually was draped for Gertrude's bed (from which the Ghost arose in all his metallic glory), and the same spot became Ophelia's grave. Above that corner suspended about 25' above the stage was a frame from which hung strips of white gauze, which could be moved by stage hands below stage to suggest wind, or draped back to reveal the loft that was Ophelia's room. Time references were deliberately blurred: Gertrude (played with a troubled brittleness by rail-thin Lisa Norman) wore slick and sexy first-lady sorts of suits; Claudius and Polonius both wore vaguely Nehru-ish suits (Mikael Byrd and Samuel T. Whited III), an interesting costuming parallel that emphasized Claudius's failure to completely pull off the king bit; while Hamlet (David Alford-also co-director) and Ophelia (Erin Whited-I don't know if she is Polonius's daughter in real life, but the apparent age difference and resemblance between them would have made that possible) both wore 1990s 20-something clothes: Hamlet in all-black, his shirt made of black gauze, and combat boots, Ophelia in gauzy sleeveless shifts. The ghost was splendid in silver lame' space-suit sort of thing with cape and white-plumed helmet. From black, the play opened in complete silence with a pin light on Horatio (Byron Brooks, a black man who towered head-and-shoulders above the pale white Hamlet) who began the speech with his "What is it you would see?" speech (with some editing) from 5.2. Back to black, then the air was split with grinding music and slashes of laser lights. Unfortunately (?), I don't know contemporary music very well, but my 8th grader tells me it included music of Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam, Nine-inch Nails and other stuff. This ended (with the gauze compartment gradually coming light and silent figures standing stiffly behind the gauze, their shadows thrown up onto the hangings) with the quiet patter of the sycophants applauding Claudius's 1.2 speech, Hamlet sitting off by himself close to us on a projection of the stage (1.1 was cut). The play continued, with some nice attention to detail (though a rather silly bit, I thought, during the Ghost-and-Hamlet scene where the ghost put his hand on Hamlet's head with sizzling sounds coming over the PA with his Darth-Vaderish voice-over). But I moved from deep interest to tears as Act III opened, and after the requisitely timorous Ophelia had been positioned and instructed by the Claudius and Polonius (Gertrude cut from this part), Hamlet strolled on, caught a glimpse of her, and ran to her, pulling her around the corner where they began kissing passionately. It was the only moment in the play when Ophelia seemed to stand up straight and unencumbered. His "To be" speech, then, was given to her, as he held her in his arms, and the suicide ponderings took on Romeo-and-Juliet-ish possibilities of a sort of suicide pact. I found it incredibly moving, this human moment between two 20-somethings caught between the tectonic plates of state craft and family problems. He moved away from her, still holding her hand, at "Thus conscience does make cowards" section. At the end of the soliloquy, a noise made them separate, Ophelia ran back to her place, began her scripted remarks. Hamlet looked at her, moved to look behind the gauze. She caught his hand to prevent him, and in a horrible moment we saw Hamlet register that Ophelia was cooperating with her father, even unwillingly. It was the first time I've ever had more sympathy for Hamlet at that moment than for Ophelia. This scene ends (though Polonius is a little more solicitous to Oph. than usual) with Ophelia left crumpled on a stage projection (same angle on which Ham was sitting in the opening scene). This abandonment of Ophelia was mirrored when the stage quickly emptied after her funeral, and we were left staring at the grave/bed-hole into which her wrapped body had been handed down, in silence. As the lights faded after the funeral, we heard snatches of Oph's voice singing over the PA. When the lights came back up after the grave scene, it was to reveal Ham clutching Oph's robe in grief in her room again. He composes himself as Horatio enters, and then moves into a manic jocularity with Osric (cheerfully turned out by Michael Ables), turning his back on Osric and beginning to fiddle with things on Ophelia's dressing table. We see him playing with makeup, so that by the time he turns around to say, "To this effect sir," we see with a shock that his face is white, with his eyes shining out of dark circles. This lends a new poignancy to Horatio's recognition that "you will lose, my lord." (other messenger cut). Hamlet already wears a death mask. I'm sorry that I couldn't see it more than once, and I'm pleased that my boys (11 and 13) saw this version as their first live _Ham_ production. It was intelligent and careful as well as spectacular. This production cut quite a bit-all of Fortinbras, for instance-to get the beginning-to-end length, with one intermission, to just under 3 hours. Btu the cuts were done in a way that lent speed to the dissolution of the kingdom and focus on Hamlet. It was an incredibly demanding performance for Hamlet; upon reflection, I realized that he was hardly ever off the stage. One other nice touch: when Ham almost knifes Claudius in 3.3, it is with Claud's own stiletto dagger he'd laid beside his jacket before he prays. After (via PA'd voice-over), Ham decides not to kill him then, he still takes the dagger, which he uses in the next scene to kill Polonius through the gauze curtains viciously (lots of stabs). This Ham obviously was NOT indecisive (tell Sir Laurence), just calculating. Directed by Rene Copeland and David Alford. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 14:27:32 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1201 Re: Mamillius; TNK; Shr.; Scholar; your; Gallathea MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1201. Tuesday, 25 November 1997. [1] From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 14:02:21 -0500 Subj: Mamillius [2] From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 14:03:02 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1197 Q: TNK Film [3] From: A. G. Bennett Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 16:53:45 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1192 Re: Hazle [4] From: Joe Shea Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 12:33:22 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1195 Re: your philosophy [5] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 20:04:59 +0 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1194 Drama Scholar Helps Police [6] From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Tuesday, 25 Nov 1997 11:01:00 -0000 Subj: Gallathea [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Jane Miller Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 14:02:21 -0500 Subject: Mamillius I have always assumed that, though Hermione was allowed to have her women with her, (or rather, she decides that issue - "you have leave") she gave birth early and, being in prison, had to nurse the baby herself. The baby is taken directly from prison to the court. to ship to another country. It is on that journey where we might ask what the baby had to eat - in the unlikely event that occurred to us in the theatre or on first reading. Mary Jane [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth S. Rothwell Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 14:03:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1197 Q: TNK Film Dear Nicole Caccavo, The answer to your question about screen versions of TNK is in a word, No. None exists. Ken Rothwell [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: A. G. Bennett Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 16:53:45 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1192 Re: Hazle Allow me to echo Helen Ostovich's praise for the Stratford, Ontario production of _Shrew_ from 1988, starring Goldie Semple and Colm Feore. In fact, TVOntario broadcast that production that year-I've got most of it on tape (damn and blast those ancient VCRs!), and intend to show the finale to my students this week as we finish _Shrew_, which my students have really dug into. Petruchio's entrance onstage prior to the wedding is utterly brilliant, too, in this show. I've not (to my shame, I admit) seen the film version, but will rent it ASAP-my thanks for the recommendation. Cheers, Alex Bennett abennett@vax2.concordia.ca [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Shea Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 12:33:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1195 Re: your philosophy I have always read this line with "your" as a reference to the various philosophies with which Horatio as a learned man would have some familiarity; it does not, for me, refer to a specific philosophy that Horatio holds as his own, but to the collection of philosophical works which might form his library. Best, Joe Shea [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 20:04:59 +0 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1194 Drama Scholar Helps Police In response to my >> Recently I have noticed that the reliability claimed for DNA >> profiling is, in media reports, falling. I'm sure I recall >> `one-in-thousand-billion' figures in the mid-1980s and now >> `one-in-billion' is more often cited. Sean Lawrence wrote > It hardly matters. Both are little more than euphemisms for > "we're certain." Well, quite, that is how they're meant. But with two billion of us on Earth, two persons might easily share a one-in-a-billion pattern. Reasonable doubt? Thanks to Jonathan Hope for correcting my faulty reference: > There is a further article by Eliott and Valenza > in *Shakespeare Quarterly*. Gabriel Egan [6]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Hopkins Date: Tuesday, 25 Nov 1997 11:01:00 -0000 Subject: Gallathea There was an amateur production of _Gallathea_ by the Apollo Society in St Catherine's College Meadow, Oxford, in June 1979. It was directed by Michael Pincombe, who is now at Newcastle University and a noted Lyly scholar, and he discussed it in _Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama_ 23 (1980), p.60. Some years ago I compiled a checklist of productions of non-Shakespearean Renaissance drama, but this is the only Lyly it records. Lisa Hopkins Sheffield Hallam University L.M.Hopkins@shu.ac.uk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 14:32:57 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1202 Re: Rooky/Roaky Wood MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1202. Tuesday, 25 November 1997. [1] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 25 Nov 1997 08:35:42 -0500 Subj: Rooky wood etc [2] From: Harry Rusche Date: Tuesday, 25 Nov 1997 09:58:11 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1196 Re: Rooky/Roaky [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 25 Nov 1997 08:35:42 -0500 Subject: Rooky wood etc. William Empson made the point long ago (in 1930) that Macbeth is himself in some sense the crow, making his silent, sinister way to the 'rooky wood' where the creatures on whom he will viciously fall prepare noisily and innocently for sleep. Of course, rooks are also crows. But as a man here turns against humanity, so nature turns against itself. The distinction permitted by the use of the two words is between rooks, who 'live in a crowd and are mainly vegetarian', and the solitary carrion crow, one of 'night's black agents' who aims to wreak havoc amongst them. This 'subdued pun' also hints at an opposite impulse: the crow's wish ultimately to be united with the rookery, or Macbeth's peculiar sense that by murdering Banquo he will somehow fulfill a larger human destiny. As king, he will be a crow amongst rooks. The ambiguities, ironies and bloody-minded double-think attendant on the institution of Monarchy in Britain are of course all operating here. The appalling scenes and outbursts accompanying the death of the 'people's princess' indicate that they are still current. In a later comment, Empson disarmingly allows that 'Obviously the passage is still impressive if you have no opinions at all about the difference between crows and rooks'. ( See his Seven Types of Ambiguity, London, Chatto 1930: 3rd edition Penguin Books, Harmondsworth 1961, pp. 37-9) Terence Hawkes [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Rusche Date: Tuesday, 25 Nov 1997 09:58:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1196 Re: Rooky/Roaky Re: The rooky wood. I have not noticed, but has anyone mentioned William Empson's discussion of the passage from _Macbeth_ in his _Seven Types of Ambiguity_? It is worth looking at. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 14:38:10 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1203 Qs: Jaques and Hamlet; Line Numbers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1203. Tuesday, 25 November 1997. [1] From: Ryan Asmussen Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 17:56:08 -0500 Subj: Jaques and Hamlet [2] From: Cristina Keunecke Date: Tuesday, 25 Nov 1997 13:45:03 -0800 Subj: Q: Line Numbers in Different Editions of the Plays [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ryan Asmussen Date: Monday, 24 Nov 1997 17:56:08 -0500 Subject: Jaques and Hamlet Dear All, I was wondering if anyone would be able to recommend to me an article or two, or perhaps a book, that makes mention of the similarities in character between Jaques from "As You Like It" and Hamlet? In some ways, as I see it, Jaques seems almost a prototype of the melancholy Dane: with respect to how he sees the world, how other characters see him, etc. I'm interested in going into this a bit in depth for a paper I have to write, and wanted to run it by all of you (our library here at B.U. being less than helpful on the subject). I've taken what I think to be a fairly good run through the SHAKSPER files and, unfortunately, haven't come up with much relevant information... Yours, Ryan [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cristina Keunecke Date: Tuesday, 25 Nov 1997 13:45:03 -0800 Subject: Q: Line Numbers in Different Editions of the Plays I would like to ask if someone knows something about the following 'problem': Comparing two editions of the same play (New Shakespeare-Cambridge University Press, edited by J.Dover Wilson x Editions available in the Public Domain-MIT Server), I have percived that there are differences in the line numbers in both editions. Although the copies available at the MIT server don't have the line numbers edited, I can see that a specific line has not the same number that the same line in the Cambridge Edition. Is this possible or a commom fact ? Does this fact occour in other editions of the plays ? Thanks in advance. Cristina Keunecke cris10@nutecnetcom.br ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 09:19:57 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1204 Re: Gallathea MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1204. Wednesday, 26 November 1997. [1] From: Stephen Orgel Date: Tuesday, 25 Nov 1997 15:41:46 -0700 Subj: Gallathea [2] From: Gabriel Egan Date: Wednesday, 26 Nov 1997 00:28:01 +0 Subj: Re: Gallathea [3] From: Peter Holland Date: Wednesday, 26 Nov 1997 10:55:05 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.1201 Re: Gallathea [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Orgel Date: Tuesday, 25 Nov 1997 15:41:46 -0700 Subject: Gallathea Adrian Kiernander obviously isn't blowing his own horn, but he directed a splendid Gallathea with schoolboys in Armidale (Australia)--about 20 minutes of it are on tape, and the boys are astonishingly good. s. orgel [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabriel Egan Date: Wednesday, 26 Nov 1997 00:28:01 +0 Subject: Re: Gallathea There was an amateur production of Gallathea by the students of the Shakespeare Institute of the University of Birmingham in Stratford UK in the summer of 1994. The librarian of the Institute, James Shaw, would be the person to contact to get access to a video recording of one of the performances, and his email address can be had from the university webpage at http://www.bham.ac.uk Gabriel Egan [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Holland Date: Wednesday, 26 Nov 1997 10:55:05 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.1201 Re: Gallathea There has been a more recent production of Lyly's *Gallathea* than the one Lisa Hopkins mentioned. The play was performed in June 1994 by students of the Shakespeare Institute in Stratford-upon-Avon in the Institute's gardens. There is a review by Sue Knott in issue 2 (1994) of *The Mason Croft Review*, the Institute's in-house magazine. More important for all those thousands of people who are fascinated by Lyly but have never seen the play, the production was video'd and can be watched in the Institute's library. Anyone who wants to know more should contact the Librarian at j.a.shaw@bham.ac.uk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 09:42:18 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1206 Qs: Shakespearean Productions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1206. Wednesday, 26 November 1997. [1] From: Joseph Tate Date: Tuesday, 25 Nov 1997 12:37:48 -0800 (PST) Subj: Shakespeare in Atlanta [2] From: Nicholas R Moschovakis Date: Tuesday, 25 Nov 1997 14:20:18 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1200 Nashville *Hamlet* [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nicholas R Moschovakis Date: Tuesday, 25 Nov 1997 14:20:18 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1200 Nashville *Hamlet* Hey - I wish I had known about this in time to attend it. Any Shakespeare at all in my new Middle Tennessee environs (short of the summer festival in Atlanta) is something I would like to hear about; but it's not worth subscribing to a Nashville paper just for the entertainment listings. Is there any kind of national web-based clearinghouse for announcements of current Shakespeare productions? And if not, might we not use this list in the future, to pass on the word concerning notable (semi-pro or pro) performances in our respective areas? - Nick Moschovakis [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Tate Date: Tuesday, 25 Nov 1997 12:37:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Shakespeare in Atlanta Last year around this time, I happened upon a very entertaining production of *The Tempest* in Atlanta at the Shakespeare Tavern. I'm headed that way once again, and wondering if anyone has information on what the Shakespeare Tavern might be playing currently. Thanks, Joseph Tate Graduate Student Department of English U. of Washington, Seattle ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 09:46:47 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1207 Re: DNA Evidence; Line Numbers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1207. Wednesday, 26 November 1997. [1] From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 25 Nov 1997 16:01:48 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1201 DNA Evidence [2] From: William P Williams Date: Tuesday, 25 Nov 1997 16:20:01 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1203 Line Numbers [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Shepherd Date: Tuesday, 25 Nov 1997 16:01:48 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1201 DNA Evidence >But with two billion of us on >Earth, two persons might easily share a one-in-a-billion pattern. >Reasonable doubt? On the contrary, I think this is exactly the kind of doubt we mean to disregard by using the "reasonable" qualifier. In court we don't normally deal with the population of Earth. It's a relative handful of people who could possibly be involved in a given series of events, and a much smaller number who are likely to be. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: William P Williams Date: Tuesday, 25 Nov 1997 16:20:01 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1203 Line Numbers In the case of line numbers in Shakespeare it makes a difference if the text is verse or prose, if the editors have done any re-lining, whether sections have been emended in or out, and similar considerations. In the case of prose, the page width of the edition will dictate the line numbering. Gone are the days when the "old" Cambridge edition's numbers were the norm. William Proctor Williams English/NIU wwilliam@niu.edu========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 07:07:22 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1208 Isabella; Doubt; Jaques; Hazel; DC Oth; MIT; Rooks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1208. Monday, 1 December 1997. [1] From: Syd Kasten Date: Wednesday, 26 Nov 1997 23:05:38 +0200 (IST) Subj: Running: last gasp [2] From: Cora Lee Wolfe Date: Wednesday, 26 Nov 1997 07:14:20 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1201 Re: Mamillius; TNK; Shr.; Scholar; your; Gallathea [3] From: Ron Ward Date: Thursday, 27 Nov 1997 14:51:45 +1300 (NZDT) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1203 Qs: Jaques and Hamlet; Line Numbers [4] From: Jerry Bangham Date: Saturday, 29 Nov 1997 15:38:49 -0400 Subj: More on Hazel [5] From: Jung Jimmy Date: Wednesday, 26 Nov 1997 14:48 -0500 Subj: Othello, in DC, and in the stars [6] From: Dale Lyles Date: Saturday, 29 Nov 1997 12:12:53 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1203 Q: Line Numbers (MIT server edition) [7] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 30 Nov 1997 17:21:30 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1202 Re: Rooky/Roaky Wood [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Syd Kasten Date: Wednesday, 26 Nov 1997 23:05:38 +0200 (IST) Subject: Running: last gasp John Velz paid me the compliment (SHK 8.1126) of commenting on my observation re Isabella's apparent shortness of breath and asked some relevant questions: >Would she run to Mariana's house when she knows her only by report? Isabella's brother was going to be executed the next morning and Saint Luke's apparently was in another parish. Isabella had a lot to do in the precious little time available. As he sends her off at the end the first scene of Act III the disguised Duke exhorts her "Haste you speedily to Angelo... I will presently to Saint Luke's... at that place call on me; and dispatch with Angelo, that it may be quickly". The word time is put into the Duke's mouth twice in his first sentences in Act IV and when he sends Isabella and Mariana to confer he again makes us conscious of urgency as he says to them: "but make haste;/ The vaporous night approaches." >Would she use the latinate "circummured" for walled 'round if she were breathless? To my ear the syllables and consonants of "circummured" flow one into the other with a smooth momentum not present in the suggested "walled 'round". Certainly the level of Iabella's vocabulary would find expression breathless or not. Her literacy would be among the factors that would lead the duke to recognize that she was not just another pretty face. (If we are to take seriously the canard that Shakespeare had little Latin and even less Greek, it is indeed fortunate that he had characters who could carry the ball for him.) >And speaking of Mariana's house, Kasten has taken the passage on Mariana in 3.1 >to mean that she is at St. Luke's church door. Not so. She is at the moated >grange (ditched farmhouse) that is in St. Luke's parish; she and Isabella and >the Friar confer in her garden, where Mariana has heard the boy sing the >melancholy love song. My introducing a church out of nothing begs some kind of explanation, at least to myself. What follows is not Shakespeare, but rather an attempt to understand what went through my mind when I conjured up a non-existent church. First of all, it may be the preposition "at" used by the stage directions at the start of act IV rather than "in" led me to think of a specific site rather than the extended area of a parish. Secondly, for some reason the monosyllabic genitive form of a saint's name generally infers to me the contraction, grown out of familiarity, of the saint's name to whom a church, a school or a hospital is dedicated : St. Mike's, Saint Bart's etc. It seems that as I read the play I unconsciously drew something out of my memory bank and appended an appropriate edifice to the name "St. Luke's". Having gotten this far I was drawn on and found myself wondering if "Saint Luke's" of the play referred not to the writer of the Gospel, but was a contraction, as described above. This led me to "Lucifer", the fallen Angel(o). Wait! It gets worse. Lucifer, being the bearer of light, pointed at Mariana who has been carrying a torch for Angelo all these years. And here I stand without any access to OED to relieve me of the question as to when and where "carrying a torch" referring to one suffering unrequited love, and "torch song" referring the sort of song that began act IV came into the English language. Best wishes, Syd Kasten [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cora Lee Wolfe Date: Wednesday, 26 Nov 1997 07:14:20 -0700 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1201 Re: Mamillius; TNK; Shr.; Scholar; your; Gallathea > Gabriel Egan wrote > a one-in-a-billion pattern.Reasonable doubt? Surely one-in-a-billion is reasonable doubt. Not one criminal would be convicted if juries insisted on better odds. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Ward Date: Thursday, 27 Nov 1997 14:51:45 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1203 Qs: Jaques and Hamlet; Line Numbers >Ryan Asmussen says >I was wondering if anyone would be able to recommend to me an article or >two, or perhaps a book, that makes mention of the similarities in >character between Jaques from "As You Like It" and Hamlet? In some >ways, as I see it, Jaques seems almost a prototype of the melancholy >Dane: with respect to how he sees the world, how other characters see >him, etc. I'm interested in going into this a bit in depth for a paper >I have to write, and wanted to run it by all of you (our library here at >B.U. being less than helpful on the subject). The Melancholic group of Elizabeathan England were the subject of a lecture I Attended By Anthony Rooley the Eminent English Lutenist some years ago in New Zealand (Early Music Festival). I believe he has recylcled the material and may have published it though I only have the notes he put out with the talk which were quite extensive. Hope this helps. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Bangham Date: Saturday, 29 Nov 1997 15:38:49 -0400 Subject: More on Hazel ANKARA, Turkey (Reuters) - Hazelnut shells from Turkey are soon to grace the floor of London's Globe Theater, the open-topped replica of William Shakespeare's playhouse, a British Embassy official said Friday. Turkish hazelnut producers are donating 7.5 metric tons of the shells, which are to be ground and spread on the floor of the theater as part of efforts to remain faithful to the original building's form. The official told Reuters the sacks of shells would be flown to Britain Dec. 2. Construction of the wooden playhouse began in 1987, and it opened last summer. Reuters/Variety [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jung Jimmy Date: Wednesday, 26 Nov 1997 14:48 -0500 Subject: Othello, in DC, and in the stars Attached below please the address and the summary of the Washington Post review of the "photo-negative" Othello, as requested by David Evett. The Peter Mark's NYT review, mentioned by David, can also be found by searching at http://www.nytimes.com. In response to Hardy Cook's observations about the production, I agree there was laughter from the audience at some of the oddest moments. In particular, any mention of Iago's honesty or some of the moments where you see him manipulating Othello with his subtle remarks were received with chuckles rather than the creepy chills I would expect. About some of the racial questions Professor Cook highlights; he suggests that the behavior of the Venetians was perhaps a "commentary on imperialism," or "more racially antagonistic than seen in other productions," and I concede this intent, but the end result is that Venetians, when portrayed by black actors, end up being more violent. What I'm trying to say is, I don't think the behavior of the Venetian soldiers was a comment on their being played by black actors, it just works out that way. That's why I thought that focusing on non-racial issues (gender, imperialism) could be a mistake in a production that is cast to highlight the racial aspects. The other possibility is that I'm too cautious (or, heaven forbid, PC) to direct a Shakespearean production. My use of the term "minstrel gait" to describe the marching of the soldiers may have been inaccurate. Imagine, if you will, the SWAT team from "The Blues Brothers" movie, knees-high, chanting, "hut, hut, hut, hut;" that's exactly how they marched, and, in my mind, that has always been an image for ridicule. They just were not as noble as I would have them. And while we're at it, can you explain to me why Barbantio employs a street gang? It's not that I don't think there were good reasons for all of these choices, it's just that they combined to leave me with an uncomfortable portrayal of Venetians, when played by blacks. I also wonder about the choice to make the Cyrpians white. It dilutes the image of Othello as "the other." In other productions, Othello's singularity creates a tension, an added loneliness in his dilemma. In this production he's practically on his home turf when the tragedy comes crashing in. LASTLY, some of the Washington locals may recall the Othello production seven years ago with Avery Brooks. With the Shakespeare theater establishing some sort of Trek tradition, one can just imagine the possibilities with Kate Mulgrew or William Shatner as the Moor. jimmy ____________________________________ >From the Washington Post http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/theater/reviews/othel lorev.htm Spurred by the devious Iago and believing that his beloved Desdemona has betrayed him, Othello destroys his own happy world. Soaring on themes of jealousy and disillusion, Shakespeare combines the poetry of Lear with the philosophic depth of "Hamlet." Acclaimed film, television and stage actor Patrick Stewart plays Othello and is joined by an all African-American cast, highlighting "otherness," one of the play's major themes. "The stage couldn't be more obviously set for some daring, stinging race-reversal, but the potential dynamite fizzles," notes Post theater critic Lloyd Rose, though he praises Stewart's performance. [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles Date: Saturday, 29 Nov 1997 12:12:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1203 Q: Line Numbers (MIT server edition) We used this for our recent production of Midsummer, and I would encourage anyone who downloads an entire text for study or performance to double-check it. It's a great service, but the scanning sometimes leaves something to be desired. I failed to double-check it, and late in rehearsals as I challenged actors on leaving certain lines out or using odd words, they pointed to their scripts and showed me that they had learned exactly what was there. Some of the errors are quite bizarre unless you're familiar with the ways that optical character recognition scanners can misread text, e.g., "those My lips" instead of "those lily lips." Likewise, the missing lines must have dropped off the bottom of a page. Just a small caveat, Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company [7]------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Sunday, 30 Nov 1997 17:21:30 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1202 Re: Rooky/Roaky Wood Regarding crows and rooks, as the OED (Crow sb.1) points out, the rook is called a crow in northern England and Scotland. Can we assume that Shakespeare knew this fact used it for Macbeth's Scottish accent? If so, Shakespeare is not distinguishing between the two species of Corvus. But Empson's reading is too good to allow it to be questioned by dialectic considerations! Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 07:16:48 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1209 Qs: Recording; Lear; French H5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1209. Monday, 1 December 1997. [1] From: David Skeele Date: Wednesday, 26 Nov 1997 11:29:54 -0500 S ubje "Traditions of Acting" Recordings [2] From: Lex Ames Date: Saturday, 29 Nov 1997 16:21:19 -0600 Subj: Lear @ fault? [3] From: Roger Batt Date: Monday, 01 Dec 1997 11:31:00 +0100 Subj: Henry V in French [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Wednesday, 26 Nov 1997 11:29:54 -0500 Subject "Traditions of Acting" Recordings I have a quick question that someone on the list may be able to help me with. Recently I was given a flyer advertising a series of audio cassettes featuring recordings of Sarah Bernhardt, Henry Irving, Viola Allen, etc. performing Shakespeare and other playwrights. It was apparently put together by a Dr. George R. Creegan and is available through an outfit called Crest Cassettes. The flyer has the price and product number but no information on whom to call or write to order the tapes. Is there anyone on the list with this info? Dr. Creegan himself, perhaps? Thanks! [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lex Ames Date: Saturday, 29 Nov 1997 16:21:19 -0600 Subject: Lear @ fault? This is a plea for help in finding scholarship specific to my argument in an essay I'm writing about the issue of tragic fault in King Lear. I have found only a couple of pieces of scholarly writing which deal specifically with the issue of fault in the tragedy. Moreover, I'm seeking articles and books which support my argument that it is Lear himself who is to blame for the fate of his kingdom, due in large part to his failure to fulfill his duties as sovereign. I've tried many of the standard methods in my search for such scholarship, but as I mention, my success has been rather limited. Any suggestions of books and or articles which would apply to my topic/argument would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Lex Ames [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Batt Date: Monday, 01 Dec 1997 11:31:00 +0100 Subject: Henry V in French A couple of weeks ago I sent a request to the list regarding the availability on the Web of Henry V in a French translation. Unfortunately since then my ISP has been down and they have lost all my email so I don't know whether anyone has replied or not. Could anyone who replied to resend their message? Thank you, Roger Batt ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 07:19:16 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1210 Moot Court on Richard III MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1210. Monday, 1 December 1997. From: Pat Dolan Date: Sunday, 30 Nov 1997 14:27:45 -0500 Subject: Moot Court on Richard III If this is old news, forgive me. Our server was down for repairs over the holiday. Set your VCR From 4:38 to 5:51 am et, Dec. 1, C-Span will show the following: Inheritance Rights of Richard III Shakespeare Theater Washington, DC ID : 86422 Length : 1 hr 12 min Event date : 06/04/97 Breyer, Stephen, Associate Justice 1994-, U.S. Supreme Court Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Associate Justice 1993-, U.S. Supreme Court Rehnquist, William, Chief Justice 1986-, U.S. Supreme Court Litigants argued a case involving the inheritance rights of the Shakespearean character and historical figure, Richard III of England. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 10:03:50 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1211 R3 Moot Court; DC Oth; Isabella; Rooky; Gallathea MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1211. Tuesday, 2 December 1997. [1] From: Karen Elizabeth Berrigan Date: Monday, 1 Dec 1997 09:17:03 -0400 (AST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1210 Moot Court on Richard III [2] From: G. L. Horton Date: Monday, 01 Dec 1997 11:42:43 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1208 DC Oth [3] From: John Velz Date: Monday, 1 Dec 1997 12:32:45 -0600 (CST) Subj: circummured & haste [4] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 2 Dec 1997 05:16:00 -0500 Subj: Rooky wood etc [5] From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Tuesday, 02 Dec 1997 22:41:29 +1100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1204 Re: Gallathea [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Elizabeth Berrigan Date: Monday, 1 Dec 1997 09:17:03 -0400 (AST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1210 Moot Court on Richard III I am sorry to miss the moot court but I would be interested in hearing the verdict. I have always felt that Shakespeare had a lot of admiration for Richard III. His courage in battle could be compared to Henry V and his charisma is unquestionable as we have seen by all the mail on the wooing of Anne. I think Shakespearean England would have had a lot of sympathy for a charming rogue whose physical courage was so evident. I must admit to a sympathy with the historical Richard III. The Princes had been brought up in the south by their Woodville relations and could not have been expected to have a lot of sympathy for their uncle from the north whom they barely knew, especially since the Woodvilles were themselves hostile to Richard and were probably planning on ruling through Edward V. Richard could then be justified in the steps he took, since his influence and perhaps his life was being threatened. Karen [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: G. L. Horton Date: Monday, 01 Dec 1997 11:42:43 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1208 DC Oth; >"The stage >couldn't be more obviously set for some daring, stinging race-reversal, but >the potential dynamite fizzles," notes Post theater critic Lloyd Rose, >though he praises Stewart's performance. Lloyd Rose is a she. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Monday, 1 Dec 1997 12:32:45 -0600 (CST) Subject: circummured & haste Syd Kasten's marshaling of "hurry up" passages in this part of MM is entirely convincing. I yield the point about Isabella's hurried entry. But if I were directing I would tell the actress not to (as it were) slide into second base, as we do not want the physical activity to detract from the conspiracy that is about to take place. As for *circummured*, Sh had a lot more Latin than is needed for this neologism. There are some hundreds of such words in the canon, most of them surviving today, that he seems to have been first to use. This one did not survive, or at least I have never seen it outside this play. It is orotund, and maybe that is why it never got used in later years. Syd does not approve of the sound of "walled 'round". This is because the phrase as printed does not scan. Try "walléd 'round" or "walled around" and it will sound better prosodically. But no matter for that, as no one is ever going to use it in context. Anecdote for what mirth it may engender: In 1970 in a prod. of MM that my wife and I both were in, Isabella said to Mariana "There is a garden circumcised with brick." The funny thing is that the audience didn't snicker. Isabella came off into the wings at the end of the scene muttering to herself "circumcised; circumcised-Oh GOD!!" I have cheerfully recounted this anecdote to classes over the years. It always fetches a laugh. One time a male student pointed out that the funny part was that brick should be the instrument of circumcision. Interestingly enough the women in class always laughed heartily at the whole thing. Some, even most, men changed color and looked unamused. Cheers for walls, John V [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Tuesday, 2 Dec 1997 05:16:00 -0500 Subject: Rooky wood etc This stuff about Northern and Scottish accents is pure codswallop . The association of rooks with crowds of chattering, noisy plebeians is well established in British English. It surfaces in the use of the term 'rookery' to refer to clusters of overcrowded slum houses or tenement buildings. In such a context, the linking of 'crow' with malign, brutal kingship would appeal to any writer prepared to take a considered view of monarchy, then or now: even a poet laureate. T. Hawkes [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Tuesday, 02 Dec 1997 22:41:29 +1100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1204 Re: Gallathea I've been away from my computer for a while, so haven't had the chance to comment on the question about _Gallathea_. As Stephen Orgel kindly points out, I directed the play here in Australia in 1995 using almost the complete text (with some minor trimming of parts of speeches where we felt we couldn't sustain the audience's attention-but this was minor surgery). We used boy actors from a local school for the mortal characters, male and female, and adult actors (mainly students from UNE) for the gods. It was in part an experiment in staging an extreme example of the double-cross-dress, boys-playing-girls-playing-boys trope familiar from _AYLI_, _Twelfth Night_, _Merchant_, _Two Gentlemen_ etc. We were very lucky with the boy actors, especially those playing Gallathea, Phyllida and Hebe. There was a video made of the whole performance, but as is often the case with such archival videos the technical quality, especially the sound, is poor. However we did make a special studio video of a couple of the Gallathea-Phyllida scenes and the epilogue, which is very clear technically. In my preliminary research, which I don't have in front of me right now, I found references to two other late twentieth-century productions, the one in England by students from Birmingham (check _Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama_ for further details) and one in the US which I believe was heavily cut. Adrian Kiernander Department of Theatre Studies University of New England ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:52:51 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1212 Re: Rooks and Crows MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1212. Wednesday, 3 December 1997. [1] From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 02 Dec 1997 15:56:36 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1211 Rooky and Crowsy [2] From: Peter Hillyar-Russ Date: Wednesday, 3 Dec 1997 09:33:00 -0000 Subj: Rooks [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Tuesday, 02 Dec 1997 15:56:36 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1211 Rooky and Crowsy Terence Hawkes makes the point: > . . . the linking of 'crow' with malign, brutal >kingship would appeal to any writer prepared to take a considered view >of monarchy, then or now: even a poet laureate. I of course immediately wonder about the hues of these crows. But, as far as I am aware, carrion crows eat carrion; I've seem 'em do it. I've never seen a carrion crow attack and kill one of the vegetarian species (in my experience also called crows). Also I have read that the American Corvus is only related to, and not the same as, the British. So maybe those British carrion crows are also murderers as well as scavengers. I await enlightenment. Actually, Shakespeare uses "rooks" only twice (LLL 5.2.905, and MAC 3.4.124), linking them with jackdaws, choughs, and magpies-because they all make a good deal of noise? "Crow" he uses more often, and he seems to use "crow" to mean both the gregarious rook (AWW 4.3.286) and carrion crow (H5 2.1.87). And let's not forget Shakespeare's use of "raven," also a corvine bird, and sometimes used as a synonym for "crow," especially carrion crow. I gather this information from the OED and Spevack's concordance; the references are to the Riverside edition. In any case, it is not clear that Shakespeare makes a distinction between the merry -old-English rooks and the nasty Scottish crows. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Hillyar-Russ Date: Wednesday, 3 Dec 1997 09:33:00 -0000 Subject: Rooks However similar they look Rooks and Crows are distinct animals with very different habits. There is a saying taught to novice ornithologists in Britain "A Crow in a Crowd is a Rook" - for the crow is a solitary scavenger, the rook is a highly gregarious animal. Any interpretation of Shakespeare's "Rook" and "Crow" imagery should take the distinction into account. Peter Hillyar-Russ peter.hruss@lineone.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:58:58 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1213 Re: Gallathea; DC Oth; Recordings MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1213. Wednesday, 3 December 1997. [1] From: Ivan Fuller Date: Tuesday, 2 Dec 1997 10:10:38 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1211 Gallathea [2] From: Jimmy Jung Date: Tuesday, 02 Dec 1997 10:37 -0500 Subj: DC Oth [3] From: Peter Holland Date: Wednesday, 3 Dec 1997 10:49:04 GMT Subj: Re: SHK 8.1209 Q: Recordings [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Fuller Date: Tuesday, 2 Dec 1997 10:10:38 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1211 Gallathea Adrian Kiernander mentioned having heard of a US production of GALLATHEA. Does anyone have more information about it? Where and when? I'd really like to make a case for more productions of this script and any evidence of past work will be extremely helpful. Ivan Fuller, Chair Communication & Theatre Dept. Augustana College [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jimmy Jung Date: Tuesday, 02 Dec 1997 10:37 -0500 Subject: DC Oth Cut and paste directly from the Washington Post web site. ?? jimmy G. L. Horton writes: >Lloyd Rose is a she. >>"The stage >>couldn't be more obviously set for some daring, >>stinging race-reversal, but >>the potential dynamite fizzles," >>notes Post theater critic Lloyd Rose, >>though he praises Stewart's performance. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Holland Date: Wednesday, 3 Dec 1997 10:49:04 GMT Subject: Re: SHK 8.1209 Q: Recording Anyone interested in early audio recordings of Shakespeare actors ought to look out for an extraordinary CD called Great Shakespeareans. The earliest recording on it is a very scratchy cylinder of Edwin Booth as Othello recorded in the 1880s but there are wonderful early pieces of Gielgud, Beerbohm Tree, Forbes Robertson and others. They have included a number of different recordings of some speeches so that you can compare and contrast and the sleeve-notes are very full and informative. I bought my copy from The Shakespeare Bookshop, Henley Street, Stratford-upon-Avon, UK and they will happily deal with mail orders. Their phone number is +44 1789 292176. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:28:14 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1214 Re: Recordings; Gallathea MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1214. Thursday, 4 December 1997. [1] From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 03 Dec 1997 13:00:54 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1213 Re: Recordings [2] From: Cary M. Mazer Date: Wednesday, 3 Dec 1997 12:34:50 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1213 Re: Gallathea [3] From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Thursday, 04 Dec 1997 09:17:31 +1100 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1213 Re: Gallathea [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Wednesday, 03 Dec 1997 13:00:54 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1213 Re: Recordings *Great Shakespeareans* is a marvelous collection. I play my students Arthur Bourchier's "Is this a dagger..." every year and they don't find it as silly as Gielgud's "Once more into the Tremolo..." Some feel as I do, that the movements the very sinews make when a man is in the midst of murderous intent and hallucinatory truth are physically, vocally recreated irresistibly, viscerally and with unequaled magnificence. Harry Hill [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cary M. Mazer Date: Wednesday, 3 Dec 1997 12:34:50 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1213 Re: Gallathea Ivan Fuller asked: >Adrian Kiernander mentioned having heard of a US production of >GALLATHEA. Does anyone have more information about it? Where and >when? I'd really like to make a case for more productions of this >script and any evidence of past work will be extremely helpful. I believe I reported to the list some years ago about this, just when Adrian was preparing his production: it was a much-cut version of the play done by a marginally-professional Philadelphia company called The Red Heel Theatre (and now inauspiciously renamed the Philadelphia Shakespeare Festival), on a triple bill with a staged version of Venus and Adonis and a much-cut Dido Queen of Carthage. The one memorable thing about doing it as a triple bill was that the various gods were played by the same actors throughout. The current artistic director of the renamed company, Carmen Khan, was *in* the production, and may remember some details. She's not, to my knowledge, on e-mail, but can be reached at (610) 429-9208. Cary [Editor's Note: To retrieve past postings on *Gallathea*, send the command SEARCH SHAKSPER GALLATHEA to listserv@ws.bowiestate.edu and follow the directions from the message that you will receive in return. HMC] [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Thursday, 04 Dec 1997 09:17:31 +1100 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1213 Re: Gallathea To Ivan Fuller I'll have to check through some old notes to see if I can find any reference to the US production of _Gallathea_. It could take some time, but I'll have a look over the weekend. I'm afraid I didn't give that production a great deal of attention because, a) it was apparently very heavily cut, and b) I couldn't find out much information about it. But there may be a further reference somewhere in my notes. I can't even remember how I heard about it, but it may well have been through SHAKSPER. Does anyone else have any information? Can anyone check through the archives? It would be late '94 or early '95 I guess. I'm delighted that this play is starting to attract so much attention. This seems to me to demonstrate a major change in attitudes-even a few years ago Lyly's work would have been dismissed a priori by many people because it is so formally contrived and obviously artificial. The interest in _Lyly_ suggests that a number of people have moved away from that absolute and automatic demand that theatre should seem natural, and Naturalistic. This also seems to be affecting approaches to Shakespeare in production, with many more people for example prepared to focus on the structured, rhetorical and declamatory aspects of the verse instead of trying to make it sound like everyday conversation (which I think was the prevailing assumption of influential companies like the RSC) for the sake of some laudable but I believe misguided and spurious attempt at accessibility. Adrian Kiernander ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:33:53 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1215 Sonnets: dedication, date, dramatis personae MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1215. Thursday, 4 December 1997. From: Tad Davis Date: Wednesday, 03 Dec 1997 10:32:33 -0500 Subject: Sonnets: dedication, date, dramatis personae A friend and I-amateurs both-have formed a two-person study group to read Shakespeare's Sonnets, using Helen Vendler's book as a jumping-off place. As a supplement, we also got copies of Katherine Duncan-Jones's new Arden edition of the Sonnets. Vendler disdains biographical speculation, but Duncan-Jones appears to revel in it. (So do I, so this is by no means uncongenial.) Her introduction and glosses raise two questions for me, so far: (1) In Thorpe's dedication, she glosses "begetter" as "inspirer," and "our ever-living poet" as the author of the sonnets. I had just gotten used to the idea (following Donald Foster and others) that "begetter" was "author," and "our ever-living poet" was God (and that "W.H." was a typo for "W.S."). Being an amateur, I'm not part of the ongoing academic conversation on such matters. I see that G. Blakemore Evans, in the New Cambridge edition, has explicitly rejected the suggestion that "Mr. W.H." is Shakespeare; I couldn't find a comparably explicit declaration in Duncan-Jones's introduction. The WH=WS interpretation of Thorpe's dedication still makes better sense to me than anything else I've read. Is there a scholarly consensus on this? (2) Duncan-Jones argues for a later rather than an earlier date for the sonnets. The later dating is then used to support the possibility that William Herbert may have been both Mr. W.H. and the young man of the sonnets. (The first 17 sonnets, for example, may have been written for Herbert's 17th birthday in 1597.) The arguments for a later date in general make sense to me, but the arguments for the Earl of Pembroke as the young man don't. (Vendler's refusal to get into this quagmire is one of the great appeals of her book-although she does, at one point, repeat the suggestion that Chapman was the rival poet.) Here's the rub, as I see it: the first 17 sonnets do not appear to presume any great familiarity with the purported addressee. They tend to be generic. In tracing the history of Shakespeare's relationship with this person-if in fact the poems describe an actual relationship- these would seem to come first. If Herbert is the person in question, then 1597 is a likely approximate date for these sonnets. Yet within two years, Shakespeare had already distilled the great theme of having two loves, the fair friend and the dark woman, with hints of all the complexity of that triangle that appear in other sonnets. Two sonnets from this sequence were printed by Jaggard in 1599, and may have been in circulation much earlier (since Meres seems to refer to them). Duncan-Jones suggests that Shakespeare himself may have been on the verge of printing the 127-154 sequence shortly after Jaggard's volume appeared, to set the record straight. If we do take a biographical tack on this, something about the timing doesn't work. If the procreation sonnets were written in 1597, and the triangle sonnets were written 1598-1599, that presumes, like a hologram, that the whole history of the triangle was present practically from the beginning. Not that it couldn't happen, but it would give new meaning to the term "Slick Willie." My own subjective impression is that the sonnets describe a pair of relationships that grew and changed over time, much longer than the literal "three years" mentioned in some. This itself is supported by Duncan-Jones's argument that many of the sonnets date from a later period, 1603-1604, and that some were labored over right up to the point of publication. Am I seeing a contradiction here that doesn't exist? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 16:12:14 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1216 Son. Research; Shaw Play; Lyly; Study in England MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1216. Friday, 5 December 1997. [1] From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Thursday, 4 Dec 1997 07:50:31 -0800 Subj: Sonnets Research [2] From: John Walsh Date: Thursday, 04 Dec 1997 12:36:43 -0500 Subj: The Dark Lady of the Sonnets [3] From: Rick Jones Date: Thursday, 4 Dec 1997 11:29:26 -0600 (CST) Subj: Lyly [4] From: Virginia Byrne Date: Thursday, 4 Dec 1997 18:08:02 EST Subj: Study Shakespeare in England [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Thursday, 4 Dec 1997 07:50:31 -0800 Subject: Sonnets Research I am assigning my students to memorize and do research on various Shakespeare Sonnets. I would appreciate any suggestions as to texts and Internet sites offering critical interpretations. Thanks. Mike Sirofchuck Kodiak High School [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Walsh Date: Thursday, 04 Dec 1997 12:36:43 -0500 Subject: The Dark Lady of the Sonnets I am not affiliated with this production, but I know of the company and thought some list members might be interested. Shaw's play is running from December 4 - 21 at the Theatre Row Theatre, 424 West 42nd Street, NYC. Performances are Thursday - Saturday, 8 PM, with 3 PM matinees on Sat. and Sun. Tom Paitson Kelly plays William Shakespeare. Tickets are $12. Call 212.581.4164 for reservations, or visit http://members.aol.com/jshelton/Protean/ProtPg1.html [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick Jones Date: Thursday, 4 Dec 1997 11:29:26 -0600 (CST) Subject: Lyly In the nearly twenty years since I completed an MA by thesis on Lyly, I have seen relatively little about him: the once-anticipated edition by G.K. Hunter never materialized (did it?), and I can't remember seeing more than one or two articles on Lyly in years (though I confess my research interests have changed, and I may well have missed something). What interests me most is that in 1978, when I was finishing my thesis, there was no question that the one canonical or semi-canonical play by Lyly was _Endymion_; if there was a second choice, it was almost assuredly _Campaspe_, largely for the one song "Cupid and My Campaspe." Now, to the extent that there has been a revival of interest in Lyly, that interest has centered exclusively (or very nearly so) on _Gallathea_. We have heard on this list of three productions of _Gallathea_, none of other Lyly plays; Lyly's name has arisen in the past fortnight on three different lists (here, CLASSICS, and ASTR-L) in three different contexts: every time, the subject was _Gallathea_, with nary a mention of other Lylian works; the one conference paper on Lyly I have ever heard was a few years ago... on _Gallathea_. I have long been fascinated by the process of canonization, and I wonder if other SHAKSPERians would care to speculate on the radical change in this play's status within the Lylian canon. Surely questions of the mutability of gender are part of the answer, but I don't see them as sufficient to account for the degree of change. And _Gallathea_ may be the most produce-able of Lyly's plays (possible exception: _Mother Bombie_, which is so different from the rest of Lyly's work it almost doesn't count), but surely that was true a generation ago, as well... Comments, anyone? Rick Jones rjones@falcon.cc.ukans.edu [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia Byrne Date: Thursday, 4 Dec 1997 18:08:02 EST Subject: Study Shakespeare in England This might be of interest to some of you. I will be providing the Workshops in Shakespeare Performance (especially of interest to teachers of Shakespeare) as will some of the RSC actors. It's a wonderful opportunity. Virginia Byrne Shakespeare in England Summer 1998 Taught by English and American scholars and theater professionals and geared for those who wish to analyze text as well approach Shakespeare through performance. Seminars on the text , workshops on approaching the text as an actor and attendance of six plays at the RSC and the New Globe Theater in London. Play selection will be based on the 1998 Stratford Season. The program is housed on the self-contained, suburban campus of University College Worcester which boasts excellent accommodations, housekeeping service, superb catering of three meals per day, and modern study facilities. The beautiful city of Worcester's close proximity to Stratford allows an easy commute to the RSC and Shakespeare Properties as well as convenient travel to Oxford University, nearby Sudley Castle and London. The program cost includes a week-end in London.1998 dates are 28 June to 11 July or 2 August to 15 August. US $1950 includes tuition( undergraduate or graduate credit available through your home university),room and board, tickets and internal transportation. Further information and registration available at e.jones@worc.ac.uk or jroberts@worc.mass.edu or try our website at http://www.worc.ac.uk========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 10:08:15 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1217 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir; Sonnets MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1217. Monday, 8 December 1997. [1] From: Nicholas R Moschovakis Date: Friday, 5 Dec 1997 14:38:55 -0600 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1156 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir [2] From: Skip Nicholson Date: Friday, 05 Dec 1997 18:38:43 -0800 Subj: Re: Sonnets [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nicholas R Moschovakis Date: Friday, 5 Dec 1997 14:38:55 -0600 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1156 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir For a different but fascinating ironic revision of the Hamlet story with a heroic Claudius, see Cavafy's narrative poem (translated by Edmund Keeley and Philip Sherrard under the title of "King Claudius" in their Princeton UP volume). >From: Kristine Batey >In one of my undergrad courses, the prof suggested that "Hamlet" is >really a tragedy about Claudius, given a quarter turn. Try switching the >perspective, and think what the play would be like as Claudius the >central character: [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Nicholson Date: Friday, 05 Dec 1997 18:38:43 -0800 Subject: Re: Sonnets After following the debates over the complete works editions, I don't know if anything can be called "definitive" any more, but Stephen Booth's edition of the sonnets with commentary (Yale UP) has to come as close as is still possible. Skip Nicholson ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 10:29:01 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1218 Re: Lyly MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1218. Monday, 8 December 1997. [1] From: Ivan Fuller Date: Saturday, 6 Dec 1997 13:52:30 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1216 Lyly [2] From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Sundayy, 07 Dec 1997 10:41:51 +1100 Subj: Re: Lyly [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Fuller Date: Saturday, 6 Dec 1997 13:52:30 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1216 Lyly In response to Rick Jones' question about GALLATHEA's popularity, I can only speak for my reason for selecting to stage the script. The reasons are myriad: 1) My theatre program is predominantly female, and while we all know that the script was written to be performed by males, there is no denying the practical appeal of discovering an Elizabethan script that can have more than two juicy female roles. 2) I found the script absolutely hysterical without having to filter it through my own knowledge of Elizabethan society, customs, language, etc. In other words, and to use a word that I've noticed several people on this list frown upon, it's extremely accessible on its own merits. 3) I was charmed by what I found to be a unique love story. Two young women disguised as boys who meet in the forest, fall in love (nothing original there), but when their true identity is revealed-THEY DON'T CARE! Wow! Now that's timely stuff indeed. 4) The script conjures up all the popular characteristics of MIDSUMMER (even the phrase "cheek by jowl"...hmmm...) in a clever plot that, while a bit shallow, should still be great fun for audiences simply because its something new (for them, at least). 5) Uncut the production should only run 75-80 minutes. Pragmatics, pragmatics, pragmatics. 6) And have I mentioned the fairies, nymphs (stoicly guarding their virginity), Cupid (out to destroy their stoicism...among other things), Diana (sounding like a drill instructor), Neptune (spying in the shadows), Venus (arriving deus ex machinistically [have I just created a new word?]), and an unseen, but ever-present, sea-monster ready to devour the sacrificial virgin. 7) And all of the above easily attained without the need for elaborate sets, costumes, fly space, wing space, recorded sound...just a passion, a board, and audiecne, and the intent to have a jolly good time! THAT'S why I'm staging GALLATHEA. Feb. 20-22, 26-28. Augustana College, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Come on over! Ivan Fuller, Chair Communication & Theatre Dept. Augustana College [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kiernander Date: Sundayy, 07 Dec 1997 10:41:51 +1100 Subject: Re: Lyly To Rick Jones You ask list members to "speculate on the radical change in [_Gallathea_]'s status within the Lylian canon. Surely questions of the mutability of gender are part of the answer, but I don't see them as sufficient to account for the degree of change." As one of those responsible for putting _Gallathea_ on the stage recently, I can confirm that it is in my case very simply attributable to questions of the mutability of gender. Lyly's plays were not included in any course I took as a student, nor in any of the courses I inherited when I first started teaching. All references to him that I came across were in connection with _Euphues_, and I understood them as somewhat sneering and dismissive. I was not encouraged to, and didn't, follow this up. So my first introduction to the plays came from references in recent critical works in the context of gender studies, and these of course were focused on _Gallathea_. These references intrigued me, I read the script, experimented with some of the scenes with students in class, and decided to direct the whole thing when the opportunity arose. Simple. But not entirely. I think there are two things at work here. One is the recent interest in gender, and particularly the double-cross-dress motif which is so elegantly treated in _Gallathea_, but the other I believe is the move, which I signalled in my last posting, away from a default Naturalism on the stage. As a student in New Zealand in the late '60s and early '70s the underlying assumption of my university training was that substantial and serious theatre (and other forms of representation) had an "organic" and "natural" structure (though these were perhaps not the terms used), and that anything that was written according to some kind of external aesthetic pattern was inevitably flawed, frivolous and trivial. There are modernist assumptions about form following function (i.e. content) at work here. The idea that (decorative!!!) form should be independent of, or even worse precede, function was unacceptable. (It's not exactly a question of pure Naturalism either-Brecht and Arden were acceptable. I suppose it had something to do with writing having to be obviously grounded in some social reality rather than abstract fantasy.) For example I remember a lecture on Spenser referring to the idea that there was a mathematical pattern underlying the construction of _The Faery Queen_; when this idea was raised in tutorials my tutor (someone I still greatly respect) appeared horrified that anyone could even suggest such a thing. The conflict was resolved, in my mind at least and I suspect in those of my fellow students, by the fact that the lecturer was elderly and therefore easily perceived as old-fashioned and pre-modern while the tutor was young and therefore at the cutting edge. On this question at least, I think, subsequent events have reversed that particular judgement. One of the important changes has been a recognition that parallels and engagements with a lived reality can in fact be derived from more abstract and fantastical forms of representation, so Lyly can now be seen as perfectly engaged and political rather than merely escapist. If this has any validity, it should have some bearing on Rick's questions about canon formation. Adrian Kiernander Department of Theatre Studies University of New England ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 10:32:11 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1219 CFP: "Disrupting the Discourses: Women Writers 1500-1700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1219. Monday, 8 December 1997. From: Margaret Jane Kidnie Date: Monday, 8 Dec 1997 14:23:05 GMT Subject: Call for papers CALL FOR PAPERS: "Disrupting the Discourses: Women Writers 1500-1700" A one-day conference at South Bank University, London, England Friday 31st July 1998 This conference will explore women's writing across the genres, 1500-1700, taking as a starting point recent theoretical work on the emergence of the woman author and the nature of the relationship between women and texts. We are particularly interested in focusing on the manner in which women authors, having constructed a voice for themselves, negotiated through their writing such dominant discourses as religion, the family, marriage, creativity, education, language, gender, sexuality, authority, politics. To emphasize the wide range of women's literary activities at this time, it is hoped that the conference will include examples drawn from the following possible areas: *Poetry * Drama * Prose Fiction * Autobiographies * Death-bed speeches * Petitions * Prison Memoirs * Prophetic Writings * Religious Works * Translations * Household Books * Advice Manuals * Practical Books We welcome contributions from both established scholars and those at the beginning of their academic careers, and request one-page proposals to be sent by 28th February 1998 to either M.J. Kidnie, School of Education, Politics, and Social Science, South Bank University, 103 Borough Road, London, England, SE1 0AA (+44 171 815 8062; e-mail: kidniem@sbu.ac.uk), or Rebecca D'Monte, Department of Literature and Writing, University of Southampton New College, The Avenue, Southampton, England, SO17 1BG (+44 1703 216239 ext 505). It is our intention to publish the proceedings of this conference. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:50:01 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1220 Re: Claudius MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1220. Tuesday, 9 December 1997. [1] From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 08 Dec 1997 10:43:21 +0000 (HELP) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1217 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir [2] From: Louis C Swilley Date: Monday, 8 Dec 1997 20:35:04 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1217 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Hill Date: Monday, 08 Dec 1997 10:43:21 +0000 (HELP) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1217 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir Having played Claudius, I can agree completely that he is of course the lead in the show! Have other actors experienced the humiliation of pretty ignorant notices that claim we were insufficiently villainous. For me the private triumph was the confession scene with tortured words issuing from the innocent-looking leader. Harry Hill {Claudius bares his teeth but not enough.....Edmonton Journal} [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis C Swilley Date: Monday, 8 Dec 1997 20:35:04 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1217 Re: Hamlet as Gertrude's Heir Kristine Batey writes: > >In one of my undergrad courses, the prof suggested that "Hamlet" is > >really a tragedy about Claudius, given a quarter turn. Try switching the > >perspective, and think what the play would be like as Claudius the > >central character: Surely every character in every well-made tragedy is a tragic character: each is capable of doing something to avert the general ruin, but, because of some "mole of nature in [him or her]," fails to do what can be done to save the day. L. Swilley ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:57:43 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1221 Re: Helen Vendler's Book; Tickets DC Oth. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1221. Tuesday, 9 December 1997. [1] From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Monday, 8 Dec 1997 10:16:29 CST6CDT Subj: Re: SHK 8.1217 Re: Sonnets [2] From: Carol Light Date: Tuesday, 9 Dec 1997 08:03:08 -0500 (EST) Subj: Addicted to Love [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christine Mack Gordon Date: Monday, 8 Dec 1997 10:16:29 CST6CDT Subject: Re: SHK 8.1217 Re: Sonnets Just a note on the vagaries of the contemporary publishing business. I paid a visit to my favorite independent bookstore in the area, the Hungry Mind, and hoped to look at Helen Vendler's book on the sonnets (I didn't plan to buy it, since I don't feel I can afford it right now). I learned from staff members that they are all out, and that Harvard UP is all out as well; the book won't be back in print until late January. Apparently, according to someone at Harvard, they completely underestimated potential demand for the book, and were busy promoting another recent publication on the Kennedy White House tapes. Copies may still be out there at bookstores, but you may have to search a bit. It's nice to know that Will can still have a "best seller." Chris Gordon [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carol Light Date: Tuesday, 9 Dec 1997 08:03:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Addicted to Love I have a problem and, I hope, an opportunity. I have a total of four tickets to the sold-out DC Othello for Saturday evening, December 27th. Now one of those I plan to use myself, as I am indeed a Shakespeare addict and a Star Trek fan of the Magnificent Patrick Stewart whose Othello I hope I like more than I did his NY Prospero. It's the other three tickets that are a problem-I had planned, several months ago when I got the tickets from a friend who has a subscription-to go with three friends, two of whom would come willingly and one of whom I would drag since it's near my birthday and I have chips I can use. But the couple can't make it, leaving me with two extra tickets and the prospect of a dutiful but not joyful companion. So I was wondering if the List could help me out. Any single male over 45 could consider himself rented for the evening (though would be invited to buy me dinner) and any two others could have the seats for cost, provided they would be willing to perhaps join the Shakespearian dinner. Should there be a dearth of interested or available persons of the male persuasion, then I'd be glad to have any other singletons for cost, too. The cost is $49.50. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 09:33:11 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1222 Claudius; Quarter Turns of Ham; Shylock's pounded flesh MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1222. Wednesday, 10 December 1997. [1] From: Simon Malloch Date: Tuesday, 09 Dec 1997 23:14:09 +0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1220 Re: Claudius [2] From: Susan Gray Date: Tuesday, 9 Dec 1997 12:00:44 EST Subj: Quarter Turns of Hamlet [3] From: Daniel Traister Date: Tuesday, 9 Dec 1997 12:52:47 -0500 (EST) Subj: THE TIMES: ARTS Shylock's pounded flesh [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Malloch Date: Tuesday, 09 Dec 1997 23:14:09 +0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1220 Re: Claudius It was only after I saw Branagh's Hamlet that I began to perceive that the tragedy could be about Claudius. This is no doubt due in part to Derek Jacobi - his acting brought out that interpretation, I felt. Simon Malloch. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Gray Date: Tuesday, 9 Dec 1997 12:00:44 EST Subject: Quarter Turns of Hamlet Anyone looking for different takes on Hamlet for their classes might be interested in Margaret Atwood's very brief and funny piece called "Gertrude Speaks" printed in _Good Bones_. It's written from Gertrude's point of view, speaking to Hamlet. Cheers, Susan Gray [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Traister Date: Tuesday, 9 Dec 1997 12:52:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: THE TIMES: ARTS Shylock's pounded flesh Without permission from THE [London] TIMES: ARTS (December 9, 1997) Shylock's pounded flesh For 400 years, actors have wondered how to play the Bard's Jew. Heather Neill reports: In the first production of The Merchant of Venice, in 1597, Richard Burbage played Shylock dressed in a red wig. The hair was an important signal: it put Shylock in the tradition of the villain of the medieval mystery plays in which Judas and Satan sported just such a garish trademark. But nothing Shakespeare did was that simple; his Jew had feelings expressed in poetic verse, intelligence, a quick wit and a daughter who betrayed him. Shakespeare's character has survived, a "real" person complicated enough to be open to interpretation and analysis, yet he was invented at a time when it would not have occurred to audiences to feel any discomfort at the portrayal of a villain with certain stereotyped racial characteristics. Today, seeing Shylock as a representative Jew, especially in the light of 20th-century history, actors, critics and audiences are faced with a problem. If Shakespeare was as humane as we would like to believe, if he was sophisticated in language and psychology beyond any expectations we may have of his contemporaries, what can he have meant by this portrait of a vengeful, greedy, merciless Jew? It is difficult to ignore the fact that Nazi directors staged The Merchant of Venice in Germany some 50 times between Hitler's rise to power in 1933 and 1945. Some commentators declare the play unstageable now. The Jewish playwright Arnold Wesker has written a companion piece, Shylock, which redresses the anti-Semitism he finds in The Merchant of Venice and which he advocates should always be acte d and studied alongside it. Modern directors deal with the Shylock problem in various ways, usually making him sympathetic, sometimes even turning him into the hero of the piece. To begin with, 400 years ago, it was different. There were few Jews in Elizabethan England, Edward I having expelled them 300 years earlier, which perhaps added spice to the notion of an exotic alien race, members of which few playgoers would have known. Other villainous stage Jews were common. Marlowe's Barabas (sharing a name with the murderer freed by the mob in preference to Jesus on the eve of the Crucifixion) was a monstrous caricature, although it is fair to say that the Christians in The Jew of Malta are a pretty odious lot as well. During the 18th and 19th centuries all the leading actors tackled "the Jew". Charles Macklin frightened George II with his savage performance in 1741. In 1814 Edmund Kean broke with the tradition of the one-dimensional villain and, dispensing with the red wig, impressed Hazlitt with the intensity of his acting. But it was Henry Irving, in 1879, who first invested Shylock with a degree of humanity. The roll call of great actors continues into the 20th century: Donald Wolfit's Shylock was "full of venom and hatred" and, according to the writer John Gross, Michael Redgrave and Emlyn Williams presented conventionally villainous readings of the part in the 1950s. Then, in 1960, Peter O'Toole's interpretation at Stratford marked a turning point. Perhaps it was not so much that the horror of the Holocaust had taken this long to be acknowledged, but rather that the theatre had become a forum for political ideas. His Shylock, directed by Michael Langham, was a heroic, dignified figure, in contrast to what one reviewer described as "a gushing, nervous, trivial band of Christians". The RSC's 1997 Shylock, Philip Voss, had a walk-on part in that production and still says it is the best he's seen to date. He, meanwhile, having begun with trepidation, has found the part rewarding. "He's a rich, deep character, an outsider, which is very appealing. He's an incredibly witty man. I don't think Shakespeare is anti-Semitic: Shylock becomes unhinged because his daughter betrays him. That short scene with Jessica shows how much he loves her, has dominated her but loved her too." The most famous speech in the play - "Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?" and so on - is often cited as proof of Shakespeare's humanity. Voss delivers it standing upright, "not kicked and bleeding; he's presenting an argument". In the intervening years, Laurence Olivier's Shylock in Jonathan Miller's Victorian-dress 1970 production for the National Theatre was memorable for his emphatic Jewishness and the downplaying of other strands in the plot. The text was slightly cut to omit unsympathetic lines. In the early 1990s, the director David Thacker also made judicious cuts and also made Shylock (played by David Calder) a businessman among other businessmen. But this time the setting was the contemporary Stock Exchange and due weight was given to the casket scenes. Shylock was a reasonable man driven mad by the defection of his daughter with a Christian, and so completely won the audience's sympathy that there was an audible expression of horror when he was ordered to renounce his faith and become a Christian. Ten years ago Antony Sher grappled with the role in Bill Alexander's 1987 RSC production. A South African Jew, Sher was all too aware of racial prejudice and sought to stir it up in the audience to shake their complacency, giving them an unsympathetic, an gry, exaggerated Jew. A yellow star of David was sprayed on to the wall at the back of the stage. Gregory Doran, who directs Voss in this season's Merchant, played Solanio in 1987. That production, he believes, "loaded the play in the post-Holocaust sense. It over-balanced it. The casket scenes went for nothing, but they are crucial because it is all about human values - Portia is a commodity too. "The play has been hijacked by history. We are putting it back into the world of renaissance trade. We've started with the title: Shylock was a merchant of Venice. I wanted to take the swastikas and stars of David out of the play." The differences between Shylock and Antonio, he believes, have more to do with commerce than race - a Jew, unlike Christians, was allowed by his religion to charge interest. "Shylock doesn't expect to ask for the pound of flesh," he says, but, driven mad by Jessica's elopement with a Christian, he seeks revenge and then, having gone too far, discovers that he is an alien after all. Four hundred years on, Shylock can still be approached as if for the first time. Whether private person or representative Jew, caricature villain or grieving father, as much as any character in the canon he demonstrates Shakespeare's extraordinary malleability, the chameleon property which allows succeeding generations to find themselves reflected in the plays. The Merchant of Venice opens at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre, Stratford (011 44 1789 295623), tomorrow. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 09:38:35 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1223 Qs: Queen Lear; Using IT to Teach Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1223. Wednesday, 10 December 1997. [1] From: Laurie Rae Dietrich Date: Tuesday, 9 Dec 1997 11:43:29 EST Subj: Queen Lear [2] From: Alan Perry Date: Tuesday, 9 Dec 1997 14:59:09 -0800 Subj: [Using IT to Teach Shakespeare] [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Laurie Rae Dietrich Date: Tuesday, 9 Dec 1997 11:43:29 EST Subject: Queen Lear Fellow SHAKSPER-eans... I'm interested in soliciting opinions about a production of Lear in which the role is played by and as a woman. The proposal is being debated by our board for a 98-99 production, and the group is quite split about it. The concept is to use a celtic/matriarchal context (think Lear = Boadicea) in which to spotlight the parent/child, age/youth, waning/waxing power motifs. The daughters would still be played as daughters. No other significant changes would be made to the text. Objections have ranged from the simple condemnation of the concept as "gimmicky" to a more complex argument that these gender choices would undermine the Lawrencian interpretation of the father-daughter relationships (particularly the relationship between Lear and Cordelia) as "incestuously suspect." I also understand that there have been other productions with a woman in the lead...even one fairly recently in London? Does anyone know anything about that aspect of Lear's production history, or have any suggestions as to how I might research the matter? I'm very interested in hearing any reactions to this concept.. Laurie Rae Dietrich Artistic Director The Shoestring Shakespeare Company San Antonio, Texas [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Perry Date: Tuesday, 9 Dec 1997 14:59:09 -0800 Subject: [Using IT to Teach Shakespeare] In January I will begin an experiment with my 12th grade students in the use of videotapes, the Internet, computers and CD-ROMs in the study of Shakespearean plays (both Hamlet and Macbeth). I have done what I feel is a fairly extensive literature review, and I have not found much that has been published on the use of such technology in the teaching of Shakespeare. If you know of a publication of any type on this subject, or if you have tried using technology in your classroom, I would very much appreciate your sharing that information with me. I would especially like to hear from those of you who have conducted your own experiments and of your success or failure in using technology. Thank you. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:04:15 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1224 First Chapter of Vendler's Book on the Sonnets MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1224. Wednesday, 10 December 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 Subject: First Chapter of Vendler's Book on the Sonnets For those who have been unable to get a copy of Helen Vendler's *The Art of Shakespeare's Sonnets* and for others who might be interested, *The New York Times* on the Web through its Books Section provides Vender's first chapter at http://search.nytimes.com/books/first/v/vendler-sonnets.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 08:26:34 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1225 CFP: Southeastern Renaissance Conference MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1225. Thursday, 11 December 1997. From: AEB Coldiron Date: Wednesday, 10 Dec 1997 09:57:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: CFP (please pardon crossposts) Call for Papers Southeastern Renaissance Conference 55th Annual Meeting University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill April 17-18, 1998 Now Receiving Papers on All Aspects of Renaissance Culture Twenty Minute Reading Time Send Two Copies and One-page Abstract Postmarked By January 15, 1998 To Steven May , President Southeastern Renaissance Conference Department of English, Georgetown College Georgetown, Kentucky 40324 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 08:39:18 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1226 Re: Queen Lear MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1226. Thursday, 11 December 1997. [1] From: Rosalind King Date: Wednesday, 10 Dec 1997 17:40:41 GMT0BST Subj: Re: SHK 8.1223 Qs: Queen Lear [2] From: Terence Hawkes Date: Wednesday, 10 Dec 1997 12:16:24 -0500 Subj: Queen Lear [3] From: Peter S. Donaldson Date: Wednesday, 10 Dec 97 12:44:37 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.1223 Q: Queen Lear [4] From: David Skeele Date: Wednesday, 10 Dec 1997 12:55:26 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1223 Q: Queen Lear [5] From: Werner Habicht Date: Thursday, 11 Dec 1997 03:10:10 +0100 Subj: [Queen Lear] [6] From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 10 Dec 1997 23:40:37 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1223 Qs: Queen Lear [7] From: Peter Hillyar-Russ Date: Thursday, 11 Dec 1997 10:03:16 -0000 Subj: Queen Lear [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rosalind King Date: Wednesday, 10 Dec 1997 17:40:41 GMT0BST Subject: Re: SHK 8.1223 Qs: Queen Lear I would much rather see a production of Lear with a woman playing the lead as a woman than one in which an incestuous relationship was played out (invented?) between Lear and Cordelia. Indeed I've been tempted to do one myself for some time - the former that is! I saw the production with Kathryn Hunter in London earlier during the summer - it had originated in a regional theatre in the north last spring, West Yorkshire Playhouse, home of Jude Kelly, of Washington Othello fame, though it wasn't her production but Helena Kaut-Howson's. I was distinctly unimpressed but that was because the conception of the play as a whole, and particularly ironically enough the treatment of the daughters, was really rather tired and conventional. The play became a play within a play, in the mind of an old woman in a retirement home, in order to preach the message that we, as a society, are unkind to our old-folks. Hunter herself was playing a tour-de-force of 'oldness', combined with 'maleness' which, for me, got in the way of her playing the complexities of the part. It was much-hyped however. Stick to your guns! Best wishes, Rosalind [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terence Hawkes Date: Wednesday, 10 Dec 1997 12:16:24 -0500 Subject: Queen Lear Dear Laurie Rae Dietrich: Your proposal to present Lear as what, in Tony Blair's Britain, we term a 'lone mother' strikes me as courageous and exciting. Head for London. Over here, she would find her benefits sharply reduced, but that, to some degree, accords with the spirit of the play. Meanwhile, my own production, in which Lear is played by a Speak-Your-Weight machine ('O you are men of thirteen stones') still unaccountably fails to find a backer. They hate us youth. Terence Hawkes [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter S. Donaldson Date: Wednesday, 10 Dec 97 12:44:37 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.1223 Q: Queen Lear There was an experimental production-actually titled Queen Lear, I think -- in Edmonton; scenes of it will be included in the Open University CDROM, edited by Lizbeth Goodman and Stephen Regan. Kristin Linklatter did a splendid Lear at Wellesley College last year with an all-woman cast. Suzuki has done amazing things in his "Tale of Lear" which uses all men-with the daughters as bearded 30 year olds. A woman in the lead need not necessarily undermine the incestuous subtext, though it might alter how the convergence of incest and patriarchy is approached. My experience of Linklatter's production was that the enactment of patriarchal arrogance and abuse was all the sharper for having a small woman in the lead, and there was something of the matriarchal too-somehow the fool survives, played by a young girl, suggesting a kind of generational continuity. [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Skeele Date: Wednesday, 10 Dec 1997 12:55:26 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1223 Q: Queen Lear Lee Breuer directed a production in N.Y. 3 or 4 years ago with Ruth Maleczech (this spelling looks suspect-I may have just made it up) playing Lear as a Southern matriarch. Breuer also changed the three daughters to three sons (and of course Albany and Cornwall to women). This was indeed a controversial production but it was not without its ardent supporters. The N.Y. TIMES gave it a lot of press, as did the VILLAGE VOICE. I wish I could remember the exact date, but you can probably find info on it easily enough. Hope it helps! David Skeele Slippery Rock University [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Werner Habicht Date: Thursday, 11 Dec 1997 03:10:10 +0100 Subject: [Queen Lear] In 1989/90 there were two productions - in German; but the directors had come from America - of *King Lear* with female Lears (King Lears, not necessarily Queen Lears). One, a collage-like adaptation directed by George Tabori in Bregenz and Vienna (Theater Der Kreis), was re-titled "Lear's Shadow" and intended to present Lear (played by Hildegard Schmahl) as a "sickly, old, terrible tyrant and dirty old man who is being transformed not only into a human being but into a good human being" (Tabori in the program notes) - a psychodrama with an emphasis on sexual aspects. The other was Robert Wilson's production at the Schauspielhaus in Frankfurt, with Marianne Hoppe playing the title role, who began the performance by reciting, as a motto, William Carlos Williams's "The Last Words of My English Grandmother" ("...What are all those fuzzy-looking things out there? Trees? Well, I'm tired of them..."). Lear, despite her very old and fragile body, dominated the scene with extraordinary facial expression - proud, grim, sarcastic, tender, sad. Gender seemed irrelevant, especially in the context of Wilson's theatrical artificiality. There is a tape of the Robert Wilson production, though I don't know if or how it is available; perhaps writing to the Schauspielhaus, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, might help. Numerous reviews of both productions are listed in *Shakespeare Jahrbuch (West)*, 1990, p.209 and 1991, p.217-8, respectively. W.H. [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett Date: Wednesday, 10 Dec 1997 23:40:37 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1223 Qs: Queen Lear Some years back Mabou Mines did a much cut, 6-actor, 1-trunk version of Lear with not only Lear but some of the other roles gender-reversed; it had its moments, but the overall weirdness somewhat blurred the main switch. You can probably find reviews in NYT, Shakespeare Bulletin, etc. Dave Evett [7]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Hillyar-Russ Date: Thursday, 11 Dec 1997 10:03:16 -0000 Subject: Queen Lear There was a production of King Lear given in the Haymarket Theatre, Leicester, England during February/March 1997, with Kathryn Hunter in the title role. The director was Helena Kaut-Howson. I saw the production and considered it excellent - but for research purposes anyone interested ought, perhaps, to contact the theatre direct (44)116 253 9797. It is a not commonly known fact that Leicester = Leir's Castrum, and is believed to be the town in which the king lived and is buried. Peter Hillyar-Russ peter.hruss@lineone.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 08:48:53 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1227 Re: Using IT to Teach Shakespeare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1227. Thursday, 11 December 1997. [1] From: Fran Teague Date: Wednesday, 10 Dec 97 10:11:48 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.1223 Q: Using IT to Teach Shakespeare [2] From: AEB Coldiron Date: Wednesday, 10 Dec 1997 10:34:48 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: Using IT to Teach Shakespeare [3] From: James L. Harner Date: Wednesday, 10 Dec 1997 09:37:30 -0600 Subj: Using IT to Teach Shakespeare [4] From: Mike Jensen Date: Wednesday, 10 Dec 1997 18:47:11 +0000 Subj: SHK 8.1223 Q: Using IT to Teach Shakespeare [5] From: Scott Crozier Date: Thursday, 11 Dec 1997 09:00:19 +1100 Subj: Using IT to Teach Shakespeare [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fran Teague Date: Wednesday, 10 Dec 97 10:11:48 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.1223 Q: Using IT to Teach Shakespeare At the University of Georgia English Department, those of us who teach Shakespeare have put together a collection of materials. These include exercises that use electronic texts, handy links, and suggestions for researching and writing about Shakespeare and his contemporaries. The URL is http://parallel.park.uga.edu/dept/resources.html and we would very much welcome feedback. The material that we include is designed for both secondary students as well as university students. Fran Teague [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: AEB Coldiron Date: Wednesday, 10 Dec 1997 10:34:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Using IT to Teach Shakespeare Alan Perry asks for our experiences with integrating technology into the Shakespeare classroom, as he embarks on an experiment with his 12th grade students. I designed a course called "Multimedia Shakespeare" using the resources you name (and ideally, a Hinman collator! heh). The course took its solitary way through committees, where, I am told, it may emerge, approved, some time next year. The course, designed for first-years in a comprehensive university, is part of a "GenEd" set called "Using Information Effectively" in which the goal is to help students apply technology to actual course content (rather than just learning empty skills-sets). I still have a number of reservations about this, though I did my best to design a reasonable course that would deploy technologies as tools, not as ends unto themselves, and would do it with some discretion; but, well, talk to me after it is approved and taught. One of the most obvious problems is that our students tend to come to us not using tech very well if at all, so syllabus space has to be devoted to basics (how to use e-mail in a discussion group, how to do various kinds of net searches, how to judge the quality of search results, how to annotate with CD-ROMS, etc). One can't do the kind of 14-play semester some profs manage in a text-based course. (With first years I would cut back anyway, but there are serious syllabus losses here, and thus selection becomes the more important.) With 12th graders, I imagine those issues would be even more pressing-how many plays, two or three in a semester to do them well and fully, integrating all kinds of tech? And which ones, and why those? You say _Hamlet_ and _Macbeth_, but if you want to compare film performances, why not _Hamlet_ and _R&J_: the Baz Luhrmann version will surely rivet your 12th graders' attention so that you can focus it on some very interesting issues of cultural distance and reception. A chacun son gout, I guess, but selection is key. I have heard that Professor Jean Brink, Arizona State, whom I do not know but whose work on Spenser I admire, will be designing a similar course, or maybe already has done so. If you like I shall try to pass your query to her, or you could wait and see if that work will become more public in the near future. And I imagine she's not the only one. Wasn't there notice of a conference on this topic recently? In my upper-division course I've already tried injecting limited bits of tech, and I find that it works best when the technology is clearly subordinated to larger goals in the course (e.g., video is nice, but it's best when you cue up specific clips briefly to make a specific point about how camera angles/blocking/etc alter the significance of a scene; video is a waste of time when you sit students in front of long minutes of tape without specific questions, linked to topics already under consideration, posed clearly in advance). The play's the thing (of course, even if catching not royal consciences but young minds), and the technology, no matter how fancy, is only a tool, like a book or an apron stage, with which to give the play life for them. Hope that helps. Let us know how it goes. A. Coldiron [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: James L. Harner Date: Wednesday, 10 Dec 1997 09:37:30 -0600 Subject: Using IT to Teach Shakespeare The pedagogy section of the annual World Shakespeare Bibliography and the +World Bibliography on CD-ROM+ includes numerous articles on using video and other electronic media in teaching Shakespeare. James L. Harner Editor, World Shakespeare Bibliography Texas A&M University [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Jensen Date: Wednesday, 10 Dec 1997 18:47:11 +0000 Subject: SHK 8.1223 Q: Using IT to Teach Shakespeare I am sorry for being commercial, but my company published a booklet that may help. This book is not specific to Shakespeare. You will not find Shakespearean web sites listed. It is called MAYFIELD'S QUICK VIEW GUIDE TO THE INTERNET FOR STUDENTS OF ENGLISH by Jennifer Campbell and Michael Keene. It teaches how to use the Internet as a resource and how to write papers using those sources. It covers topics like judging the reliability of Internet information, documenting information from electronic sources, MLA style, etc. It retails for $7.95, or is free when shrink wrapped with any Mayfield title. We do not publish anything for Shakespeare classes, I'm afraid, but this may help those who teach other classes. You may receive a complimentary copy to see if this is something you want to add to your students reading list IF you are a professor currently employed by a college or university in the United States. Please call the Mayfield sales department at (800) 433-1279 or fax a desk copy request on school letterhead to (650) 960-0328. Sorry for the commercial. I hope this low cost book can help. Alan, I know you teach High School, not college. Contact me off list and I'll send a copy to you. All the best, Mike Jensen [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Crozier Date: Thursday, 11 Dec 1997 09:00:19 +1100 Subject: Using IT to Teach Shakespeare Although the best source for the study of Shakespeare is the texts themselves, I have found the following to be of some assistance. First, using the search facility on the MIT site allows students to study the effects of repeated tropes in the plays. The word love, for example, appears in Othello more than in any other play. Furthermore, it appears more in the Iago's tempting of Othello than in any other place. The sites that deal with Elizabethan acting and staging are also very useful. The Reading University site is extremely good. Online discussion than is offered on some sites is useful for students who really find the plays exciting. They can discuss ideas with peers in an international setting. Regards, Scott Crozier ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 08:53:06 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1228 Re: Shylock MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1228. Thursday, 11 December 1997. [1] From: Rosalind King Date: Wednesday, 10 Dec 1997 18:06:42 GMT0BST Subj: Re: SHK 8.1222 Shylock [2] From: Norm Holland Date: Wednesday, 10 Dec 97 15:14:01 EST Subj: Re: Shylock's pounded flesh [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rosalind King Date: Wednesday, 10 Dec 1997 18:06:42 GMT0BST Subject: Re: SHK 8.1222 Shylock The most interesting production I have seen was staged by Harrogate Theatre, Yorkshire about three years ago. The play became a rehearsal for a production of itself in a Nazi prison camp with the actors all starving Jewish inmates under the watchful eyes of prison guards, and their own 'capo' who urged the others on to more and more grotesque presentations of stereo-types of Jewishness - all this needed no alteration to the text just added business. The second half of the Harrogate production became the performance in the camp, with the guards now occupying the side boxes in this turn-of-the-century gilded theatre. The (Jewish stage) actor playing Shylock had momentarily attacked one of the guards during the 'rehearsal' for his gratuitous relishing of an apple in front of them all, and as he left the stage at the end of the Act 4 'performance' he was shot for 'real' by one of the guards in the box. This left a dead body on stage for the whole of Act 5, the other 'actors' not daring to look down at it but continuing, desperately, to act the romance of the ending. This body was still half visible under the dropped curtain at the end of the show, which kept the entire audience (i.e. us) in our seats for a good 5 minutes with the house lights up wondering whether anything else would happen. It didn't. What did happen was that we all left the theatre still debating the very issues about racisim and unjustice that, I believe, the play asks us to consider. Yours, Rosalind [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norm Holland Date: Wednesday, 10 Dec 97 15:14:01 EST Subject: Re: Shylock's pounded flesh Speaking of Shylock, has anybody besides me seen A. R. Gurney, Jr.'s sequel to _Merchant_? It's called, if I remember aright, _Over Time_ or perhaps _Overtime_. All the characters are of one ethic persuasion or another, not just Shylock, and the play ends with Shylock and Portia taking up residence together in her Belmont mansion. (Gurney was my successor teaching Shakespeare at MIT, and is very knowledgeable, as well as an outstanding playwright.) The play is a hoot for any Shakespearean or even someone with a nodding acquaintance with _Merchant_. --Best, Norm ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:20:28 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1229 Re: Queen Lear; Shylock MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1229. Friday, 12 December 1997. [1] From: Skip Shand Date: Thursday, 11 Dec 1997 10:41:59 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1226 Re: Queen Lear [2] From: Rosalind King Date: Thursday, 11 Dec 1997 17:18:39 GMT0BST Subj: Re: SHK 8.1226 Re: Queen Lear [3] From: Milla Riggio Date: Thursday, 11 Dec 1997 14:23:28 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1226 Re: Queen Lear [4] From: G. L. Horton Date: Thursday, 11 Dec 1997 11:27:44 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1226 Re: Queen Lear [5] From: Tiffany Rasovic Date: Thursday, 11 Dec 1997 14:25:49 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1228 Re: Shylock [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Shand Date: Thursday, 11 Dec 1997 10:41:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1226 Re: Queen Lear Richard Rose's Necessary Angel Theatre Company in Toronto has twice presented a female Lear in recent years, first as a completely gender-reversed workshop with Patricia Hamilton in the title role, and then as a full production, gender-blind rather than simply reversed, this time starring Janet Wright. In both cases, Lear was played as King, costuming attempted to be neutral so that the gendered body was (theoretically!) taken out of the game, and the main 'discoveries' centred on a (stereotypical?) new nurturing quality found in the later relationship between Lear and Cordelia, so that their scene as they go into captivity together becomes frankly the most moving scene in the play. The other main benefit of this take, not surprisingly, was that the women who got to play roles like Cornwall and Edmund (the latter was played by the magnificent Maggie Huculak in both productions), found themselves gifted with a level of bald power and agency that women in the classics rarely get to explore. Patricia Hamilton observed at one point that she had given up playing Shakespeare for 30 years because she was tired of putting on a fancy dress and entering to music! Skip Shand [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rosalind King Date: Thursday, 11 Dec 1997 17:18:39 GMT0BST Subject: Re: SHK 8.1226 Re: Queen Lear Yes, sorry! Peter is right Leicester Haymarket was the originating theatre. I saw it at the Young Vic. Rosalind [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milla Riggio Date: Thursday, 11 Dec 1997 14:23:28 -0400 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1226 Re: Queen Lear The most interesting Queen Lear, or rather MOTHER LEAR, that I have read (haven't seen it) is in the HOUSE OF LEAR by Reginald Jackson, a text that sets the play in the transvestite House Culture of New York, at a Ball. Teaching this text (which is not published and so hard to get) with PARIS IS BURNING, as an adaptation of Lear was a very powerful combination. Milla Riggio [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: G. L. Horton Date: Thursday, 11 Dec 1997 11:27:44 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1226 Re: Queen Lear My AisleSay review of this "Company of Women" production of "King Lear" is on my Web Site. click on Reviews in the index. The reviews are alphabetical by title of play, not chronological or by theatre company. G.L.Horton -- Newton, MA, USA ghorton@tiac.net [5]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tiffany Rasovic Date: Thursday, 11 Dec 1997 14:25:49 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1228 Re: Shylock I recently read a book which gives an interesting run down of the history of Jews in Europe and their parallel treatment in theater-especially Barabas and Shylock: *Shylock: A Legend and its Legacy* by John Gross Simon and Schuster 1992. TR ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:24:29 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1230 Shakespeare Concordances MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1230. Friday, 12 December 1997. From: Pervez Rizvi Date: Thursday, 11 Dec 1997 16:05:37 -0000 Subject: Shakespeare Concordances Christmas is a time for receiving; one thing I hope Santa will bring me (tho' I know he won't) is a concordance to Shakespeare with the following two features: 1. The exclusion of passages which are regarded as not being by Shakespeare; for example, the Fletcher parts of Henry VIII and Two Noble Kinsmen. Currently, anyone who uses a concordance is in danger of having their findings distorted unless they also look up authorship attributions and cross-reference the two sets of results. (I know that usages of certain words or phrases are sometimes used to justify attributions to authors, so there's an obvious risk of falling into circular reasoning, but that's an aside.) 2. The inclusion of all plausible variants. For example, if I search for "solid" in the Harvard Concordance, it won't yield me Folio Hamlet's "too too solid flesh" because that concordance is based on the Riverside edition which is based on the Q2 text. Now that most of us accept that Shakespeare revised his plays and that there isn't one and only one version of each line, it seems to me important that concordances reflect this view by indexing both Q and F readings where they differ. Similarly, in the case of the many cruxes where editions differ widely (e.g. the "dram of eale"), it would be useful if all plausible emendations could be indexed as well. By doing this we just might be rewarded with a realisation that a particular emendation is the right one because the concordance reveals parallel passages which no one had noticed before. For want of a better title I think of this ideal book as a "hyper-concordance". I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist (if it does, please correct me). I'm posting this not in expectation of a reply but just to float the idea. There are many scholars and future scholars on this list. Perhaps someone will know someone who would be able to produce such a book. Finally: I use the two online concordances (at MIT and the University of Sydney); neither includes The Two Noble Kinsmen. If anyone knows where an online text of TNK is available, I'd be grateful if they could point me to it.========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:15:16 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1231 Re: Shakespeare Concordances (E-Texts) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1231. Monday, 15 December 1997. [1] From: Virginia Byrne Date: Friday, 12 Dec 1997 17:13:05 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.1230 Shakespeare Concordances [2] From: Marga Munkelt Date: Monday, 15 Dec 1997 14:14:27 EST Subj: RE: SHK 8.1230 Shakespeare Concordances [3] From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Sunday, 14 Dec 97 21:01:32 EST Subj: Re: Concordances [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia Byrne Date: Friday, 12 Dec 1997 17:13:05 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.1230 Shakespeare Concordances Anyone? Is the Concordance available on cd-rom? [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marga Munkelt Date: Monday, 15 Dec 1997 14:14:27 EST Subject: RE: SHK 8.1230 Shakespeare Concordances Marvin Spevack's Harvard Concordance is, as I am sure you know, only a condensed version of his Complete and Systematic Concordance in 9 vols. Vol. 9 (published in 1980) of the "big" concordance makes you independent of the Riverside text: it is devoted to Substantive Variants and gives you rejected and collateral readings of the "good" quartos and the folios as well as their adoption in a cross-section of modern editions. (Vol. 8 of the Concordance gives you concordances to the "bad" quartos, vol. 7 to the non-spoken material.) Best wishes, M.M. [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Sunday, 14 Dec 97 21:01:32 EST Subject: Re: Concordances Pervez Rizvi brings to mind the texts and software that were assembled at the University of Toronto under the supervision of Ian Lancashire. Ken Steele, the founding poppa of this SHAKSPER matrix, spent many quality hours licking those bears into recognizable shape. I'm sure many other scholars have as well. I once had a disk fat with digital Folio and quarto texts. But in moving from one computer to another, one house to another, and office unto office unto office, I'm now textless. Has anyone been in contact with Toronto and the Oxford text Archive folks? I remember a few years ago we had correspondence about relatively low cost access to these things. I hope we aren't tumbled into the nets of the unavailable, inaccessible, and unaffordable. Ever , Steve Inaccessabilowitz (For some of us, "getting up to speed" with contemporary technology still means that we have yet to figure out which end of the pencil to put into the electric sharpener.) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:22:14 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1232 Qs: Kyd and; Current London Productions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1232. Monday, 15 December 1997. [1] From: Theresa Anne Mategrano Date: Friday, 12 Dec 1997 11:24:24 EST Subj: Q: Kyd and Elizabethan accents [2] From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Sunday, 14 Dec 1997 18:50:20 -0500 Subj: Othello & Merry Wives in London [1]---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Theresa Anne Mategrano Date: Friday, 12 Dec 1997 11:24:24 EST Subject: Q: Kyd and Elizabethan accents Could anyone provide me with information, or where to find information that supports the argument that 1) Kyd authored the Ur-Hamlet, or any other works later ascribed to Shakespeare? Why was authorship of U ever attributed to him in the first place? Was Kyd ever an actor? And 2) regarding Elizabethan accents, is there any information about whether or not they dropped their h's? [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernice W. Kliman Date: Sunday, 14 Dec 1997 18:50:20 -0500 Subject: Othello & Merry Wives in London Does anyone know about the current Shakespearean productions in London? If you could attend one, which would it be? Thanks for your advice. B.W. Kliman ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:25:28 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1233 Twelfth Night: A CSF Spinoff MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1233. Monday, 15 December 1997. From: W. L. Godshalk Date: Friday, 12 Dec 1997 13:50:34 -0500 Subject: Twelfth Night: A CSF Spinoff Twelfth Night opened last night at the Dance Hall's intimate theatre (45 seats max.), at Daniels and Short Vine, in Cincinnati. The production is excellent, cut for the two hours' traffick of the stage (8:00-10:15 with a fifteen minute intermission), in modern dress, and featuring actors from the Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival. Dan Kenney's Sir Toby is a knockout (with a neat reference to The Confederacy of Dunces). Dan also plays Orsino, and, yes, there is a good deal of comic doubling. Khris Lewin plays Malvolio, and he does appear with yellow stockings, cross-gartered, in a unique way. Marni Penning is smashing as the sexy Olivia, while Jill Westerby plays Viola and Jay Apking her brother Sebastian. Christine Wilfinger is a vibrant Maria. Nick Rose is both Feste and Fabian, and Jared Doren plays Sir Andrew. It is directed by Jasson Minadakis. If you know the script, you can start laughing from the opening lines. I got jokes that I had not noticed before! For tickets, call Dan at 631-2622. At $10 a head, this is a must-see if you live in or near Cincinnati. It plays until December 21. Yours, Bill Godshalk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:30:30 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1234 Re: Queen's Shylock; Queen Lear MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1234. Monday, 15 December 1997. [1] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Friday, 12 Dec 1997 20:08:44 -0500 (EST) Subj: Queen's Shylock [2] From: Helen Ostovich Date: Saturday, 13 Dec 1997 11:44:23 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1226 Re: Queen Lear [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Friday, 12 Dec 1997 20:08:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Queen's Shylock Lest we forget, John Gielgud gave a ginger-haired Shylock at the Queen's Theatre, which was designed along the lines of Barker's contention that it was a romantic comedy. Gielgud regarded the character as a 'squalid little guttersnipe', but that's because of his position in the piece as the romantic obstacle. Motley did the sets, and made sure the Belmont scenes were full of light and color. They even did a number on Aragon-gave him the most ridiculously frilly costume I've seen outside of Inigo Jones. Critics seemed to notice how ridiculous he was for the first time... oh, and Portia was Peggy Ashcroft. Cheers, Andy White [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Helen Ostovich Date: Saturday, 13 Dec 1997 11:44:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1226 Re: Queen Lear There was a black African Queen Lear in Toronto a few years ago. It caused quite a stir, but I didn't see it. Perhaps someone else on the list did? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 06:54:28 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1235 Re: Current London Productions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1235. Wednesday, 17 December 1997. [1] From: Andreas Schlenger Date: Monday, 15 Dec 1997 17:11:58 +0100 Subj: Re: London Productions [2] From: Mike Jensen Date: Monday, 15 Dec 1997 18:19:07 +0000 Subj: SHK 8.1232 Q: Current London Productions [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andreas Schlenger Date: Monday, 15 Dec 1997 17:11:58 +0100 Subject: Re: London Productions Bernice W. Kliman wrote: > Does anyone know about the current Shakespearean productions in London? > If you could attend one, which would it be? Thanks for your advice. I learn from the RSC's online schedule that their Hamlet (starring Alex Jennings) is still on show in London. I've already seen this productions four times and wouldn't mind a fifth one. Don't miss it! Andreas Schlenger. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Jensen Date: Monday, 15 Dec 1997 18:19:07 +0000 Subject: SHK 8.1232 Q: Current London Productions Sorry for answering on list, but this may be of interest to others. Check your home mail box. Any day (today?) you will receive a Sunday Times (London) review of the RNT's Othello and the Stratford Henry V. Both are much lauded, esp. Othello. If you trust this review, this the Shakespeare to see in London. Merry Wives has not been well received. Apparently Terry Hands magic with that play did not strike a third time. I have a couple of copies of Plays International I have not yet read. I'll skim them for Shakespeare in London reviews and let you know. All the best, mj ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 07:03:45 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1236 Re: Technology; Anti-Semitism; Doubt MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1236. Wednesday, 17 December 1997. [1] From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Monday, 15 Dec 1997 07:01:30 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1231 Re: Shakespeare Concordances (E-Texts) [2] From: Stevie Simkin Date: Tuesday, 16 Dec 1997 14:14:02 -0000 Subj: Re: Anti-Semitism: Shakespeare, Marlowe [3] From: Chris Kendall Date: Tuesday, 16 Dec 1997 12:30:39 -0700 Subj: Reasonable Doubt [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Sirofchuck Date: Monday, 15 Dec 1997 07:01:30 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1231 Re: Shakespeare Concordances (E-Texts) >Ever , >Steve Inaccessabilowitz >(For some of us, "getting up to speed" with contemporary technology >still means that we have yet to figure out which end of the pencil to >put into the electric sharpener.) They make electric ones now? Mike Sirofchuck [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stevie Simkin Date: Tuesday, 16 Dec 1997 14:14:02 -0000 Subject: Re: Anti-Semitism: Shakespeare, Marlowe I recently responded to some discussion of anti-Semitism in Merchant of Venice with an announcement that I was directing a production of Marlowe's The Jew of Malta which attempts to turn the play's anti-Semitism inside out by using it as a play within a play: our "outer" play being set in Warsaw at the time the ghetto was being set up in 1939, with the "inner" play, Marlowe's text, being performed at the behest of the Nazi authorities. The Jewish actors, forced to perform Marlowe's anti-Semitic stereotypes, work to subvert the dominant reading of the play by various ingenious means which leads us to manipulate the text shamelessly, while keeping the words of the text pretty much intact. As the play switches between the 1939 and the Elizabethan contexts, all kinds of interesting things emerge about how ethnic identities are constructed, imposed and resisted. The production, which seems to have been a success, is now over. Following one performance, there was a colloquium with a panel made up of a number of academics plus a reverend (advisor to the Bishop of Winchester on Interfaith Relations) and the chair of the local Southampton Reform Jewish Community. A fiery, fascinating debate ensued. I am currently writing up the production and colloquium for publication. (In addition, a review of the play should be forthcoming in Cahiers Elisabethains). If anyone would be interested in seeing the work in progress on the article at some point during the next 4-6 weeks, please contact me off-list. I'd also be interested in placing the finished article on SHAKSPER, and possibly the adapted script, if there is enough interest, but I would like advice on copyright issues before I pursue this. In addition, it may be that the link here is too tenuous: I don't want to be clogging up valuable Shakespearean cyberspace with things Marlovian if this is inappropriate. Being a relatively recent subscriber here, any advice would be welcome. Thanks for listening Stevie Simkin stevies@interalpha.co.uk [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Kendall Date: Tuesday, 16 Dec 1997 12:30:39 -0700 Subject: Reasonable Doubt Sorry for the late posting on this subject, but I've just been catching up on my SHAKSPER Digest. If "1 in 1 billion" individuals might share the same set of genetic markers, then it's likely that 2 or 3 people now living could be the source of the genetic material. It's unreasonable to assume that they live in Tibet or Patagonia, because they would have to come from the same gene pool, or there would be numerous differences in genetic markers. So we're faced with the possibility that someone else from the same geographic area (perhaps the same family) is the source of the genetic material. In the absence of other compelling evidence, I think that would be reasonable doubt. If the figure is "1 in 100 billion" that's something else again. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 07:08:25 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1237 Qs: R3 Performance History; Quotation; BBC Cym. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1237. Wednesday, 17 December 1997. [1] From: David Lindley Date: Monday, 15 Dec 1997 15:28:51 GMT Subj: Re: Richard III Performance History [2] From: Joanne Walen Date: Monday, 15 Dec 1997 18:56:33 EST Subj: Quotation Source [3] From: Michael Skovmand Date: Wednesday, 17 Dec 1997 09:28:49 MET Subj: Re: Cymbeline Video [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley Date: Monday, 15 Dec 1997 15:28:51 GMT Subject: Re: Richard III Performance History I currently have an MA student who is working on the performance history of Richard III. We have tracked down a good deal of material about UK performances, but are finding it more difficult to locate information about what are considered landmark productions in the US (apologies for our anglo-centrism). I would very much welcome any suggestions on this score, and guidance towards reviews beyond the standard listings in Shakespeare Quarterly and the like. Please email me direct, unless you think list members in general might be interested. David Lindley University of Leeds. d.lindley@leeds.ac.uk [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Walen Date: Monday, 15 Dec 1997 18:56:33 EST Subject: Quotation Source This question was posed to me, and I didn't have an answer-except that I didn't think so. Can anyone help? Question: Is the quote about the pot calling the kettle black from Shakespeare? If so, do you know from which play? Many thanks for any insights you offer. Joanne Walen [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Skovmand Date: Wednesday, 17 Dec 1997 09:28:49 MET Subject: Re: Cymbeline Video Can anyone out there help me get my hands on a copy of the 1982 BBC/Elijah Moshinsky TV production of Cymbeline (preferably PAL, but NTSC will do) - I'll buy, borrow, copy, anything! (Incidentally, this is just one more cri de coeur testifying to the appalling state of affairs regarding the unavailability of any more than the canonized dozen or so of the BBC SHAKESPEARE TV oeuvre!) Thanks, in advance! Michael Skovmand Dep't of English U. of Aarhus 8000 Aarhus C Denmark ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 07:13:12 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1238 Renaissance Forum 2: 2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1238. Wednesday, 17 December 1997. From: Andrew M. Butler Date: Wednesday, 17 Dec 1997 10:19:30 +0000 Subject: Renaissance Forum 2: 2 RENAISSANCE FORUM The editors are pleased to announce the Autumn 1997 issue of *Renaissance Forum*. The journal is available on the World Wide Webfrom: www.hull.ac.uk/renforum/index.html In volume two, number two: Steve Longstaffe asks 'What is the English history play and why are they saying such terrible things about it?', David Siar investigates 'Jean E. Howard's Postmodern Marxist Feminism and the Economic Last Instance' and Anny Crunelle-Vanrigh offers a Kristevan view of Hamlet's First Soliloquy. Plus reviews by Nick Cox, J. C. Davis, Lisa Hopkins, Romauld I. Lakowski, Mark E. C. Perrott, Jeffrey Powers-Beck and J. A. Sharpe of books by or edited by Simon Barker, David Bevington, David Cressy, Christopher Durston and Jacqueline Eales, R.A. Foakes, Sean Kelsey, William Lamont, Diarmaid MacCulloch, Julia Reinhard Lupton, Derek Roper, John Russell Brown, David L. Smith, Richard Strier and David Bevington, and Michael Taylor. Submissions for future issues may be sent to the technical editor by email in most formats-PC or Mac, Word, Word Perfect or ASCII, UUENCODED, Zipped, BinHex or attached files. Please enclose a brief abstract with your article. For queries on acceptable formats, editorial policy or how to become a reviewer please email: a.m.butler@english.hull.ac.uk Potential reviewers should enclose a brief c.v. If you have sent an article by email and have not received a reply within two weeks, then please notify the same address, without resending the article. Submissions may also be sent by conventional mail on disk, preferably 3 1/2 inch disk, along with three print outs and a brief abstract. For details consult: www.hull.ac.uk/renforum/about.htm and: www.hull.ac.uk/renforum/advice.htm Robin Headlam Wells Glenn Burgess Rowland Wymer Editors, *Renaissance Forum* ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 12:10:24 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1239 Seasonal Reminder Regarding Your SHAKSPER Account MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1239. Wednesday, 17 December 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Wednesday, December 17, 1997 Subject: Seasonal Reminder (UNSUBing and NOMAIL Options) Dear SHAKSPEReans, As students here at Bowie State take their final examination, it is time that I send the seasonal message regarding your SHAKSPER account options. If you will be away from your account for some time, please use either of these options: UNSUBscribing and SETting NOMAIL. UNSUBscribing: If you have joined SHAKSPER as part of a class or on a short-term basis or if you will be losing your account, please UNSUBscribe. To do so, send this -- UNSUB SHAKSPER to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu leaving the subject line blank. SETting NOMAIL: If you are going to be away from your account for a time, then SET your SHAKSPER account to NOMAIL. To do this, send the following message -- SET SHAKSPER NOMAIL to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu again leaving the subject line blank. When you want to resume your SHAKSPER mailings, send -- SET SHAKSPER MAIL -- to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu To order a list of LISTSERV commands, send -- GET LISTSERV COMMANDS -- to LISTSERV@ws.BowieState.edu If you have other questions or problems, contact me at SHAKSPER@ws.BowieState.edu or at editor@ws.BowieState.edu. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 09:58:07 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1240 Re: Queen Lr; Anti-Semitism; RSC Ham; Quotation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1240. Thursday, 18 December 1997. [1] From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Wednesday, 17 Dec 97 09:52:52 EST Subj: Queen Lear [2] From: Keith Richards Date: Wednesday, 17 Dec 1997 13:53:51 -0500 Subj: SHK 8.1236 - Anti Semitism [3] From: John Walsh Date: Wednesday, 17 Dec 1997 11:35:37 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1235 Re: Current London Productions [4] From: David Glassco Date: Wednesday, 17 Dec 1997 15:12:30 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1237 Q: Quotation [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Wednesday, 17 Dec 97 09:52:52 EST Subject: Queen Lear About eight years ago, director Omar Shapli worked out a production of LEAR to use the talents of three very strong women in the City College of New York's BFA Acting program. At Lear's entry in 1.1, all three came on, speaking the opening few lines chorally. Then two stepped away from stage center to take on the roles of Goneril and Regan. Through the rest of the play the actresses handed off the roles of Lear Goneril and Regan by exchanging color-coded tunics. Each of these remarkable women had a chance to run through a range of challenges. Because the "rules of the game" were clearly set in the opening moments, audiences simply accepted this as a convention. One of the classmates of the three women is now playing Desdemona to Patrick Stewart's Othello in Washington. Alas, the BFA program was fed to the angry gods of budget during the first years of Governor Pataki's stringencies in New York. Theatre (but not a professional preparatory conservatory) continues at CCNY, serving and nurturing "the children of all the people" after 150 years. Steve Urkowitz SURCCcunyvm.cuny.edu [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith Richards Date: Wednesday, 17 Dec 1997 13:53:51 -0500 Subject: SHK 8.1236 - Anti Semitism Congratulations to Stevie Simkin for a successful production of _The Jew of Malta_. One fact should, however, be noted. While interpretive license is an integral part of what we all do, I think that in this case it is important to keep in mind the historical record. Marlowe's plays, along with those of all other foreign dramatists (with one notable exception), were banned under the Third Reich by 1939. The only non-German dramatist to be staged after 1938 was, you guessed it, Shakespeare. More or less his entire corpus was staged, including over thirty productions of _The Merchant of Venice_. Actually, before the ban went into effect, there had been only one production of _The Jew Of Malta_ under the Nazis. The play, for many reasons I think, did not work well to promote anti-Semitism. There are, I think, many reasons for this - chiefly, though, I would argue that it's completely over the top portrayal of what a Jew "is" can serve as a Brechtian alienation effect, prompting critical reflection among an audience composed of people who know Jews as friends, colleagues, and neighbours. _The Merchant of Venice's_ more (conventionally) "humanized" Shylock seems more plausible to swallow . The best source that I know of for information on this topic is Joseph Wulf (1964) _Theater und Film im Dritten Reich: Ein Dokumentation_. Keith Richards McGill University [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Walsh Date: Wednesday, 17 Dec 1997 11:35:37 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1235 Re: Current London Productions Andreas Schlenger tells us: >I learn from the RSC's online schedule that their Hamlet (starring Alex >Jennings) is still on show in London. I've already seen this productions >four times and wouldn't mind a fifth one. Don't miss it! Is there any truth to the rumor that this production will come to New York? I've nosed around the RSC site and found no news. Thanks, all! PS -- Would anybody care to swap Shakespeare-related Web bookmarks? I've got some good ones, but I know I'm missing something good out there. Mail me privately if you like -- I'd rather not clog up the list with this off-topic traffic. [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Glassco Date: Wednesday, 17 Dec 1997 15:12:30 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1237 Q: Quotation > Joanne Walen wrote: > This question was posed to me, and I didn't have an answer-except that I > didn't think so. Can anyone help? > > Question: Is the quote about the pot calling the kettle black from > Shakespeare? If so, do you know from which play? It's not Shakespeare. Eric Partridge's amusing *Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English* suggests: black arse. a kettle; a pot : late C. 17--early 19. ... From the proverb, 'the pot calls the kettle black arse', the last word has disappeared (*pudoris causa*). David Glassco Trent University Canada ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:00:51 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1241 Q: *Kiss Me Kate* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1241. Thursday, 18 December 1997. From: Steve Urkowitz Date: Wednesday, 17 Dec 97 10:14:36 EST Subject: KISS ME KATE Looking for lively Shakespearian musicals, I'm wondering if anyone has seen recent productions of KISS ME KATE. Does it hold up? Have adaptations or modernizations or "faithful reinterpretations" been attempted with interesting results? Ever, Steve Urkowitz (SURCC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:06:04 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1242 MLA Convention Attendees: Please note this change MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1242. Thursday, 18 December 1997. From: Ruth Elizabeth Feiertag Date: Wednesday, 17 Dec 1997 22:47:58 -0700 (MST) Subject: MLA Convention Attendees: Please note this change I'm forwarding this for a friend who is just now applying to join SHAKSPER. Rhonda wants to make sure as many interested people know about the change as possible. (With apologies for cross-postings) MLA Convention attendees, please note the scheduling change below: Session 156: "A Local Habitation with a Name: Hospitality and Hostility in the Renaissance City" has been rescheduled to 10:15-11:30 a. m. on Sunday, December 28 (which is *earlier* than the Convention Program listing) and will be held at the Toronto Convention Center 205B. Please note this change in your program. The papers in this session investigate London's treatment of people of different classes, genders, and nationalities in a variety of genres from prose tracts, to city comedy, to mock wills, and coronation pageants. The speakers and papers are correct as listed in the program: "Queens and Paupers: Give and Take in London's Streets" Rhonda Lemke Sanford, University of Colorado, Boulder "'Of London is her race': Favored Neighbors and Unwanted Guests in Renaissance London" Lloyd Edward Kermode, Rice University "The City Stage: Satirizing Sumptuous Fabrics" Roze Hentschell, University of California, Santa Barbara "Regulating Traffic: Bodies and Urban Space in Jacobean City Comedy" Jean E. Howard, Columbia University Since corrections to the program will be distributed at the MLA rather than mailed this year, and since this session is now *earlier* than originally scheduled, I wanted to get the word out prior to the Convention. Please contact me if you have any questions about this session. For more information on this session, visit our website at http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~sanfordr/mlaweb.htm Rhonda Lemke Sanford University of Colorado at Boulder Department of English email: sanfordr@colorado.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 11:44:02 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1243 Re: Marlowe, Anti-Semitism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1243. Saturday, 20 December 1997. [1] From: Balz Engler Date: Thursday, 18 Dec 1997 15:27:53 +0100 Subj: Marlowe, Anti-Semitism [2] From: Stevie Simkin Date: Thursday, 18 Dec 1997 16:16:44 -0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1240 Re: Anti-Semitism [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Balz Engler Date: Thursday, 18 Dec 1997 15:27:53 +0100 Subject: Marlowe, Anti-Semitism Stevie Simkin's report reminds me of a production of The Merchant of Venice at the Deutsches National Theater, Weimar, in 1995, directed by the Israeli director Hanan Snin. The scene was an SS casino in a concentration camp (Buchenwald is just a bus ride's distance from Weimar). The SS officers want to be entertained, and they put on the Merchant, forcing three Jewish people to play the roles of the Jews in the play. For a detailed critical account of this impressive production, see *Shakespeare-Jahrbuch* 1996, 176-78 (Maik Hamburger). Balz Engler, Department of English, University of Basel, Nadelberg 6, CH-4051 Basel, Switzerland, [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stevie Simkin Date: Thursday, 18 Dec 1997 16:16:44 -0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1240 Re: Anti-Semitism I was encouraged by Keith Richards' response to my post about our recent production of *The Jew of Malta* and its Warsaw setting, particularly the Brechtian note. Keith refers to a production of Marlowe's play under the Third Reich and notes that "for many reasons ... [J of M] did not work well to promote anti-Semitism. ... it's completely over the top portrayal of what a Jew "is" can serve as a Brechtian alienation effect, prompting critical reflection among an audience composed of people who know Jews as friends, colleagues, and neighbours." This was precisely our strategy, with stylized, gestic portrayals of the stereotypes, and with the "Jewish" actors quite clearly dropping in and out of stereotyped roles. With the whole company onstage throughout, *in role* as Polish Jews, non-Jewish Poles, or German soldiers, the responses of the onstage audience were crucial and very complex and varied, the most blatant "acting up" of the Jews being stamped on by the German officer playing Ferneze, while less sophisticated minds (one Nazi in particular) evidently failed to realise the ways they were themselves being ironized. Each non-Jewish Pole also responded differently to what was happening. The complexity of onstage audience response stimulating "real" audience response was fascinating. In turn, the friars' roles (first played by Germans) were hijacked by Jewish actors halfway through the performance, so that the satirical scenes (friars beating each other up in their rivalry to convert Barabas and inherit his gold, etc.) became a retaliatory gesture - the Jews taking Marlowe's anti-Catholicism and turning it against the Nazis. A further Brechtian moment came at the end of this scene where the Barabas Actor cued the lighting box to jump out of performance light to "houselights up"(on stage) (akin to Mouse Trap in Hamlet?) to deliver his "Now for this example I'll remain a Jew; bless me, a friar and a murderer?" speech. I appreciate the note about historical accuracy (and thanks for the tip on the reference), and we did make it clear in the production programme how much artistic license was being taken here. Part of the inspiration for staging the play as we did had been my own research into the use of M of V as propaganda (off the top of my head, 23 productions in 1933, and 30 more between 1939 & 1939). May you never again complain about the umpteenth revival of Hamlet in a year... Sorry for length of post. I'll keep further discussion for off-list, and the article I'm working on. Thanks to all those who have responded privately to me already. Stevie Simkin stevies@interalpha.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 11:48:07 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1244 Re: *Kiss Me Kate* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1244. Saturday, 20 December 1997. [1] From: Billy Houck Date: Thursday, 18 Dec 1997 11:49:30 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.1241 Q: *Kiss Me Kate* [2] From: Virginia Byrne Date: Thursday, 18 Dec 1997 14:27:43 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.1241 Q: *Kiss Me Kate* [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Billy Houck Date: Thursday, 18 Dec 1997 11:49:30 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.1241 Q: *Kiss Me Kate* I did Kiss Me Kate in 1994 with very good results. Audiences love it, especially the Brush Up Your Shakespeare number. Billy Houck Eagle Theatre [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia Byrne Date: Thursday, 18 Dec 1997 14:27:43 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.1241 Q: *Kiss Me Kate* I have directed KISS ME KATE within the past three years and i don't think it holds. It's cute but it's not really Shakespeare. Look at "Your Own Thing" which I believe is a musical adapt of "12th night"(I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong).....The RSC has a really cute musical revue call THE SHAKESPEARE REVUE which might be fun..I thought it clever and they have it in script form and the CD is available through their shop on the Internet )The best musical is probably "The Boys from Syracuse" Comedy of Errors. It seems to hold and has some nice tunes in it. Virginia Byrne ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 11:51:25 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1245 Q: Juliet and the "inconstant moon" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1245. Saturday, 20 December 1997. From: Marilyn A. Bonomi Date: Thursday, 18 Dec 1997 22:13:29 -0500 Subject: Juliet and the "inconstant moon" While discussing the first balcony scene with my high school sophomores, we considered the question of why Juliet tells Romeo not to swear by the moon. Although the obvious textual answer came up immediately, one student asked the following: Is Juliet telling Romeo not to swear to or by Diana, goddess of the moon and of chastity? If so, why would she want him NOT to swear chastity-is she already that interested in him? My first reaction was, the text is clear: she says the moon is inconstant. But my second reaction was, Geez, a kid who's willing to think, to connect to what we'd talked about in 1.1 with Rosaline having "Dian's wit" and the consequent offer from Romeo of gold if she'd "ope her lap" (which phrase, incidentally, becomes a most convenient euphemism throughout our discussions of the play). And my third thought is-she's certainly hot enough to suggest instantaneous marriage... Maybe the kid's ON to something. I promised to ask my Shakespeare professor at Southern CT. State U., but we had no time in class, and the semester has ended. So I'm turning to all of you on the list, to see what you think. Thanks in advance! Marilyn B. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 11:53:23 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1246 Re: RSC Hamlet in NY MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: . Saturday, 20 December 1997. From: David P. McKay Date: Thursday, 18 Dec 1997 11:27:14 EST Subject: Re: RSC Hamlet in NY In response to John Walsh, the Brooklyn Academy of Music sent out a membership renewal press release which said that the RSC was bringing productions of Hamlet, Cymbeline, Henry VIII and Everyman to BAM in the Spring. Unfortunately, that is all the information they supplied. Best, David P. McKay ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 12:10:41 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1247 Job Announcement: University of Bonn MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1247. Saturday, 20 December 1997. From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Saturday, December 20, 1997 Subject: Job Announcement: University of Bonn [Editor's Note: Professor Dieter Mehl faxed this job announcement to me. -HMC] University of Bonn English Department Professor of English Literature (C4) Applications are invited for the post of Full Professor (C4) of English Literature (in particular, but not exclusively, of the 16th and 17th centuries), with effect from 1 October 1998. Applications with a CV, list of publications, and list of course taught should be sent by 20 January 1998 to the Dekan der Philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Bonn, Am Hof 1, D-53113 Bonn, Germany.========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 11:03:45 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1248 Re: Juliet and the "inconstant moon" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1248. Monday, 22 December 1997. [1] From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Saturday, 20 Dec 1997 09:26:45 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1245 Q: Juliet and the "inconstant moon" [2] From: John Velz Date: Mondayy, 22 Dec 1997 01:09:25 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1245 Q: Juliet and the "inconstant moon" [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Saturday, 20 Dec 1997 09:26:45 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1245 Q: Juliet and the "inconstant moon" Dear Marilyn A. Bonomi, I found your student's question fascinating, and while one small part of me thought, "sometimes a moon is just a moon" most of me didn't. If you take a gander at some of the scholarly editions of the play (the Variorum, and Evans' New Cambridege, for example) you'll find a general consensus that the line is a Renaissance commonplace, and many think it has little to do with Diana or chastity. However, there are several directions to go here. #1) Is there a difference between making a comparison to classical literature (e.g. "she hath Dian's wit") in a learned witty way and actually taking an oath in those terms? In other words, what would the status or force of Romeo's oath be if he took it to a pagan god? And what is a good Christian girl like Juliet doing saying that Romeo is the "god of her idolatry?" #2) What does an implicit reminder that the balcony scene is potentially unchaste do to a playgoer's moral evaluation of Romeo and Juliet? and why would Shakespeare deploy such a troubling question at this moment? #3) Can you widen the context of the discussion to include lines like "it is the east and Juliet is the sun" along with Romeo's oath to the moon? Are the oath and the sun-comparison complementary or incompatible? Mostly, I think that your student has asked an interesting question that does not have a conclusive answer, which is the best sort of question there is. Your student should be congratulated. Happy Holidays! Bradley Berens [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Velz Date: Mondayy, 22 Dec 1997 01:09:25 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1245 Q: Juliet and the "inconstant moon" M.A. Bonomi, and others who may have an interest: The moon is inconstant because she changes monthly to full from new etc. Since women are connected to the moon by menstrual cycle, women have been thought inconstant (Virgil says that women are ever "mutabile", e.g., and it was a truism in the renaissance.) The delicious thing is that women in Shakespeare tend to be constant in love and men to be the fickle ones. Try reading *A Midsummer Night's Dream* in these terms, and enjoy. (In other ways as well, the two plays are companion pieces: love in a tomb, war between two families, attempt to force a girl in each play into a marriage she abhors. Even the imagery of lightning in the balcony scene and in 1.1 of MND.) The two plays belong together in your mind if not also in the minds of your students. I would like to teach them to h.s. students as a pair. Cheers, John Velz ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 11:13:51 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1249 Re: RSC Hamlet in NY MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1249. Monday, 22 December 1997. [1] From: Tanya Gough Date: Saturday, 20 Dec 1997 16:04:24 -0500 Subj: Re: Hamlet in NYC [2] From: Susan Brock Date: Monday, 22 Dec 1997 12:41:06 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1246 Re: RSC Hamlet in NY [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tanya Gough Date: Saturday, 20 Dec 1997 16:04:24 -0500 Subject: Re: Hamlet in NYC My friends at the NY Shakespeare Society tell me the RSC will be starting their run on May 13. I don't have a specific schedule, but I'll see what else I can find out. Tanya [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Brock Date: Monday, 22 Dec 1997 12:41:06 +0000 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1246 Re: RSC Hamlet in NY You might find further information on the RSC's web site: www.royal-shakespeare.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 11:17:02 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1250 Re: *Kiss Me Kate* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1250. Monday, 22 December 1997. From: Marilyn A. Bonomi Date: Saturday, 20 Dec 1997 12:17:29 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1244 Q: *Kiss Me Kate* I remember seeing a musical version of Two Gentlemen of Verona in the late 60's-even owned an original cast recording at the time. Can't remember a blessed thing about it except the 2 gentlemen w/ serious bell-bottoms and 'fros-but not if they were of men of color or just in costume. I *Think* it was a pre-Broadway trial at the Shubert in New Haven, but my brain fails me. I still adore Kiss Me Kate, but I'm old enough to remember having seen it on LIVE TV as a child in the '50's-probably w/ Drake in the lead role. Yours, Marilyn B. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 11:20:16 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1251 Q: *The Spanish Tragedy* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1251. Monday, 22 December 1997. From: Carl Fortunato Date: Saturday, 20 Dec 97 23:27:00 -0400 Subject: The Spanish Tragedy Does anybody know of any recent productions of Kyd's *The Spanish Tragedy*? If so, how well does it work? Does the play hold up at all? And is there any audience for Elizabethan plays that *aren't* by Shakespeare or Marlowe? - Carl (carl.fortunato@moondog.com) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 08:53:46 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1252 Re: *The Spanish Tragedy* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1252. Tuesday, 23 December 1997. [1] From: Karen Krebser Date: Monday, 22 Dec 1997 09:23:18 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1251 Q: *The Spanish Tragedy* [2] From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Monday, 22 Dec 1997 09:26:26 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1251 Q: *The Spanish Tragedy* [3] From: Mike Jensen Date: Monday, 22 Dec 1997 18:39:27 +0000 Subj: SHK 8.1251 Q: *The Spanish Tragedy* -Reply [4] From: Ivan Fuller Date: Monday, 22 Dec 1997 14:09:05 -0600 (CST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1251 Q: *The Spanish Tragedy* [5] From: Virginia Byrne Date: Monday, 22 Dec 1997 16:24:25 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.1251 Q: *The Spanish Tragedy* [6] From: An Sonjae Date: Tuesday, 23 Dec 1997 08:47:14 +0900 (KST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1251 Q: *The Spanish Tragedy* [7] From: Peter Hillyar-Russ Date: Tuesday, 23 Dec 1997 11:58:20 -0000 Subj: The Spanish Tragedy [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karen Krebser Date: Monday, 22 Dec 1997 09:23:18 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1251 Q: *The Spanish Tragedy* I don't know of any productions of "The Spanish Tragedy." However, the American Conservatory Theater (San Francisco, CA) put on "The Duchess of Malfi" a few years back that was quite controversial (bondage-domination-sadomasochism [BDSM] symbolism all over the place [plus some actual bondage, if I remember rightly], and blood and guts everywhere). However, despite all that, I think it had a good run, and was well reviewed and received (although playgoers were advised to bring their own barf bags). Karen Krebser [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley S. Berens Date: Monday, 22 Dec 1997 09:26:26 -0800 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1251 Q: *The Spanish Tragedy* Greetings all! Carl Fortunato asks after any recent productions of THE SPANISH TRAGEDY. I greatly enjoyed the RSC's production last summer in Stratford: it made Quentin Tarantino look like Walt Disney. It was bloody, violent, and a lot of fun. Detailed reviews should still be readily available from the London papers. Best, Bradley Berens [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Jensen Date: Monday, 22 Dec 1997 18:39:27 +0000 Subject: SHK 8.1251 Q: *The Spanish Tragedy* -Reply Carl Forunato asked: >Does anybody know of any recent productions of Kyd's *The Spanish >Tragedy*? The RSC is about to open it in London. I only saw one review from Stratford. It was laudatory. I did see it at the NT, before it was the RNT, a dozen or more years ago. They kept Revenge on stage it at all times. That is the only liberty I can recall. The casting of the minor parts was week. They copped out it at the end. When Heironimo asked for a knife to sharpen his quill, they gave it to him, as they must, but the actor's threw up their hands and spoke in a funny voice as if to indicate they knew they were doing something stupid. I don't like it when actors signal a flaw in a script. Better to cover it over and hope the audience doesn't notice. Or produce a different script. Michael Bryant and Greg Hicks were superb. >And is there any audience for Elizabethan plays that *aren't* by >Shakespeare or Marlowe? There is in the Swan Theatre. Berkeley Rep did a bizarre Volpone about 5 years ago that was well received and well attended. Best, Mike Jensen [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Fuller Date: Monday, 22 Dec 1997 14:09:05 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1251 Q: *The Spanish Tragedy* I directed a college production of THE SPANISH TRAGEDY last May here at Augustana College. We did the show ala Shenandoah Shakespeare Express (i.e. using the original Elizabethan staging conventions). I had high hopes for the piece going into it. It's full of dramatic flair and tension and I believe that the story itself holds interest. Where our production ran into trouble was with a very inexperienced cast. I basically had to cast the 12 people I had audition, consequently, there was a very wide range of talent up there. Still in all, it was certainly worth doing and I would encourage others to take a serious look at it. We were able to perform the show with very few cuts right at two hours. A cast of ten played all the roles except for Revenge and Andrea. Costuming had an almost punk look to them, bringing to mind images of CLOCKWORK ORANGE during some of the more violent scenes. Good luck with the tongue scene if you do it in a thrust configuration. We solved it, but it took a lot of experimenting. Ivan Fuller, Chair Communication & Theatre Dept. Augustana College [5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia Byrne Date: Monday, 22 Dec 1997 16:24:25 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.1251 Q: *The Spanish Tragedy* The RRC did the Spanish Tragedy in conjunction with their Hamlet this summer..really are a lot of reasons why to do the two together..yes it really held...all that gore...put Arnold Schwartzennager (sp?) to shame....you can find similar passages in both.(Kyd and Shak..not Schwartz...).interesting to find the similarities between the two writers and the way WS took it all and rose above it...can be exciting..also Beatrice from their much Ado played the female lead..name escapes me right now..that was WILD [6]------------------------------------------------------------- From: An Sonjae Date: Tuesday, 23 Dec 1997 08:47:14 +0900 (KST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1251 Q: *The Spanish Tragedy* As others will certainly tell you, the Royal Shakespeare Company staged a new production of the Spanish Tragedy at the Swan Theatre in Stratford-upon-Avon this summer. It was done with great gusto and gore was oozing from every seam of most doublets by the end, while a large lump of tongue littered the stage in what one might feel was an unnecessary closeness to an obviously corrupted text. As the programme points out, the play has almost never been produced professionally in the present century; they list three British productions before this, the first by the RSC. It was directed by Michael Boyd. At The Other Place this summer I saw a most entertaining (?) production of Everyman. Cymbeline at the main theatre was also a delight. The only disappointment was the Hamlet, which I found quite dreadful, in retrospect, especially the stage business with the gun, and the soap-opera style plutocratizing of Claudius. I prefer ghosts on battlements to phantoms in discos. Would it not be nice to see Gorboduc taken seriously? And the translations/versions of Seneca ought to offer some very good material for imaginative production. An Sonjae Sogang University, Seoul, Korea [7]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Hillyar-Russ Date: Tuesday, 23 Dec 1997 11:58:20 -0000 Subject: The Spanish Tragedy The Royal Shakespeare Company produced The Spanish Tragedy at Stratford this year - it has now moved to their London house. I saw it at Stratford where it was performed in the "Swan" auditorium - their medium sized space with a thrust stage almost surrounded by two tiers of wooden galleries, designed to house the works of Shakespeare's contemporaries. In my personal opinion it was the best of the season's RSC productions. The staging was fairly simple, with basically Elizabethan costume. This particular space allows characters to enter from a variety of doors and pass through the audience to reach the stage, or to appear at various places on the galleries, and this freedom was used to create a sense of the persuasiveness of revenge; characters appeared and moved on in a horrible cycle of revenge. In the end the Mystical, hooded, character of "Revenge" - who had appeared in many different places to urge the other characters on was revealed to have been played by the actor who played Heironimo himself! Kyd's language flowed well - there is not a lot of poetic imagery in the play (is there any?) - but there was no sense of laboured dialogue. The gruesome bits were duly gruesome, with a very realistic bit of tongue landing on the stage a few inches from the knees of the front row audience. The play within the play was done in the various languages referred to (but not preserved) in the surviving versions. The play text including this polyglot version of the contained play was on sale in a modern edition (by Nick Hern books) I think the RSC were a little disappointed by the sales of tickets, because the production really was excellent - but it was on during the summer, competing with the utterly dreadful Hamlet in the Main House (which everyone else enthuses about, but which I found less profound, and almost as short, as the "Animated Tales" cartoon video). Stratford survives on its tourist income, and tourists visiting Stratford on their "holiday of a lifetime" will always pay for a bad Hamlet in preference to an excellent production of a minor Elizabethan dramatist (even Marlowe). Peter Hillyar-Russ peter.hruss@lineone.net ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 08:56:34 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1253 Re: The inconstant moon MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1253. Tuesday, 23 December 1997. From: David Small Date: Monday, 22 Dec 1997 14:28:37 -0500 Subject: The inconstant moon Swear not to the goddess of chastity. What a thought provoking idea! While the text immediately supplies a workable answer to the meaning of the line, (do not be as changeable as the moon), perhaps the other meaning, re Diana, was on Bill's mind simultaneously. This may or may not have been conscious on his part, for myth has a way of working subversively. It is, after all, such stuff as dreams are made of. I believe the balcony scene is meant to shock in any case. A good Christian girl addressing the "god of her idolatry" is weighty stuff. When that line is hit the right way, it can have tremendous power. Regards to all, David Small dns@cbsnews.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 08:59:09 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1254 Q: Ian McKellen Tape MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1254. Tuesday, 23 December 1997. From: David Small Date: Monday, 22 Dec 1997 15:08:23 -0500 Subject: Ian McKellen Tape A call to SHAKSPERians. Does anyone know where I might find a videotape of Ian McKellen's one man show, titled, I believe, ACTING SHAKESPEARE? It aired on PBS many years ago. As luck would have it, I came within a hair's breadth of being in the studio audience, but that's another story. I have a memory (perhaps a fantasy) of seeing it once in Public Radio's WIRELESS catalog. NTSC is preferable, but if it's available only in the UK or Europe, I can deal with PAL. Regards, David dns@cbsnews.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 09:50:21 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1255 Re: Ian McKellan Tape MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1255. Friday, 26 December 1997. [1] From: Virginia Byrne Date: Tuesday, 23 Dec 1997 10:48:31 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.1254 Q: Ian McKellen Tape [2] From: Nora Kreimer Date: Tuesday, 23 Dec 1997 14:53:03 -0300 Subj: RE: SHK 8.1254 Q: Ian McKellen Tape [3] From: Tanya Gough Date: Tuesday, 23 Dec 1997 16:45:08 -0500 Subj: Re: Acting Shakespeare [4] From: Peggy O'Brien Date: Thursday, 25 Dec 1997 00:25:53 -0500 Subj: Ian McKellan Tape [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia Byrne Date: Tuesday, 23 Dec 1997 10:48:31 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.1254 Q: Ian McKellen Tape Boy what I would give for a tape of that also...caught him in Boston when touring with it...does he have a web page ?...that we might contact him or his agent...he was astounding.... Virginia Byrne MA USA [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nora Kreimer Date: Tuesday, 23 Dec 1997 14:53:03 -0300 Subject: RE: SHK 8.1254 Q: Ian McKellen Tape You might try the Folger Library in Washington DC, where it was shot. Good luck and Merry Christmas! NK [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tanya Gough Date: Tuesday, 23 Dec 1997 16:45:08 -0500 Subject: Re: Acting Shakespeare I've had several requests for Ian McKellen's "Acting Shakespeare" recently, but we haven't been able to track it down yet. I have asked several people associated with the production, however, so I hope to have some information soon. If anyone else knows where to get it, please let me know too! Tanya Gough [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peggy O'Brien Date: Thursday, 25 Dec 1997 00:25:53 -0500 Subject: Ian McKellan Tape The McKellan tape has always been, and still is, available for free from a company called TelEd in Los Angeles. If one calls and requests the tape, they send you a master from which you make a copy and then return the master to them. Once I get back to my office (and my rolodex) next Monday, I will e-mail the address. Cheers, Peggy O'Brien ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 09:55:42 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1256 Re: Juliet and the "inconstant moon" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1256. Friday, 26 December 1997. [1] From: John A Mills Date: Tuesday, 23 Dec 1997 09:20:11 -0700 (MST) Subj: The inconstant moon [2] From: Brad Morris Date: Tuesday, 23 Dec 1997 20:09:25 EST Subj: Re: Juliet and the "inconstant moon" [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John A Mills Date: Tuesday, 23 Dec 1997 09:20:11 -0700 (MST) Subject: The inconstant moon Though Juliet probably is not asking Romeo to swear off chastity, he has surely wished her to do so in his opening speech: " . . . kill the envious moon, Who is already sick and pale with grief That thou her maid art far more fair than she. Be not her maid since she is envious. Her vestal livery is but sick and green, And none but fools do wear it. Cast it off." John Mills, U. of Arizona [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Morris Date: Tuesday, 23 Dec 1997 20:09:25 EST Subject: Re: Juliet and the "inconstant moon" > Try reading *A Midsummer Night's Dream* > in these terms, and enjoy. (In other ways as well, the two plays are > companion pieces: love in a tomb, war between two families, attempt to > force a girl in each play into a marriage she abhors. Even the imagery > of lightning in the balcony scene and in 1.1 of MND.) The two plays > belong together in your mind if not also in the minds of your students. > I would like to teach them to h.s. students as a pair. We can also add Richard II to this group, but I disagree about teaching them (neither the aforementioned pair nor the whole group of plays) as a unit, due simply to time constraints. What I mean is that if I had a semester to teach Shakespeare, then that would be fine, but since most of us have to fit Shakespeare in among Steinbeck, Whitman, Joyce and diagrammed sentences, there's no time to focus on this group of adolescent plays. But it is an interesting group, in that since all three were written roughly at the same time, we find rash actions in all three. I don't know that the group should be taught (as a group, that is) to high schoolers, but I do think this is an interesting trio of work, due to the vast differences between them that are bound together by the time frame during which they were written. Brad ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 10:01:08 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1257 Re: *The Spanish Tragedy* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1257. Friday, 26 December 1997. [1] From: Joanne Walen Date: Tuesday, 23 Dec 1997 14:40:46 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.1251 Q: *The Spanish Tragedy* [2] From: Steve Neville Date: Tuesday, 23 Dec 1997 15:26:07 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.1252 Re: *The Spanish Tragedy* [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joanne Walen Date: Tuesday, 23 Dec 1997 14:40:46 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.1251 Q: *The Spanish Tragedy* *The Spanish Tragedy* was at the Swan in Stratford, UK in 1997, with Siobhan Redmond as Belimperia. All my notes are at another place at this posting, so I can't recall other casting specifics. It played very well, as I recall, especially with some quite convincing special effects. The one that remains most strikingly with me is the spreading of a pool of blood from underneath Belimperia's body after she collapses on stage at the end. But if you're looking for recent reviews, the RSC is a place to start. Joanne Walen [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Neville Date: Tuesday, 23 Dec 1997 15:26:07 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.1252 Re: *The Spanish Tragedy* >The gruesome bits were duly gruesome, with a very realistic bit of > tongue landing on the stage a few inches from the knees of the > front row audience. I saw this production too. Along with Cyrano, it was about my favourite play at Stratford this year. It was truly bloodthirsty. When a friend of mine saw it, Heironimo's tongue landed in the lap of the lady sitting next to her. That is gruesome. I loved every single minute of it. It is currently playing at The Pit (London) till January 29. Box Office telephone number : 0171-638-8891. Well worth seeing. Regards Steve Neville sjnevil@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 10:04:57 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1258 *Twelfth Night* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1258. Friday, 26 December 1997. From: Cora Lee Wolfe Date: Tuesday, 23 Dec 1997 11:16:45 -0700 Subject: *Twelfth Night* I watched TN on Starz last night with Imogen Stubbs and Helena Carter. I'm interested in your reaction. I though it slow and dark, which might appeal to one writer in this forum who criticized the Utah Shakespeare festival because it didn't emphasize the dark side of the comedy enough. Actually I thought that the Utah production was a lark. Sir Toby was great in last night's production. A real scumbag, but I liked the Sir Andrew at the festival much better. He was very tall and his costume made him look ridiculously so. He had strawlike hair, which the text suggests, and he delivered every one of his comedic lines so brilliantly that the audience missed nothing. Either the dramaturg for last nights production cut most of Sir Andrew's great lines, or the director chose not to let them blossom because I missed almost all of them. The two who played Sebastian and Viola looked very much alike. Were they twins? I especially liked Viola's "Wonderful!" when she sees that there are two Cesario's. There was quite a depth of lust there. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 10:14:00 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1259 Xmas gift from an ex-wise-man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1259. Friday, 26 December 1997. From: Norm Holland Date: Tuesday, 23 Dec 97 15:25:30 EST Subject: Xmas gift from an ex-wise-man Dear Colleagues, Hearing a beautiful performance Sunday on the radio of _Messiah_ (Robert Shaw Chorale, Atlanta Symphony) has put me in an Xmas spirit. I'd like to send you a gift, courtesy of the New York Times, Sunday edition. It's a spoof of confessional TV and some other things, perhaps closer to our hearts. The picture above this Op-Ed essay, a big picture, shows a television screen with a man's head and shoulders. The face is obscured by one of those electronic blobs that turns the image into little squares, and the man's hands are clawing at the blob, pulling its edges askew. Beneath his image is a caption band: "J" (for our host) and: "Alex" Identity Destroyed By Postmodernism Enjoy! And enjoy your holidays, too! --Best, Norm Holland Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company The New York Times December 21, 1997, Sunday, Late Edition - Final SECTION: Section 4; Page 11; Column 1; Editorial Desk LENGTH: 1330 words HEADLINE: Geraldo, Eat Your Avant-Pop Heart Out BYLINE: By Mark Leyner; Mark Leyner is the author, most recently, of "The Tetherballs of Bougainville." DATELINE: HOBOKEN, N.J. JENNY JONES: Boy, we have a show for you today! Recently, the University of Virginia philosopher Richard Rorty made the stunning declaration that nobody has "the foggiest idea" what postmodernism means. "It would be nice to get rid of it," he said. "It isn't exactly an idea; it's a word that pretends to stand for an idea." This shocking admission that there is no such thing as postmodernism has produced a firestorm of protest around the country. Thousands of authors, critics and graduate students who'd considered themselves postmodernists are outraged at the betrayal. Today we have with us a writer-a recovering postmodernist -- who believes that his literary career and personal life have been irreparably damaged by the theory, and who feels defrauded by the academics who promul-gated it. He wishes to remain anonymous, so we'll call him "Alex." Alex, as an adolescent, before you began experimenting with postmodernism, you considered yourself-what? Close shot of ALEX. An electronic blob obscures his face. Words appear at bottom of screen: "Says he was traumatized by postmodernism and blames academics." ALEX (his voice electronically altered): A high modernist. Y'know, Pound, Eliot, Georges Braque, Wallace Stevens, Arnold Schonberg, Mies van der Rohe. I had all of Schonberg's 78's. JENNY JONES: And then you started reading people like Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jean Baudrillard-how did that change your feelings about your modernist heroes? ALEX: I suddenly felt that they were, like, stifling and canonical. JENNY JONES: Stifling and canonical? That is so sad, such a waste. How old were you when you first read Fredric Jameson? ALEX: Nine, I think. The AUDIENCE gasps. JENNY JONES: We have some pictures of young Alex. . . . We see snapshots of 14-year-old ALEX reading Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari's "Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia." The AUDIENCE oohs and ahs. ALEX: We used to go to a friend's house after school-y'know, his parents were never home-and we'd read, like, Paul Virilio and Julia Kristeva. JENNY JONES: So you're only 14, and you're already skeptical toward the "grand narratives" of modernity, you're questioning any belief system that claims universality or transcendence. Why? ALEX: I guess-to be cool. JENNY JONES: So, peer pressure? ALEX: I guess. JENNY JONES: And do you remember how you felt the very first time you entertained the notion that you and your universe are constituted by language- that reality is a cultural construct, a "text" whose meaning is determined by infinite associations with other "texts"? ALEX: Uh, it felt, like, good. I wanted to do it again. The AUDIENCE groans. JENNY JONES: You were arrested at about this time? ALEX: For spray-painting "The Hermeneutics of Indeterminacy" on an overpass. JENNY JONES: You're the child of a mixed marriage-is that right? ALEX: My father was a de Stijl Wittgensteinian and my mom was a neo-pre-Raphaelite. JENNY JONES: Do you think that growing up in a mixed marriage made you more vulnerable to the siren song of postmodernism? ALEX: Absolutely. It's hard when you're a little kid not to be able to just come right out and say (sniffles), y'know, I'm an Imagist or I'm a phenomenologist or I'm a post-painterly abstractionist. It's really hard- especially around the holidays. (He cries.) JENNY JONES: I hear you. Was your wife a postmodernist? ALEX: Yes. She was raised avant-pop, which is a fundamentalist offshoot of postmodernism. JENNY JONES: How did she react to Rorty's admission that postmodernism was essentially a hoax? ALEX: She was devastated. I mean, she's got all the John Zorn albums and the entire Semiotext(e) series. She was crushed. We see ALEX'S WIFE in the audience, weeping softly, her hands covering her face. JENNY JONES: And you were raising your daughter as a postmodernist? ALEX: Of course. That's what makes this particularly tragic. I mean, how do you explain to a 5-year-old that self-consciously recycling cultural detritus is suddenly no longer a valid art form when, for her entire life, she's been taught that it is? JENNY JONES: Tell us how you think postmodernism affected your career as a novelist. ALEX: I disavowed writing that contained real ideas or any real passion. My work became disjunctive, facetious and nihilistic. It was all blank parody, irony enveloped in more irony. It merely recapitulated the pernicious banality of television and advertising. I found myself indiscriminately incorporating any and all kinds of pop kitsch and shlock. (He begins to weep again.) JENNY JONES: And this spilled over into your personal life? ALEX: It was impossible for me to experience life with any emotional intensity. I couldn't control the irony anymore. I perceived my own feelings as if they were in quotes. I italicized everything and everyone. It became impossible for me to appraise the quality of anything. To me everything was equivalent-the Brandenburg Concertos and the Lysol jingle had the same value. . . . (He breaks down, sobbing.) JENNY JONES: Now, you're involved in a lawsuit, aren't you? ALEX: Yes. I'm suing the Modern Language Association. JENNY JONES: How confident are you about winning? ALEX: We need to prove that, while they were actively propounding it, academics knew all along that postmodernism was a specious theory. If we can unearth some intradepartmental memos-y'know, a paper trail- any corroboration that they knew postmodernism was worthless cant at the same time they were teaching it, then I think we have an excellent shot at establishing liability. JENNY JONES wades into audience and proffers microphone to a woman. WOMAN (with lateral head-bobbing): It's ironic that Barry Scheck is representing the M.L.A. in this litigation because Scheck is the postmodern attorney par excellence. This is the guy who's made a career of volatilizing truth in the simulacrum of exculpation! VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: You go, girl! WOMAN: Scheck is the guy who came up with the quintessentially postmodern re-bleed defense for O. J., which claims that O. J. merely vigorously shook Ron and Nicole, thereby re-aggravating pre-existing knife wounds. I'd just like to say to any client of Barry Scheck-lose that zero and get a hero! The AUDIENCE cheers wildly. WOMAN: Uh, I forgot my question. Dissolve to message on screen: If you believe that mathematician Andrew Wiles' proof of Fermat's last theorem has caused you or a member of your family to dress too provocatively, call (800) 555-9455. Dissolve back to studio. In the audience, JENNY JONES extends the microphone to a man in his mid-30's with a scruffy beard and a bandana around his head. MAN WITH BANDANA: I'd like to say that this "Alex" is the single worst example of pointless irony in American literature, and this whole heartfelt renunciation of postmodernism is a ploy-it's just more irony. The AUDIENCE whistles and hoots. ALEX: You think this is a ploy?! (He tears futilely at the electronic blob.) This is my face! The AUDIENCE recoils in horror. ALEX: This is what can happen to people who naively embrace postmodernism, to people who believe that the individual-the autonomous, individualist subject-is dead. They become a palimpsest of media pastiche-a mask of metastatic irony. JENNY JONES (biting lip and shaking her head): That is so sad. Alex-final words? ALEX: I'd just like to say that self-consciousness and irony seem like fun at first, but they can destroy your life. I know. You gotta be earnest, be real. Real feelings are important. Objective reality does exist. AUDIENCE members whoop, stomp and pump fists in the air. JENNY JONES: I'd like to thank Alex for having the courage to come on today and share his experience with us. Join us for tomorrow's show, "The End of Manichean, Bipolar Geopolitics Turned My Boyfriend Into an Insatiable Sex Freak (and I Love It!)." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 10:22:49 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1260 Help! And learn from my grievous error. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1260. Friday, 26 December 1997. From: Abigail Quart Date: Wednesday, 24 Dec 1997 00:38:44 -0600 Subject: Help! And learn from my grievous error. One month ago, my hard drive fried. Literally. (Cyrix chip burned way too hot, fan inadequate-you could feel the heat just by touching the case) Nothing recent was backed up, and none of the email. So it's all gone. Old versions of work, I have, but no current rewrites. NEVER BE THAT STUPID. As I was. Never save only to the hard drive. A kind lady in California has the now only existing copy of the current rewrite of UNFORCED ACCORD. I would truly appreciate a copy of that copy. Also, if anyone has saved any correspondence from me or to me, I would be so grateful to see it again. I would also like the correspondence on the Running Isabella, particularly the original essay that I still haven't stopped thinking about. And Macbeth. It took a month to get back online and, as I reenter work that was saved to floppies, I'm only just letting myself feel how much is lost. Getting anything back would be wonderful. Truly [Editor's Note: Use the SEARCH Function to retrieve past discussions.]========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 10:44:22 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1261 Re: The inconstant moon MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1261. Monday, 29 December 1997. [1] From: Marilyn A. Bonomi Date: Friday, 26 Dec 1997 10:23:23 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1256: R&J and RII [2] From: Michael Yogev Date: Sunday, 28 Dec 1997 00:48:57 +0200 Subj: Re: SHK 8.1253 Re: The inconstant moon [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marilyn A. Bonomi Date: Friday, 26 Dec 1997 10:23:23 -0500 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1256: R&J and RII First, thank you to all the kind responders-my students are fascinated that people actually get on the 'Net and DISCUSS stuff like this-what an education opportunity! Brad Morris suggests adding RII to the MND/R&J mix. While I can see pairing the comedy/tragedy duo, I don't see the connection otherwise. Richard is no adolescent, nor is Bullingbrook. There are no parallel feud/love pairings, no fairies nor flights. Divine right of kings does not motivate either Theseus or Prince Escalus-and in neither of the other two is the legitimacy of the English monarch the central issue. While I am fascinated with the deposition scene and Richard's physical handling of the crown, I see no strong way to tie that scene thematically or in terms of character to the crucial moments in either of the other two plays. On the other hand, in a graduate course on Shakespeare focusing on the early plays, the CONTRASTS among these three pieces would be a fascinating study, on such levels as language, political implications, connections between the plays and the company members, the role of the women in each case (tougher in RII!), etc. etc. Yours, Marilyn B. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Yogev Date: Sunday, 28 Dec 1997 00:48:57 +0200 Subject: Re: SHK 8.1253 Re: The inconstant moon David Small wrote that myth "Is, after all, such stuff as dreams are made of." I think Prospero's line is ever so much more intriguing if rendered as actually penned, "such stuff as dreams are made ON"-changes the dynamics a good deal, and certainly the tone of the line that follows: "And our little lives are rounded with a sleep." Diana has indeed been the sort of myth dreams are made on: problem is, the dreams have been too often concerned with controlling the woman rather than releasing the person to free movement and decisions. Both R&J and MSD feature the commonplace male inability to see women, particularly their daughters, as fully human beings with minds of their own. Old story, still true. Michael Yogev ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 10:52:26 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1262 Re: *Twelfth Night*; McKellan Tape MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1262. Monday, 29 December 1997. [1] From: Andrew Walker White Date: Friday, 26 Dec 1997 10:51:32 -0500 (EST) Subj: Re: SHK 8.1258 *Twelfth Night* [2] From: Virginia Byrne Date: Saturday, 27 Dec 1997 01:02:12 EST Subj: Re: SHK 8.1255 Re: Ian McKellan Tape [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew Walker White Date: Friday, 26 Dec 1997 10:51:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 8.1258 *Twelfth Night* As for the film Twelfth Night, the Washington Shakespeare Company (not to be confused with the Shakespeare Theatre, where presides Michael Kahn) had a forum on Shakespeare on Film and there was some criticism of the darkness of Sir Peter Hall's treatment. Sir Toby was intended to be funny, and adding the menacing (albeit realistic) undertones of a very unfunny punch-drunk drained the laughter out of much of his antics. The tone he set made it very difficult for Sir Andrew (love Richard Grant, by the way) to be regarded as more than a pathetic tool. The saving grace, it seemed to me, was the recognition scene. Staging, let alone writing scenes of recognition is a high art, going back to the Greeks who first perfected them, and I thought this one was a miracle to watch. In order for that scene to function as more than just a wrap-up to the comic action, there has to be a darker atmosphere surrounding the play, and Sir Peter managed to pull that last scene off amazingly well. It brought tears to my eyes, I'll say that much, and I'm not a soft touch. Cheers, Andy White Arlington, VA [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Virginia Byrne Date: Saturday, 27 Dec 1997 01:02:12 EST Subject: Re: SHK 8.1255 Re: Ian McKellan Tape Thank you, Peggy O'Brien and Happy New Year. I await the address!!!! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 10:56:47 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1263 Q: Shakespeare's "Artifice" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1263. Monday, 29 December 1997. From: Peter Hillyar-Russ Date: Saturday, 27 Dec 1997 19:02:12 -0000 Subject: Shakespeare's "Artifice" In 1947 Eric Partridge published a book called "Shakespeare's Bawdy", which contains an introductory essay and a substantial glossary of the words used by Shakespeare with sexual or otherwise indelicate implications. At the time the work, which appeared in an extremely expensive limited edition, was regarded as almost a piece of pornography; but it has since been reprinted several times. The publishers also produce[d] the highly respected (and respectable) "Arden" edition of the works, and I bought my copy from the RSC bookshop in Stratford, so I presume that some measure of respectability now attaches to Partridge's work. There is one thing, however, which Partridge will not tell us. On page 25 of the Introductory Essay he writes: "...We - inevitably, I think - form the opinion that Shakespeare was an exceedingly knowledgeable amorist, a versatile connoisseur, and a highly artistic, an ingeniously skillful, practitioner of love-making, who could have taught Ovid rather more than that facile doctrinaire could have taught him; he evidently knew of, and probably he practiced, an artifice accessible to few - one that I cannot becomingly mention here, though I felt it obligatory to touch on it, very briefly, in the Glossary." Partridge's sense of the "becoming" is in fact remarkably liberal. He occasionally uses his own "artifice accessible to few" and resorts to Latin to describe exactly what Shakespeare's English means, but in general the "dirt" is given to the reader. What could he have discovered in his studies which he can only write about so obliquely? If anyone knows to what "artifice" Partidge is referring in this passage, I really should be most obliged if they could let me know. If it is really indelicate I am over 21, can read Latin, and have a private email address ( peter.hruss@lineone.net ). Peter Hillyar-Russ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 11:02:52 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1264 Postmodern MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1264. Monday, 29 December 1997. From: Terence Hawkes Date: Sunday, 28 Dec 1997 10:53:40 -0500 Subject: SHK 8.1259 Xmas gift from an ex-wise-man Dear Norman Holland: Thanks for the lovely Christmas present. The article was genuinely funny, very cleverly constructed, and I really enjoyed it. However, looking at it slightly more closely, weren't you the teeniest bit bothered by its politics? Now as you and I know -taught this to some degree by postmodernism itself- any such phrase immediately trips a number of levers that the writer of the piece has carefully pre-set. Flags with devices such as 'can't you take a joke?', and 'humourless prat' run swiftly up their poles, signs saying 'Puritan' and 'politics freak' start to flash and bleep, class and culture barriers slide silently into place, ambiguities close down, pitying smiles light up. It's a well crafted operation, and a real pleasure to see it at work. After all, the conclusions on offer are nothing less than reassuring: we can now all start being individual 'personalities' once again; there are genuine material historical certainties, from which postmodernism only temporarily seduced us; we can stop trying to read those philosophers with the funny names. Eternal, natural verities exist which never really change. In fact, fundamental change, given the permanent features of universal human nature, isn't really possible, is it? What a relief! Nevertheless, can I suggest that your own introduction functions slightly less well? Sadly, the undoubtedly well-merited self-congratulatory tone, 'Hearing a beautiful performance Sunday on the radio of _Messiah_ (Robert Shaw Chorale, Atlanta Symphony) has put me in an Xmas spirit,' very nearly gives the game away. The eternal verities creak onto the stage in a state of almost comic dilapidation here, whilst the great, big comfy truths, (Music, Art, Christmas, not to say snuggling down to listen to The Messiah on the radio) turn up in the guise of full, industrial-strength norms, Norm. Slightly over the top, I thought. Mind you, they make a lovely setting. God in his heaven, Norm in his armchair. What more could anyone ask? But can't you see, Norm, that to some degree the project of Postmodernism was always to question those norms, to suggest that life isn't as 'given' as they imply, that there are other and maybe better ways of doing and running things, that what we have now isn't necessarily the way it's 'sposed to be, that, in short, CHANGE is possible? I suppose you can't. That's why, at precisely the moment when this extremely funny piece starts to unravel (they all do, Norm) and to become a little worrying, you seem to have no distancing devices to turn to that might just enable you to recognise that the sort of thinking lurking at the back of spoof titles like "The End of Manichean, Bipolar Geopolitics Turned My Boyfriend Into an Insatiable Sex Freak (and I Love It!)." is really a bit sinister. Yes, I can see the 'No Sense of Humour' sign flashing away, as well as the 'Why do you want to turn everything into Politics' one next to it. It's Christmas after all and the real Truth doesn't change, does it? Especially now that sanity has returned and the New York Times is once more the measure of all things. Its probably time for another burst of the Messiah, Norm. Perhaps a bit louder this time? Ho, ho, ho. T. Hawkes ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 10:16:16 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1265 Shylock MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1265. Wednesday, 31 December 1997. From: Louis Swilley Date: Monday, 29 Dec 1997 10:01:08 -0600 Subject: Shylock My friend Thomas Johnson had these kinder remarks to make about the referenced comments - I have suppressed the harsher ones. I thought the group might be interested in his reaction to the original notes posted to this site, and so forward them here. L.Swilley -----Original Message----- From: houbarg@ix.netcom.com [SMTP:houbarg@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Sunday, December 28, 1997 6:40 PM To: lcsswill@tenet.edu; jamesfal@ix.netcom.com; harbottle@aol.com Subject: Shylock ... But I do not intend to take time to play Ann Landers. I am hunting elephants. It is their(Spencer and Gross) inane remarks about The Merchant that prompts me to my business. Let me sight the evidence. Gross: "Is it still worth bothering with the Merchant of Venice? Some aspects of the plot are so primitive and unpleasant that if you consider the play in the abstract you may well wonder. But read it, or see a decent production, and your are soon put at rest. Its poetry, dramatic energy and fascinating ambiguity combine to give it lasting value." Let me summarize: First two sentences. If you have never read or seen the Merchant you might find parts of the plot primitive or unpleasant.(He of course is describing all Greek plays and at least all of the Bard's Tragedies).Second two sentences: It is more than a good play. But that involves a tedious technicality---you must actually read or see a competent production. How does one "find" the play anything if one does not read it or see it? And how about Spencer? "Despite its enduring popularity at the box office, The Merchant of Venice has always struck me as being one of the least satisfactory of Shakespeare's plays. "He set out, I think, to write a romantic comedy in which Shylock would be merely a comic villain. But such was his human sympathy that the Jew cracked the confines of the comedy." This is the typical response to Merchant. Our contemporary emotions are so moved by Shylock's treatment(the underdog) we ignore the text. In fact the single most important fact or event in the play is the marriage of Portia and Bassanio. Not what happens to Antonio and Shylock. It is the marriage that prompts the loan from Shylock, that sends Portia to the rescue and,among other events, the play ends with Portia exacting a pledge from Antonio to obligate himself to her marriage with Bassanio. And Portia teaches Bassanio that he had an absolute obligation to his marriage vows that precluded the possibility of any other obligation. He has no right to surrender the ring to any one not even in payment for saving Antonio's life. It is the symbol of their union and takes precedence over even his obligation to Antonio. The world of Antonio is the world of the confident gambler. Both Shylock and Antonio engage in activities inimical to social order. Shylock by usury and Antonio with the risk to his own property and therefore the risk to the disruption of property in general. It is a contemporary bias that even though entrepreneurs (and bankers)periodically disrupt the economic order(the current roiled markets in Southeast Asia)with great harm all around, the good they do out weighs the bad. Shakespeare most certainly had no reason to be as sanguine as we are. To allow Shylock to dominate the foreground of our perception of the play is to ignore-by actual count-most of the words of the play. An unwise approach to reading Shakespeare. He could on occasion say what he meant. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 10:21:29 -0500 Reply-To: editor@ws.bowiestate.edu Sender: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference From: "Hardy M. Cook" Organization: Bowie State University Subject: SHK 8.1266 Re: *Twelfth Night* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.1266. Wednesday, 31 December 1997. [1] From: Mike Jensen Date: Monday, 29 Dec 1997 17:07:57 +0000 Subj: SHK 8.1258 *Twelfth Night* [2] From: Peter Hillyar-Russ Date: Tuesday, 30 Dec 1997 08:19:41 -0000 Subj: Re: "Twelfth Night" [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Jensen Date: Monday, 29 Dec 1997 17:07:57 +0000 Subject: SHK 8.1258 *Twelfth Night* -Reply Cora, you wrote: >I watched TN on Starz last night with Imogen Stubbs and Helena Carter. >I'm interested in your reaction. I though it slow and dark, which might >appeal to one writer in this forum who criticized the Utah Shakespeare >festival because it didn't emphasize the dark side of the comedy >enough. Actually I thought that the Utah production was a lark. That may have been me. I have not seen an American production that wasn't a lark, sadly, with a single exception. The others failed to recognize the shallowness of the characters was a problem, and made their cruelty as viewer friendly as possible. The film was much closer to the spirit of the play. I criticized the USF production for much else as well: Incompetent staging in parts, under casting most roles, and other things. It is the "safest" professional production I have seen. One actor told me that he and Howard Jensen, no relation, the director of Hamlet, had to fight to make that production as risky as they did. They actually had to justify it to management. By any other standard than Utah's, there was nothing risky about that Hamlet. It was a good, solid production. Another actor and a behind the scenes person in Cedar City told me that "safe" is the eternal and fatal flaw of that festival. I daresay they know their audiences. >Sir Andrew at the festival much better. He was very tall and >his costume made him look ridiculously so. Didn't you find that festival costume a problem? It was funnier than Malvolio's when in his yellow stockings. Surely that is wrong. I have no complaints about the actor's performance. For me, he was one of the few bright spots of an otherwise forgettable production. To be fair, the child with us, the daughter of a friend, enjoyed it very much. She enjoyed Hamlet more. Best, Mike Jensen [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Hillyar-Russ Date: Tuesday, 30 Dec 1997 08:19:41 -0000 Subject: Re: "Twelfth Night" Just to correct a small inaccuracy... I think the version of "Twelfth Night", produced by Renaissance Films, currently being discussed was directed by Trevor Nunn, rather than by Sir Peter Hall. Possibly the best casting in the piece was the county of Cornwall as the scenery, but Renaissance are good at that - Blenheim Palace in their Hamlet far outclassed any of the actors. Peter Hillyar-Russ